Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Blue Lion on July 03, 2009, 02:41:42 pm
-
Lemme get a link real quick
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin announced Friday she would not seek a second term and would soon step down as governor.
No clue what's going on yet. At first they said she was going to announce she wasn't running for a second term to focus on a run in '12. Now they're saying she won't even finish this term.
-
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Gov. Sarah Palin will resign her office in a few weeks, she said during a news conference at her Wasilla home Friday morning.
Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell will be inaugurated at the Governor's Picnic at Pioneer Park in Fairbanks on Saturday, July 25, Palin said.
There was no immediate word as to why she will resign, though speculation has been rampant that the former vice presidential candidate is gearing up for a run at the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
Palin made the announcement flanked by Parnell and most, if not all, of her cabinet.
Parnell ran unsuccessfully against Rep. Don Young in the Republican primary last year.
The stunning announcement by Palin opens the floodgates for the 2010 gubernatorial race. Speculation that Palin might not seek re-election had fueled further conjecture of who might run.
-
"There was no immediate word as to why she will resign, though speculation has been rampant that the former vice presidential candidate is gearing up for a run at the 2012 Republican presidential nomination."
I really hope that's not the case. Then she'd be even dumber than I thought. You don't get elected President without a title. Duhhhhhh.
-
Says the rampant feminist.
I really don't understand why feminists aren't on her side. I mean what would be the ultimate expression of feminism be, if not for a woman to become President of the United States?
OH! I know why they hate her, she's pro-life.
-
I'm pretty sure that Sarah Palin is not the only Pro-Lifer who is also a female and who also believes in women's rights.
I'd say it's more to do with the fact that maybe (most) people are judging her by her policies, rather than her gender?
-
Says the rampant feminist.
I really don't understand why feminists aren't on her side. I mean what would be the ultimate expression of feminism be, if not for a woman to become President of the United States?
OH! I know why they hate her, she's pro-life.
You mean they don't like her because of policy and won't vote for her simply because she is a woman? The hell you say.
-
Which is a complete and utter reversal of they're stance on other female politicians like, say, Hillary Clinton. (Who in all honesty would probably be a better president than this joker we've got right now.)
If you are a feminist, IE a supporter of equal rights, pay, ect. for women, your support should extend to all women who are trying to break that glass ceiling, not just the ones who agree with you politically.
But I wasn't necessarily talking about not voting for her, it's just the venom that is attached to feminist organization comments on Palin is astoundingly out of character.
-
Says the rampant feminist.
I really don't understand why feminists aren't on her side. I mean what would be the ultimate expression of feminism be, if not for a woman to become President of the United States?
OH! I know why they hate her, she's pro-life.
So... you're suggesting woman are so dumb they will vote for a misogynist freedom-hater just because she has a vagina?
-
Which is a complete and utter reversal of they're stance on other female politicians like, say, Hillary Clinton. (Who in all honesty would probably be a better president than this joker we've got right now.)
If you are a feminist, IE a supporter of equal rights, pay, ect. for women, your support should extend to all women who are trying to break that glass ceiling, not just the ones who agree with you politically.
But I wasn't necessarily talking about not voting for her, it's just the venom that is attached to feminist organization comments on Palin is astoundingly out of character.
No. I will not vote for someone for being a female. I will vote for who I believe to be the best person to vote for REGARDLESS of their genitals. Why do misogynists fail so hard at that?
It's not out of character. Palin is a dumbass who is attempting to represent feminism, even though she is so obviously not a feminist.
-
If you are a feminist, IE a supporter of equal rights, pay, ect. for women, your support should extend to all women who are trying to break that glass ceiling, not just the ones who agree with you politically.
So you're saying they should vote for her even if they disagree with her just so a woman gets in? That's crazy.
-
If you are a feminist, IE a supporter of equal rights, pay, ect. for women, your support should extend to all women who are trying to break that glass ceiling, not just the ones who agree with you politically.
Well I didn't see you extending the same rules to Obama because he was black. So if it's strange that feminists don't support Palin it logically follows that anyone not supporting Obama must be failing some sort of racism test. After all people of colour have just as much of a glass ceiling to break through if not more.
So are you going to say that everyone who attacked Obama as heavily as the feminists attacked Palin is acting out of character?
-
Not really, and I just have my back up that when people attack a male politician, even Obama, they attack his policies first. But with Palin, her attacks from her detractors are just as much on the topic of her gender as her policies if not more. Going back to the Letterman thing, the NOW or whatever should have been up in arms over that, but there was silence. I'm not saying they should vote for her because she's a woman, I'm saying the venom in they're attacks is out of character compared to they're usual schtick.
-
I have yet to see a serious criticism about her being a woman. Too early on the national scene? Yes. Not versed in national policies? Yes. Poor executive? Yes. "She's dumb cause she's a girl!"? No.
-
Not really, and I just have my back up that when people attack a male politician, even Obama, they attack his policies first. But with Palin, her attacks from her detractors are just as much on the topic of her gender as her policies if not more.
Never mind that this mystical "she's a girl" criticism never made any main-stream media worthy of the name. Nevermind that Palin is a known anti-feminist, or a Young Earth Creationish, or inexperienced, or incapable of listening to her advisors (most of the job of being the President is in reality finding very intelligent people to tell you what you need to do).
-
There are people literally super excited that this is her grand kickoff to a 2012 presidential run.....
-
Palin was a proverbial sacrificial lamb for the Republican Party. They knew long before the election that anyone they fielded had a slim chance at best, so they picked a running mate on whom they could blame their failure without sacrificing a truly viable political figure. Palin was an obvious choice because, well, she's an idiot. (An unfortunate side effect is that she's now under the impression that she's important.) I refuse to believe that Republican Party was incompetent enough to think they could really woo a significant number of Clinton supporters with an anti-abortion candidate. They had to have known that their choice would be interpreted as a counter to Hillary Clinton, and that Palin's political positions could only make her a laughable failure in that capacity.
-
Says the rampant feminist.
I really don't understand why feminists aren't on her side. I mean what would be the ultimate expression of feminism be, if not for a woman to become President of the United States?
OH! I know why they hate her, she's pro-life.
No.
No
No.
As others have pointed out, if you are a real feminist, you would IGNORE sex and gender and vote on the basis of policy.
And you can be doubly sure that no one would vote for an anti-choice, anti-life candidate (which Palin certainly is, since she's indirectly in favor of endangering women by forcing more illegal abortions) who would set back our slow crawl towards sex equality.
-
gods damn it!
Abortions weren't illegal before Roe v. Wade. All that did was guarantee them. It's a risky medical procedure with dubious benefits to one of the patients and lethal consequences to the other.
-
Anyone who's not drinking **** from an ideological feeder hose can tell from the data that banning abortions doesn't change the abortion rates in the slightest - it just makes women go get abortions illegally.
Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare (preferably unnecessary). I hope we can both agree on that.
The fact that you selectively ignored the rest of my post to focus on an ideological talking point that you've been taught how to answer just drives home the point that you're dangling from puppet strings.
-
Abortions weren't illegal before Roe v. Wade. All that did was guarantee them. It's a risky medical procedure with dubious benefits to one of the patients and lethal consequences to the other.
Less risky than pregnancy, with many MORE benefits to the patient and certain death for the little person that's decided to hijack another person's organs against her will.
I DEMAND your kidney. I need it to survive. If you don't give it to me, you're KILLING me. (See how retarded you sound?)
-
How are people so unable to see how much of a moron she is?
-
She's kinda hot
(http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv359/BlueLion/sarahpalin_200908_477x600_7.jpg)
Not a shop
-
She's kinda hot
Yes, that's right. Appearance is all a woman should ever be judged on! How could I forget?
-
You know, I'm a fervent supporter of feminism, and I have to say, lacking a sense of humor really doesn't do any cause much good.
-
Easy there, Ford. I can see iamzack's point. When the objectification of women is one of the points you're explicitly fighting against - and one of the topics of the thread is, in fact, how women are evaluated as compared to men - it does seem a little offensive to drop in a comment like Blue Lion's.
While it's easy to criticize that reaction as humorless and shrill, the fact is that remarks like that are a source of a lot of the implicit attitudes that make things difficult for women.
-
She doesn't look too bad for someone who's shoved 4 kids out of her vagina, but her appearance isn't the issue, her slow-firing neurons are.
-
Easy there, Ford. I can see iamzack's point. When the objectification of women is one of the points you're explicitly fighting against - and one of the topics of the thread is, in fact, how women are evaluated as compared to men - it does seem a little offensive to drop in a comment like Blue Lion's.
While it's easy to criticize that reaction as humorless and shrill, the fact is that remarks like that are a source of a lot of the implicit attitudes that make things difficult for women.
Well perhaps I'm giving Blue Lion too much credit here, but I sort of assumed that the blatant impropriety was supposed to be the joke's active ingredient.
-
It was a joke :wtf:
"Why do you pay attention to her?" "Duh, she's got teh boobs!"
-
Yeah, that's a distinct possibility. And if so it is kinda funny.
But, as the default power group here (a white heterosexual male myself) we should probably leave it up to the people who aren't on top of the patriarchal power structure to decide when they're offended. I guess. *sigh* After a lot of learning psychology I've realized that it really is important to crack down on casual, funny misogyny...but I still feel like a bit of buzzkill doing it.
EDIT:
It was a joke :wtf:
I know, I know, but...eh, y'know? Feminism has this problem with being seen as joyless, *****y and shrill, and cracking down on jokes doesn't help, but the fact is that stereotype threat research shows that those things really do affect women in tangible ways (like lowering scores on math exams after activating appearance stereotypes.)
-
Hey, if she was a model, or an actress, or trying to become Miss USA, sure "she's hot" is relevant.
What I hate most is its irrelevancy. I'm so SICK of people going "wow, she's pretty" or "she's a great mother" or whathaveyou when it doesn't. ****ing. matter.
NO, I'm not going to go "haha, yeah, she's hot, she should totally be president." Mostly because it's not funny.
Hell, I don't find it in the LEAST funny when I hear people go on and on about how Anne Coulter is ugly or a tranny or whatever else. It's not funny, because the joke isn't on Anne Coulter the joke is on unattractive women and transexuals.
If all you can judge a woman on is her appearance, then you should pretty much just shut your goddamn trap because everything you are going to say is completely worthless to anyone who might hear it.
(And, yeah, I figured it was a joke, but I don't care. It wasn't funny.)
-
If anything it was an insult to the GOP who couldn't see past her as a pretty face who spouted their stuff (that was the joke) and not "haha women are objects!"
I'm saddened I actually had to explain that.
-
If anything it was an insult to the GOP who couldn't see past her as a pretty face who spouted their stuff (that was the joke) and not "haha women are objects!"
That doesn't make me any less pissed off. Basically your joke was that you were mocking the GOP types through imitation. I didn't mean to seem specifically angry at you, but I didn't even make an effort not to.
So, yeah, I see joke, haha, still not amused, because it was a fail joke.
To be clear: it's NOT a good joke if the people you are mocking would look at it and heartily agree.
-
Hey, if she was a model, or an actress, or trying to become Miss USA, sure "she's hot" is relevant.
What I hate most is its irrelevancy. I'm so SICK of people going "wow, she's pretty" or "she's a great mother" or whathaveyou when it doesn't. ****ing. matter.
NO, I'm not going to go "haha, yeah, she's hot, she should totally be president." Mostly because it's not funny.
Hell, I don't find it in the LEAST funny when I hear people go on and on about how Anne Coulter is ugly or a tranny or whatever else. It's not funny, because the joke isn't on Anne Coulter the joke is on unattractive women and transexuals.
If all you can judge a woman on is her appearance, then you should pretty much just shut your goddamn trap because everything you are going to say is completely worthless to anyone who might hear it.
(And, yeah, I figured it was a joke, but I don't care. It wasn't funny.)
Not one person here has judged her on her appearance. You have just gone full on screaming here and in the other thread and it's getting kinda funny.
Oh and it's Ann Coulter.
-
That doesn't make me any less pissed off. Basically your joke was that you were mocking the GOP types through imitation. I didn't mean to seem specifically angry at you, but I didn't even make an effort not to.
Yea you hit my joke right on the head. Some people see her say the same things other politicians have said, but she has boobs, so it's hot.
So, yeah, I see joke, haha, still not amused, because it was a fail joke.
To be clear: it's NOT a good joke if the people you are mocking would look at it and heartily agree.
Those are the BEST kind of jokes. I wish I could pull off some kind of Stephen Colbert thing here but I can't.
-
To be clear: it's NOT a good joke if the people you are mocking would look at it and heartily agree.
I tend to agree, but then, this actually isn't a example of Poe's Law at work, so I'm not sure what you're about.
Except perhaps to note that you bring much rigor to the cause, but also, unfortunately mortis.
-
Problem is, it's easy to be casually sexist without even realising it, I posted on the 'Chuck' thread a comment that could, if someone wished to, be taken as offensive, but then you do also have to take into account that, when you get to the very core of the male attitude towards women, you are talking about a very large percentage of thoughts and responses that are completely out of control of the male experiencing them.
Y'See, I find it kind of hard to find comments like that offensive, it's sort of like calling a scientist 'smart' is somehow discriminating against clever people, there's nothing wrong with being sexually attractive, men and women were designed to be physically attracted to each other.
So, yes, I do understand the concerns about the jokes and everything, but I think it is approached in the wrong way, you will never destroy the 'little boy' nature of most men, farting around the campfire will always be funny, and boobs will always be objects of obsession to the male of the species.
I think the important thing here is choice women should be free to choose whether they wish to be with a man who has that kind of attitude, a women should be free to choose her vote based on the policies, not the gender, of the candidate, women should be treated like actually think about things and don't exist purely to be a sex-object.
It's like the 'Typical Men' comment that is often heard in offices across the country, it's a stereotype that will never die, whenever Dave sleeps Tina, the office clerk, whilst being married, the phrase 'Typical Man' will raise it's head at one point or another. Is that really hurting my gender, or is it something we need to look at working around and understanding the irony of, rather than try to bludgeon head on?
-
I was already angry. It's not too hard to get me going on anything at this point.
The reason it's not a good joke is because A) the nonmocked subject of the joke is the target and B) the mocked subject feels even more righteous in their idiocy.
Stephen Colbert is ridiculous enough that when he imitates the right, the people most targeted by the right's dumbassedness don't feel targeted by him.
Y'See, I find it kind of hard to find comments like that offensive, it's sort of like calling a scientist 'smart' is somehow discriminating against clever people, there's nothing wrong with being sexually attractive, men and women were designed to be physically attracted to each other.
So, yes, I do understand the concerns about the jokes and everything, but I think it is approached in the wrong way, you will never destroy the 'little boy' nature of most men, farting around the campfire will always be funny, and boobs will always be objects of obsession to the male of the species.
It's like the 'Typical Men' comment that is often heard in offices across the country, it's a stereotype that will never die, whenever Dave sleeps Tina, the office clerk, whilst being married, the phrase 'Typical Man' will raise it's head at one point or another. Is that really hurting my gender, or is it something we need to look at working around and understanding the irony of, rather than try to bludgeon head on?
I totally agree that there's nothing wrong with being physically attractive. It just pisses me off when it's brought into every goddamn discussion about someone who happens to be female.
I also HATE the "typical man" stereotype. Not only does it totally marginalize almost all of the guys I am friends with, it seems to make other guys think they have this pass to go ahead and be assholes ("boys will be boys"). Ugh.
-
And if I didn't just get done explaining earlier in this very thread how we need to look at woman's policies instead of her gender, it might have been slightly confusing.
I guess what I'm saying is I know what I meant and I personally found it funny. So meh.
-
I think there's a bit of a disconnect here but I have to weigh in with iamzack's right to be offended and not to feel like a joykill for doing it. Her interpretation of the remark is a valid one, not one based on oversensitivity or 'full-on screaming mode', and in fact I'm glad she stood up for her opinion.
That said, the fact that Blue Lion made a remark that could be taken as offensive does not mean Blue Lion is a bad person; the social context is hard to read, and, for better or worse, we all say offensive things. I'm sure that just about any vaguely controversial remark I've ever made could be taken as offensive by someone.
Flipside, I think some of those attitudes are definitely open to change, and part of changing them is recognizing that these remarks are deleterious.
-
Hey, if she was a model, or an actress, or trying to become Miss USA, sure "she's hot" is relevant.
By the way..... why?
Also GB, we've been talking about sexism this entire time. This thread totally derailed at post 4 into sexism. I personally think she thought I was serious. That is really beside the point. I don't care if she got it or thought it was funny or whatever.
My point is we've been talking about this the whole time and when I make a joke it's like "I hate when this gets brought up" as if we've been discussing something else the entire time.
-
Well, uh:
I think there's a bit of a disconnect here but I have to weigh in with iamzack's right to be offended and not to feel like a joykill for doing it. Her interpretation of the remark is a valid one, not one based on oversensitivity or 'full-on screaming mode', and in fact I'm glad she stood up for her opinion.
That said, the fact that Blue Lion made a remark that could be taken as offensive does not mean Blue Lion is a bad person; the social context is hard to read, and, for better or worse, we all say offensive things. I'm sure that just about any vaguely controversial remark I've ever made could be taken as offensive by someone.
I'm saying you're both right here, since you've both got valid stuff going on from your own cognitive viewpoints.
-
Hey, if she was a model, or an actress, or trying to become Miss USA, sure "she's hot" is relevant.
By the way..... why?
Because physical appearance is important when you are a model, actress, or running for Miss USA? I don't understand the question.
-
Hey, if she was a model, or an actress, or trying to become Miss USA, sure "she's hot" is relevant.
By the way..... why?
Because physical appearance is important when you are a model, actress, or running for Miss USA? I don't understand the question.
That's my point. Why is it important?
I'm saying you're both right here, since you've both got valid stuff going on from your own cognitive viewpoints.
I'm basically saying it was oversensitive.
-
Hey, if she was a model, or an actress, or trying to become Miss USA, sure "she's hot" is relevant.
By the way..... why?
Because physical appearance is important when you are a model, actress, or running for Miss USA? I don't understand the question.
That's my point. Why is it important?
Models make a living based on being a vehicle for selling things. Actresses make a living based on people wanting to see them act, and people are drawn to people who are attractive. (Who the hell would disagree that it is nicer to watch a pretty person act than an ugly person, given the same level of acting ability?)
Of course there's no one standard for beauty, and appearance isn't everything, even in these professions, but appearance does play a huge part because the industry is based on making people want to buy or see whatever is being sold.
I don't really know how to explain beyond that.
I'm saying you're both right here, since you've both got valid stuff going on from your own cognitive viewpoints.
I'm basically saying it was oversensitive.
Thank for your defense(/support?), Battuta, but I kinda agree. I don't take back anything I said or how I said it, but it was definitely an overreaction.
-
Models make a living based on being a vehicle for selling things. Actresses make a living based on people wanting to see them act, and people are drawn to people who are attractive. (Who the hell would disagree that it is nicer to watch a pretty person act than an ugly person, given the same level of acting ability?)
Of course there's no one standard for beauty, and appearance isn't everything, even in these professions, but appearance does play a huge part because the industry is based on making people want to buy or see whatever is being sold.
Lemme see if I get this straight. It's ok to be sexist in regards to models and actresses?
We have two models, equal talent. It's ok to pick the hot one. Replace "model" with "politician" and we've gone too far?
The outfit the model is wearing doesn't change if she has a horseface or not.
I guess what I'm asking for is when can I be a complete and utter horndog in regards to a woman's job?
-
@Battuta
I agree that society can change, and that there are places where it is appropriate and inappropriate to make a comment about a woman's physical appearance, but the fact is that the thought of attraction will still be there, it kicks in before the male has a chance to deal with it.
So yes, a lot of etiquette could be learned, men could certainly do more in that department, and a lot of assumptions need to be un-assumed, but the whole concept of feminism is causing a lot of confusion in men, because feminism itself seems to span a whole range of opinions, there's everything from the raging 'We can breed through artificial insemination, we don't need men at all!' school of thought to those who consider the Playboy girls to be feminists, because they are doing what they want and not caring what other people think.
I think, at the very least, until that confusion is cleared up, very little headway is going to be made.
-
Models make a living based on being a vehicle for selling things. Actresses make a living based on people wanting to see them act, and people are drawn to people who are attractive. (Who the hell would disagree that it is nicer to watch a pretty person act than an ugly person, given the same level of acting ability?)
Of course there's no one standard for beauty, and appearance isn't everything, even in these professions, but appearance does play a huge part because the industry is based on making people want to buy or see whatever is being sold.
Lemme see if I get this straight. It's ok to be sexist in regards to models and actresses?
We have two models, equal talent. It's ok to pick the hot one. Replace "model" with "politician" and we've gone too far?
The outfit the model is wearing doesn't change if she has a horseface or not.
I guess what I'm asking for is when can I be a complete and utter horndog in regards to a woman's job?
A model's job is to make people want to buy the clothes she is wearing. "Look how hot these clothes will make you look."
A politician's job is to serve the public. The politician could wear a goddamn sheet over their head and still do the same job.
That's not being sexist. Sexist is that a discussion about any female politician will inevitably go to her appearance, her childrearing, and other irrelevancies. A one-eyed model is going to have a hard time selling fashionable glasses. A one-eyed politician will not be affected in the least.
(Side note: on the other hand, the one-eyed model could make an excellent foot model... whatever.)
You can be a horndog if she is selling you sex. If she's not selling you sex, feel free to be a horndog anyway... just not as part of a discussion about her capabilities in doing her job.
@Battuta
I agree that society can change, and that there are places where it is appropriate and inappropriate to make a comment about a woman's physical appearance, but the fact is that the thought of attraction will still be there, it kicks in before the male has a chance to deal with it.
So yes, a lot of etiquette could be learned, men could certainly do more in that department, and a lot of assumptions need to be un-assumed, but the whole concept of feminism is causing a lot of confusion in men, because feminism itself seems to span a whole range of opinions, there's everything from the raging 'We can breed through artificial insemination, we don't need men at all!' school of thought to those who consider the Playboy girls to be feminists, because they are doing what they want and not caring what other people think.
I think, at the very least, until that confusion is cleared up, very little headway is going to be made.
To be perfectly honest, a lot of assumptions get made about me if I say anything feminist-y. Example: Even as a feminist, I don't think porn should be banned (...but I do think there needs to be some sort of disclaimer sticker on it ala "these are actors... blah blah...").
And I'd certainly not look down on Playboy girls as sad little nonfeminists, as long as they actually are doing what they want to do. It's not something I'd do personally, but who am I to judge their decisions?
And if there were more hardcore feminists than myself around, they're destroy me for saying this, but I really wish there was a word for feminism with fewer straight, white, cisfemale-specific connotations. Men are harmed by patriarchy too (though not even close to the degree of women), and social issues with gays and transsexuals are actually rooted in patriarchy as well.
-
A model's job is to make people want to buy the clothes she is wearing. "Look how hot these clothes will make you look."
A politician's job is to serve the public. The politician could wear a goddamn sheet over their head and still do the same job.
That's not being sexist. Sexist is that a discussion about any female politician will inevitably go to her appearance, her childrearing, and other irrelevancies. A one-eyed model is going to have a hard time selling fashionable glasses. A one-eyed politician will not be affected in the least.
(Side note: on the other hand, the one-eyed model could make an excellent foot model... whatever.)
You can be a horndog if she is selling you sex. If she's not selling you sex, feel free to be a horndog anyway... just not as part of a discussion about her capabilities in doing her job.
Ok let's try this one more time.
The model isn't selling me sex. They are using sex appeal to sell clothing.
A politician isn't selling me sex. They are using sex appeal to sell a platform.
A shirt is exactly the same on an ugly girl and a cute girl. The fact that you're ok with using women as basically objects in clothing, TV and movies is kinda weird.
You're telling me it's ok to see a movie because a woman is hot, but not ok to vote for or support a politician? Why? They're both using their physical attractiveness to get my support.
It's just very weird you're saying:
Women aren't objects to be gawked at*!
*Unless you're selling cars, TV shows, movies, beer, video games, clothing or any other marketable product. Then it's all tits and ass.
-
A model's job is to make people want to buy the clothes she is wearing. "Look how hot these clothes will make you look."
A politician's job is to serve the public. The politician could wear a goddamn sheet over their head and still do the same job.
That's not being sexist. Sexist is that a discussion about any female politician will inevitably go to her appearance, her childrearing, and other irrelevancies. A one-eyed model is going to have a hard time selling fashionable glasses. A one-eyed politician will not be affected in the least.
(Side note: on the other hand, the one-eyed model could make an excellent foot model... whatever.)
You can be a horndog if she is selling you sex. If she's not selling you sex, feel free to be a horndog anyway... just not as part of a discussion about her capabilities in doing her job.
Ok let's try this one more time.
The model isn't selling me sex. They are using sex appeal to sell clothing.
A politician isn't selling me sex. They are using sex appeal to sell a platform.
A shirt is exactly the same on an ugly girl and a cute girl. The fact that you're ok with using women as basically objects in clothing, TV and movies is kinda weird.
You're telling me it's ok to see a movie because a woman is hot, but not ok to vote for or support a politician? Why? They're both using their physical attractiveness to get my support.
It's just very weird you're saying:
Women aren't objects to be gawked at*!
*Unless you're selling cars, TV shows, movies, beer, video games, clothing or any other marketable product. Then it's all tits and ass.
I meant selling sex, like as a prostitute or as a pornstar.
The politician might be using sex appeal to sell a platform, but then their platform is obviously very ****ty. That means you should not vote for them.
The model isn't really using sex appeal to sell something. It's more like "look how hot I am. This is how hot you will be if you use this product."
The fact of it is... there are male and female politicians and models. The standards should be the same in both careers. Ugly men won't be successful models either.
The problem comes up when a man can run for office without mindless criticism on his appearance, clothes, childrearing abilitiy, etc, etc, whereas a woman is guaranteed a certain amount of discussion on her will be about those things. The effect is that people know the platform of the male politician, and they know the weight of the female politician. Male politician seems very together and responsible, doesn't he? Especially compared to the woman, who seems to be all glitter and nail polish.
-
To be honest, I would have thought that Sarah Palin would be the last woman in the world to appeal to Feminists anyway. No offence, but no matter what she may look like, she's essentially a suit, her policies were simply extensions of male-generated party platforms.
-
To be honest, I would have thought that Sarah Palin would be the last woman in the world to appeal to Feminists anyway. No offence, but no matter what she may look like, she's essentially a suit, her policies were simply extensions of male-generated party platforms.
Even better, she made women who WERE Hillary supporters angry. Big ole slap in the face, courtesy of the GOP: well, she has a vagine, and you have a vagina, so obviously, you will vote for her! ...right?
-
@Battuta
I agree that society can change, and that there are places where it is appropriate and inappropriate to make a comment about a woman's physical appearance, but the fact is that the thought of attraction will still be there, it kicks in before the male has a chance to deal with it.
So yes, a lot of etiquette could be learned, men could certainly do more in that department, and a lot of assumptions need to be un-assumed, but the whole concept of feminism is causing a lot of confusion in men, because feminism itself seems to span a whole range of opinions, there's everything from the raging 'We can breed through artificial insemination, we don't need men at all!' school of thought to those who consider the Playboy girls to be feminists, because they are doing what they want and not caring what other people think.
I think, at the very least, until that confusion is cleared up, very little headway is going to be made.
I hate to say it but women feel the exact same thing in terms of the 'thought of attraction'. They've just been trained to hide it better...and the criteria that trigger it are generally a bit different.
Hey, if she was a model, or an actress, or trying to become Miss USA, sure "she's hot" is relevant.
By the way..... why?
Because physical appearance is important when you are a model, actress, or running for Miss USA? I don't understand the question.
That's my point. Why is it important?
Models make a living based on being a vehicle for selling things. Actresses make a living based on people wanting to see them act, and people are drawn to people who are attractive. (Who the hell would disagree that it is nicer to watch a pretty person act than an ugly person, given the same level of acting ability?)
Of course there's no one standard for beauty, and appearance isn't everything, even in these professions, but appearance does play a huge part because the industry is based on making people want to buy or see whatever is being sold.
I don't really know how to explain beyond that.
I'm saying you're both right here, since you've both got valid stuff going on from your own cognitive viewpoints.
I'm basically saying it was oversensitive.
Thank for your defense(/support?), Battuta, but I kinda agree. I don't take back anything I said or how I said it, but it was definitely an overreaction.
I don't think it was an overreaction. I think the kind of thing you said needs to be said more often.
And I totally agree about the white straight cis-female bias of feminism. There's a really interesting phenomenon we study called 'minority overlap' or something like that where individuals who are members of two minority groups tend to be ignored as members of either...for example, you can cite the minority 'black' and the minority 'women', but people have a hard time dealing with 'black women' on the cognitive level.
-
The politician might be using sex appeal to sell a platform, but then their platform is obviously very ****ty. That means you should not vote for them.
The model isn't really using sex appeal to sell something. It's more like "look how hot I am. This is how hot you will be if you use this product."
That IS sex appeal. What do you think sex appeal is if not "look how hot I am"? It's using a person's physical attractiveness to move a product. I'm not sure how you could get a better definition of sex appeal.
The fact of it is... there are male and female politicians and models. The standards should be the same in both careers. Ugly men won't be successful models either.
Because you accept their physical attractiveness as linked to the product. If models weren't all hot and were just normal people (some hot, some not), you would decry a person's preference for a product based on their sexual feelings towards the face or body going with it instead of the quality of the product itself. The fact that it is so ingrained, so prevalent in consumer marketing you accept it as natural fact.
The problem comes up when a man can run for office without mindless criticism on his appearance, clothes, childrearing abilitiy, etc, etc, whereas a woman is guaranteed a certain amount of discussion on her will be about those things. The effect is that people know the platform of the male politician, and they know the weight of the female politician. Male politician seems very together and responsible, doesn't he? Especially compared to the woman, who seems to be all glitter and nail polish.
You should be able to look at a shirt or a beer or car without mindless criticism of the hottie they put there.
You're saying people shouldn't look at a politicians looks, only their abilities and platform should matter. And I agree with that. What I find odd I say we should look at a piece of clothing's quality not the face of the person wearing it.... and you disagree.
-
The politician might be using sex appeal to sell a platform, but then their platform is obviously very ****ty. That means you should not vote for them.
The model isn't really using sex appeal to sell something. It's more like "look how hot I am. This is how hot you will be if you use this product."
That IS sex appeal. What do you think sex appeal is if not "look how hot I am"? It's using a person's physical attractiveness to move a product. I'm not sure how you could get a better definition of sex appeal.
You probably could if, y'know, you used her complete definition, which is 'this is how hot you will be if you use this product.' Which is her point.
As for the rest, I'm no longer clear on what your points are or what you're arguing, could you restate?
-
What I find odd I say we should look at a piece of clothing's quality not the face of the person wearing it.... and you disagree.
You absolutely should look at the clothing's quality. It's called advertising. It can be "this product will make you attractive" or "this product will make you smart" or "this product will make you look patriotic" or whatever else. In this specific instance, where they want you to buy this particular shirt, they think that the best way to sell it is to make you believe it will make you look better. If it was a less crappy shirt, they might market it as "this shirt will last FOR ****ING EVAR."
-
You should be able to look at a shirt or a beer or car without mindless criticism of the hottie they put there.
You're saying people shouldn't look at a politicians looks, only their abilities and platform should matter. And I agree with that. What I find odd I say we should look at a piece of clothing's quality not the face of the person wearing it.... and you disagree.
I don't think anyone is saying that models and actors should be sexualized and gawked at; that's a whole other bucket of worms. The point is that, whether this social phenomenon is a positive one or not, people getting into modeling or acting are signing up to be looked at. Their appearances are a significant part of the jobs they perform.
Politicians, on the other hand, are signing up to represent the interests of the people. They are signing up to fulfill an organizational, administrative role, and to provide the society with structure. Their ability to fulfill this role would not be affected if they all wore burlap sacks over their heads, and their appearances are irrelevant to their job performance. However, what we observe is that whenever a female politician reaches a certain level of prominence, she is inevitably judged on her appearance regardless of its relevance to her duties. And this is an impulse that, as a society, I think we should resist.
-
You probably could if, y'know, you used her complete definition, which is 'this is how hot you will be if you use this product.' Which is her point.
If the product made the person hot, they wouldn't need to use hot models now would they?
As for the rest, I'm no longer clear on what your points are or what you're arguing, could you restate?
Many products are marketed using a very simple idea:
Sex sells.
Take a product, slap a hot chick with big titties near and it sells like wildfire. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. We're not breaking new ground here.
If you take out the product... let's say Axe spray where women get drawn to men wearing it like magnets and replace it with a political platform and suddenly it's "You can't do that! Only the platform should matter!"
Are guys supposed to go "Wow, that politician had an excellent platform and I am in no way swayed by her looks.... oh look, that beer has titties. I shall now buy some"?
What I'm saying are the people who are bothered someone is looking at a politicians looks should also be bothered if someone is looking at a model's looks, or an actress, or an ad girls.
You absolutely should look at the clothing's quality. It's called advertising. It can be "this product will make you attractive" or "this product will make you smart" or "this product will make you look patriotic" or whatever else. In this specific instance, where they want you to buy this particular shirt, they think that the best way to sell it is to make you believe it will make you look better. If it was a less crappy shirt, they might market it as "this shirt will last FOR ****ING EVAR."
But you didn't say that. You said a model's attractiveness was a deciding factor. That's why there are no ugly male models, right?
"look how hot I am. This is how hot you will be if you use this product."
That makes no mention of quality or anything like it.
The hot chick in the beer ad has nothing to do with the quality of the beer.
If clothes made people hot, you wouldn't need hot models, would you? You could use anyone.
-
Please use the edit button to merge your posts - just a friendly mod notification.
-
;-)
-
I don't think anyone is saying that models and actors should be sexualized and gawked at; that's a whole other bucket of worms. The point is that, whether this social phenomenon is a positive one or not, people getting into modeling or acting are signing up to be looked at. Their appearances are a significant part of the jobs they perform.
Politicians, on the other hand, are signing up to represent the interests of the people. They are signing up to fulfill an organizational, administrative role, and to provide the society with structure. Their ability to fulfill this role would not be affected if they all wore burlap sacks over their heads, and their appearances are irrelevant to their job performance. However, what we observe is that whenever a female politician reaches a certain level of prominence, she is inevitably judged on her appearance regardless of its relevance to her duties. And this is an impulse that, as a society, I think we should resist.
That's my point. It doesn't have to be that way. If models looked like all of us (mostly me) we'd have to base our opinions on the product. Something we demand from our officials. And for some reason we just accept that everyone else will sway us with boobs.... well maybe not you but you get my point.
Please use the edit button to merge your posts - just a friendly mod notification.
They respond to me in their own post, I'm going to do them the courtesy of the same. I'm not upping my post count here.
-
And you can be doubly sure that no one would vote for an anti-choice, anti-life candidate (which Palin certainly is, since she's indirectly in favor of endangering women by forcing more illegal abortions) who would set back our slow crawl towards sex equality.
All that stuff as well as her rabbid anti-science and her total ignorance about the world is why she would have been a terrible choice. If she got anywhere near the whitehouse it would have been a disaster.
-
I'll merge your posts for you, BlueLion. Just the way these things work, nothing personal.
I don't think anyone is saying that models and actors should be sexualized and gawked at; that's a whole other bucket of worms. The point is that, whether this social phenomenon is a positive one or not, people getting into modeling or acting are signing up to be looked at. Their appearances are a significant part of the jobs they perform.
Politicians, on the other hand, are signing up to represent the interests of the people. They are signing up to fulfill an organizational, administrative role, and to provide the society with structure. Their ability to fulfill this role would not be affected if they all wore burlap sacks over their heads, and their appearances are irrelevant to their job performance. However, what we observe is that whenever a female politician reaches a certain level of prominence, she is inevitably judged on her appearance regardless of its relevance to her duties. And this is an impulse that, as a society, I think we should resist.
That's my point. It doesn't have to be that way. If models looked like all of us (mostly me) we'd have to base our opinions on the product. Something we demand from our officials. And for some reason we just accept that everyone else will sway us with boobs.... well maybe not you but you get my point.
The entire advertising tactic employed here involves conflating the model's positive attributes with the product's. This is done intentionally. Are we arguing the same points here? It sounds like you completely agreed with Rian's points.
Is it possible that you're arguing the same thing as iamzack and Rian and I but the original criticism of your post set up an artificial divide of some kind?
EDIT: Feminists clearly have a sense of humor. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,64125.msg1264689.html#msg1264689)
-
The entire advertising tactic employed here involves conflating the model's positive attributes with the product's. This is done intentionally. Are we arguing the same points here? It sounds like you completely agreed with Rian's points.
Is it possible that you're arguing the same thing as iamzack and Rian and I but the original criticism of your post set up an artificial divide of some kind?
That's my point, there IS a divide. Why is it ok to use women's (and men's) bodies to sell many types of things but not another type of thing?
We can't use a woman's body to sell her political platform because it's wrong but it CAN be an issue for other things?
I just can't believe I've out hard cored the self described hard core feminist.
What she (and others) have been saying is basically "I can't believe that a woman's appearance makes any difference at all........ unless we're selling something, then women's bodies are objects to make money off stupid men"
-
In other words, is this wrong (http://www.nee-antwerpen.be/index-eng.htm) (NSFW)? :p
-
That's wrong on a few levels
-
The entire advertising tactic employed here involves conflating the model's positive attributes with the product's. This is done intentionally. Are we arguing the same points here? It sounds like you completely agreed with Rian's points.
Is it possible that you're arguing the same thing as iamzack and Rian and I but the original criticism of your post set up an artificial divide of some kind?
That's my point, there IS a divide. Why is it ok to use women's (and men's) bodies to sell many types of things but not another type of thing?
Well, um, I don't really think it's okay.
But when you've got an attractive woman (or man) in an advertisement then they're only presenting their attractiveness and, in fact, they've volunteered to do so. A politician woman (or man) has not volunteered to do that. She (or he) has presented substantive reasons why you should support her. That alone isn't a big difference, BUT...
The most powerful reason it's wrong is the simple fact that women tend to be judged on their appearance more then men. That's a cultural inevitability supported by reams of IAT data. And it has to be combated because it's a problem for a women and an obstacle towards their equality.
And it's one reason that the use of beauty in advertising is a problem.
We can't use a woman's body to sell her political platform because it's wrong but it CAN be an issue for other things?
That seems like a fair point. Except here the woman (or man) hasn't offered her (or his) body as a selling point. You've done that yourself.
I just can't believe I've out hard cored the self described hard core feminist.
Referring to zack, I presume? I don't understand why it would surprise you. I assume you're a feminist yourself, just like (hopefully) everyone else: you believe men and women should be equal.
What she (and others) have been saying is basically "I can't believe that a woman's appearance makes any difference at all........ unless we're selling something, then women's bodies are objects to make money off stupid men"
Look, unless you bury your head in pure logic, it's obvious why it offends iamzack:
Beauty is a stereotype-relevant trait for women. Women volunteer themselves to sell products TO OTHER WOMEN (you seem to be under the misapprehension that beautiful women generally appeal to men when psychologically this is not true; they appeal to women who want to emulate the beautiful woman) on the basis of their beauty. That's the difference here...the question of volunteering. At least I think so.
Politicians do not volunteer to do so. It is wrong to judge a female politician on appearance more so than you would a male politician because you're judging her on stereotypic traits. It'd be like judging all black politicians on their basketball skills or their rapping abilities, both stereotype-relevant traits. Or even judging all male politicians on their musculature.
I mean, musculature is used to sell products to men in ads all the time. But if you suggested we should seriously judge politicians on it you'd be laughed out of the electorate (Schwarzenegger notwithstanding :p.)
-
It'd be like judging all black politicians on their basketball skills or their rapping abilities, both stereotype-relevant traits.
This.
-
Beauty is a stereotype-relevant trait for women. Women volunteer themselves to sell products TO OTHER WOMEN (you seem to be under the misapprehension that beautiful women generally appeal to men when psychologically this is not true; they appeal to women who want to emulate the beautiful woman) on the basis of their beauty. That's the difference here...the question of volunteering. At least I think so.
I could go find TONS of ads directed at men with hot women in it. The first one that comes to mind are those body sprays where guys spray themselves and women in skimpy outfits literally attack them.
Beer ads with bikini babes, car ads with hot women. E3 girls.
I went to the North American Auto show a few years ago and every car had a tall leggy blonde woman in a tight dress talking about it. That wasn't by accident and it wasn't aimed at the few women there.
If you ask people about Transformers 2, who do you think mentions Megan Fox? Guys or girls?
Politicians do not volunteer to do so. It is wrong to judge a female politician on appearance more so than you would a male politician because you're judging her on stereotypic traits. It'd be like judging all black politicians on their basketball skills or their rapping abilities, both stereotype-relevant traits.
You're right, they shouldn't but they do. We've accepted a person's looks as part of the package for so long in every other area that it is almost impossible to turn off.
The reason it is accepted everywhere is because WE accept it. We understand that clothing ads, and other things will use sex appeal to get our attention. The only difference between politics and everything else is we decided to care about politics. Hot girls in ads didn't happen overnight, it happened because we accepted it.
The use it because it works, and it is really only a matter of time before it works more into politics too. TV has done wonders to change how all our politicians look. We've already shown an acceptance to people using their bodies to sell things. Politicians know this. That's why they have image people. They work tirelessly to sell an image and we're shocked that sexuality is part of that image when it's shown to be wildly sucessful in everything else.
-
Well, uh, it sounds like we've kind of hit the point where we're saying the same thing.
Since you were satirizing this tendency you're describing from the beginning with the 'she's kind of hot' remark, and both iamzack and I were offended because we took it at face value, it seems like we're all in agreement that it's not a good thing.
The objectification of women is a problem no matter where it occurs.
Of course, there are certain contexts where it's with consent (in advertisement) and certain contexts where it's not (what you did with Palin, though it was satire.) Now, arguably, she's set herself up to be portrayed in this way, but nonetheless, it's not an appropriate part of the discussion of her merits because it's such a stereotypically relevant trait for females, and activating that stereotype simultaneously activates stereotypes that women are emotional, flighty, and incapable of rational decisions.
You can't argue with the data, and the fact is that talking about women's appearances, even in jest, leads women who are exposed to the discussion to behave and perform differently in short-term assessments. The same thing is true of talking about Asian people's stereotypic talent at math: it makes Asian people listening to the discussion temporarily better at math.
-
Says the rampant feminist.
I really don't understand why feminists aren't on her side. I mean what would be the ultimate expression of feminism be, if not for a woman to become President of the United States?
OH! I know why they hate her, she's pro-life.
Fighting for "equal rights" is one thing - fighting for a totally unqualified person just because she happens to be a woman is another.
That would be quite sexist actually ;)
-
Well, it's official.
And anyone who ever possibly thought she was qualified for office shouldn't think so anymore after that speech.
-
Well, it's official.
And anyone who ever possibly thought she was qualified for office shouldn't think so anymore after that speech.
The best thing everyone could do is pay her no notice whatsoever - maybe she'll disappear and spare us all the agony of another election with Palin in the spotlight.
-
Actually, I'd rather they ran her than someone competent.
-
Palin was a proverbial sacrificial lamb for the Republican Party. They knew long before the election that anyone they fielded had a slim chance at best, so they picked a running mate on whom they could blame their failure without sacrificing a truly viable political figure. Palin was an obvious choice because, well, she's an idiot. (An unfortunate side effect is that she's now under the impression that she's important.) I refuse to believe that Republican Party was incompetent enough to think they could really woo a significant number of Clinton supporters with an anti-abortion candidate. They had to have known that their choice would be interpreted as a counter to Hillary Clinton, and that Palin's political positions could only make her a laughable failure in that capacity.
That was probably a big part of it, but I also think that they knew that they had to mobilize the right wing again to win (after all, it'd won them the two previous elections), and John McCain was well established as being significantly less right wing than Bush. Palin was probably, at least in part, a big message to the bible bashers that yes, this is still the party that supports your views, so get out and vote. If the US had compulsory voting, they'd probably have chosen someone better qualified, since they'd know the right wingers would vote for them anyway.
As for all the feminism stuff, particularly the ridiculous over-reaction to what was obviously a joke (anyone who thought that that was a serious piece of political commentary that should be carefully considered when making voting decisions has pretty sizable problems that have nothing to do with gender), I say boo hoo. You need to learn when to let things go.
I have no problem with historical feminism. It more or less all happened before I was born, but getting the vote and the right to own property? Great. Overturning social and legal inequalities? Fantastic. Getting women into politics, the judiciary, high corporate positions? No problemo. We've reached a point now where women can be and do more or less anything they want, and while there are still some issues, I don't think men making jokes about womens appearance is one of them, any more than women making jokes about men being stupid, or belligerent or permanantly horny or whatever. It happens, it will continue to happen. Hell, wasn't there a whole bunch of photos of Obama wandering around the beach in Hawaii with his short off all over the women's magazines back during the US Election? That was OK though, because it's women doing it to men, right?
I'm sure that everyone here can think of plenty of times that jokes about men are seen as OK on TV, movies etc. etc. If feminism is about equality, why should it be any different to make these jokes on both sides of the gender divide. There's no maligninty involved, so people need to be less sensitive.
-
Of course, there are certain contexts where it's with consent (in advertisement) and certain contexts where it's not (what you did with Palin, though it was satire.) Now, arguably, she's set herself up to be portrayed in this way, but nonetheless, it's not an appropriate part of the discussion of her merits because it's such a stereotypically relevant trait for females, and activating that stereotype simultaneously activates stereotypes that women are emotional, flighty, and incapable of rational decisions.
You can't argue with the data, and the fact is that talking about women's appearances, even in jest, leads women who are exposed to the discussion to behave and perform differently in short-term assessments. The same thing is true of talking about Asian people's stereotypic talent at math: it makes Asian people listening to the discussion temporarily better at math.
You're saying if a woman is in politics and doesn't want her body used as a criteria, it's a great thing (and I agree). however, you're saying if a woman is in modeling and doesn't want her body used as a criteria, ... oh well?
What about all the ugly people who can do the job the same as the hot models but don't get the jobs? They don't consent to the sexualization of the industry, we do. The only reason they do it is because we let them. The only reason they don't do it in politics is because we don't let them.
I mean, are you saying that if men and women in politics choose to use their bodies as tools to sway us, you'd be ok with it? If politicians started using hot women and such the same way other places do to get our attention it would be fine because the models consent to it?
-
Of course, there are certain contexts where it's with consent (in advertisement) and certain contexts where it's not (what you did with Palin, though it was satire.) Now, arguably, she's set herself up to be portrayed in this way, but nonetheless, it's not an appropriate part of the discussion of her merits because it's such a stereotypically relevant trait for females, and activating that stereotype simultaneously activates stereotypes that women are emotional, flighty, and incapable of rational decisions.
You can't argue with the data, and the fact is that talking about women's appearances, even in jest, leads women who are exposed to the discussion to behave and perform differently in short-term assessments. The same thing is true of talking about Asian people's stereotypic talent at math: it makes Asian people listening to the discussion temporarily better at math.
You're saying if a woman is in politics and doesn't want her body used as a criteria, it's a great thing (and I agree). however, you're saying if a woman is in modeling and doesn't want her body used as a criteria, ... oh well?
What about all the ugly people who can do the job the same as the hot models but don't get the jobs? They don't consent to the sexualization of the industry, we do. The only reason they do it is because we let them. The only reason they don't do it in politics is because we don't let them.
I mean, are you saying that if men and women in politics choose to use their bodies as tools to sway us, you'd be ok with it? If politicians started using hot women and such the same way other places do to get our attention it would be fine because the models consent to it?
Uh, no, I'm definitely not okay with that.
And I think advertising should employ more 'normal' women, definitely. It'd help.
But, at the very least, men and women in advertisements have supplied their own consent to be treated as objects. They know they're going to be evaluated on appearance and appearance alone.
-
How do you know? What if they just want to be a good model and not have you focus on their looks? What if an actress wants to be seen as a good actress and not a pretty face? Is it still ok to leer at them because that's how the industry is?
People stare at these women without any doubt because... well of course they want to be leered at, that's why they're there. Completely ignoring WHY we think it's ok to look at them to begin with.
-
How do you know? What if they just want to be a good model and not have you focus on their looks? What if an actress wants to be seen as a good actress and not a pretty face? Is it still ok to leer at them because that's how the industry is?
People stare at these women without any doubt because... well of course they want to be leered at, that's why they're there. Completely ignoring WHY we think it's ok to look at them to begin with.
I've said more than once that I think that's a problem. I agree that we do need to think about our attitudes towards things like that. I'm not sure where the disagreement is, in fact.
Though I must admit I think some of that is reductio ad absurdum - exactly what kind of model wants to 'be a good model' without caring about looks? That's what modeling is.
-
Actually, I'd rather they ran her than someone competent.
Well... looking at the track record of US elections ... "candidate competency" appears to be a variable that is at least somewhat independent from the election result.
She may be incompetent, but if she runs, she might still win anyways LOL ;)
-
Though I must admit I think some of that is reductio ad absurdum - exactly what kind of model wants to 'be a good model' without caring about looks? That's what modeling is.
It is because we've made it that way. It should be how we view politics now, but for some reason everyone is "meh"
"We shouldn't judge a politician based on looks, we save that sexism for TV and modeling"
Very weird to me.
-
What if they just want to be a good model and not have you focus on their looks? What if an actress wants to be seen as a good actress and not a pretty face?
1. Modeling is based on appearances. If you are a foot model advertising some moisturizing cream, you better have nice feet, otherwise the product's sales will be negatively affected. The point isn't whether the cream actually works or not, it's "look, she used this cream, look how nce her feet are" with the audience hopefully drawing the conclusion that correlation == causation. If you're a model who is advertising some "family togetherness" type product, you're not going to be hired for being totally gorgeous. The models that get that job will be more 'wholesome' looking, so that they'll look like a happy family enjoying the product. There's a difference between these and, say, a beer ad with some blindingly gorgeous girl in a bikini hanging around for no reason.
2. There are plenty of actors and actresses who aren't especially attractive who are also super famous.
-
1. Modeling is based on appearances. If you are a foot model advertising some moisturizing cream, you better have nice feet, otherwise the product's sales will be negatively affected. The point isn't whether the cream actually works or not, it's "look, she used this cream, look how nce her feet are" with the audience hopefully drawing the conclusion that correlation == causation. If you're a model who is advertising some "family togetherness" type product, you're not going to be hired for being totally gorgeous. The models that get that job will be more 'wholesome' looking, so that they'll look like a happy family enjoying the product. There's a difference between these and, say, a beer ad with some blindingly gorgeous girl in a bikini hanging around for no reason.
You're proving my point. Correlation doesn't equal causation but we let them push this on us and accept it. And quite frankly there is no difference between that and a beer commercial. Neither one has anything to do with the product. Both are designed to put the good look with the product. If they did that in politics we'd throw a fit.
-
Actually, the foot model example does have something to do with the product. They are showing how/that the product works. Kinda like a commercial for some get rich quick program where they have folks going "wow, it made me rich!" It's not necessarily true, but it's relevant to the product.
The beer commercial is "LOOK AT THIS SLUT buy our beer!"
As long as people continue to buy things because they think correlation == causation, advertisers will continue to use it.
Politicians, athletes, etc are different because appearance has absolutely nothing to do with what they are trying to achieve, and yet it constantly gets brought up IF they are female. Not regardless of sex, like it does with models and actors/actresses. With politicians, if the politician is male, you get the platform. If she is female, you get a criticism of her outfit. Which models, it's a given for everybody.
Now, whether the heavy focus on appearance in models is wrong or right, it's not an issue of sexism, it's an issue of an appearance-obsessed culture.
-
I think I concur with what iamzack said. She explains the difference rather well.
-
Actually, the foot model example does have something to do with the product. They are showing how/that the product works. Kinda like a commercial for some get rich quick program where they have folks going "wow, it made me rich!" It's not necessarily true, but it's relevant to the product.
Whether or not the foot looks "attractive" is utterly pointless. How the person looks on the ad is not going to affect the product. A foot product will not work any better on a more attractive foot than a less attractive one (Man, we are really getting some weird stuff here)
We know WHY they pick pretty people. No one has disputed WHY they pick them. We know why, we're dumb. It works on us.
The beer commercial is "LOOK AT THIS SLUT buy our beer!"
And that is different from "look at this pretty foot buy our stuff!" because........ why exactly?
"We need to sell our product, get us the hottest ____ you can find and put it in there with our product."
The fact that you think there is a difference is pretty amazing. If they used an ugly foot, you wouldn't buy it. If you used ugly women, no one would buy the beer. That you think the look of the foot is vitally important to how the product works and not just candy to look good is weird.
As long as people continue to buy things because they think correlation == causation, advertisers will continue to use it.
Politicians, athletes, etc are different because appearance has absolutely nothing to do with what they are trying to achieve, and yet it constantly gets brought up IF they are female. Not regardless of sex, like it does with models and actors/actresses. With politicians, if the politician is male, you get the platform. If she is female, you get a criticism of her outfit. Which models, it's a given for everybody.
Think about that. You just said "It shouldn't matter what they look like..... unless they're trying to sell you something"
Can a female politician use her sexual appeal to increase her popularity? Is that right? Can male politicians have women in bikinis dancing next to them when they give press conferences? These women clearly know what they're doing. They consent to it. We know why. It should be ok, right?
Is it ok to use sexual appeal to push a product, in this case a political platform?
-
Hrm, well, now I see the point you're making too, and it's a rather good one.
-
To make a simpler formula for people who don't feel like reading all my crap....
"Of course people use sexual appeal as a factor when buying a product!"
"Why?"
"Because we're sexist pigs!"
------------
"Of course people shouldn't use sexual appeal as a factor when looking at politicians?"
"Why?"
"Because then we'd be sexist pigs!"
The reasons we give for why we shouldn't use it in politics are the SAME reasons for why it shouldn't be used everywhere else. But we just throw those reasons out the window and accept what they peddle to us even though we KNOW what they're doing.
A guy that buys a TV simply because there is a hot girl in the ad will totally use a politicians looks as a factor. He was just swayed by something that had nothing to do with the product, what do you think he's going to do?
-
Can a female politician use her sexual appeal to increase her popularity? Is that right? Can male politicians have women in bikinis dancing next to them when they give press conferences? These women clearly know what they're doing. They consent to it. We know why. It should be ok, right?
Is it ok to use sexual appeal to push a product, in this case a political platform?
Of course she can. Is it right? No.
Of course he can. Is it right? No. Well, unless his platform is "I can make you look like this," which would be bizarre.
It's relevancy. I don't think it's okay to use sex appeal to sell a product unless it is actually relevant to the product. If the product claims to increase beauty, increase sex appeal, etc, then there's a certain legitimacy to using a model who is good looking in the way the product claims. If the product is a frigging drink, then sex appeal is out of context and does nothing but encourage objectification with or without consent of the model.
So no, it is not okay to use sex appeal to push a political platform.
A guy that buys a TV simply because there is a hot girl in the ad will totally use a politicians looks as a factor. He was just swayed by something that had nothing to do with the product, what do you think he's going to do?
That's not my issue. My problem is when REPORTERS and DEBATES are where the bull**** "I don't like her hair, dress, face, etc" come up. If some jackass is gonna vote based on a pretty face, that's his/her prerogative. But when the media can't seem to discuss a female politician without bring up her appearance, there's a huge problem there.
So, yeah, I don't give a damn if individuals are shallow and sexist and stupid. It's that EVERY discussion involving a female politician, whether on the news, a forum, or any place else, brings up appearance like it's a relevant issue.
-
That's not my issue. My problem is when REPORTERS and DEBATES are where the bull**** "I don't like her hair, dress, face, etc" come up. If some jackass is gonna vote based on a pretty face, that's his/her prerogative. But when the media can't seem to discuss a female politician without bring up her appearance, there's a huge problem there.
Arguably, if you can't do something a simple as find a good hairdresser, you're going to be up **** creek without a paddle when it comes to assembling a cabinet. This doesn't come up in male political circles because there's some kind of compulsory hairstyle for them.
-
It's relevancy. I don't think it's okay to use sex appeal to sell a product unless it is actually relevant to the product. If the product claims to increase beauty, increase sex appeal, etc, then there's a certain legitimacy to using a model who is good looking in the way the product claims. If the product is a frigging drink, then sex appeal is out of context and does nothing but encourage objectification with or without consent of the model.
Actually no, not really. Weight loss ads recently got in trouble for putting attractive people on their weight loss ads. They had to add in "results aren't typical". Odds are if you use it, you won't look like the people in the ad.
Don't you find it kind of odd that products designed to make average people look hot have to use hot people as models for the product?
The very fact that they don't use average people because they won't look hot kinda ruins the entire premise of "it'll make you hot".
That's not my issue. My problem is when REPORTERS and DEBATES are where the bull**** "I don't like her hair, dress, face, etc" come up. If some jackass is gonna vote based on a pretty face, that's his/her prerogative. But when the media can't seem to discuss a female politician without bring up her appearance, there's a huge problem there.
So, yeah, I don't give a damn if individuals are shallow and sexist and stupid. It's that EVERY discussion involving a female politician, whether on the news, a forum, or any place else, brings up appearance like it's a relevant issue.
BECAUSE IT IS RELEVANT. It is relevant because people are sexist pigs. People are swayed by hot guys and girls into buying everything. Everything! They talk about it because guys care about it. Guys care about it because everything in the world is about it. Movies, phones, cars, clothes, deodorant, food, soda, everything. They all have an image and that image is always sexy.
Why do think sex appeal is used? Because it works! People care about it! People will buy a product partly based on the sexual characteristics of a person standing next to it. OF COURSE they'll look at the sexual characteristics of the politician.
-
It's relevancy. I don't think it's okay to use sex appeal to sell a product unless it is actually relevant to the product. If the product claims to increase beauty, increase sex appeal, etc, then there's a certain legitimacy to using a model who is good looking in the way the product claims. If the product is a frigging drink, then sex appeal is out of context and does nothing but encourage objectification with or without consent of the model.
Actually no, not really. Weight loss ads recently got in trouble for putting attractive people on their weight loss ads. They had to add in "results aren't typical". Odds are if you use it, you won't look like the people in the ad.
Don't you find it kind of odd that products designed to make average people look hot have to use hot people as models for the product?
The very fact that they don't use average people because they won't look hot kinda ruins the entire premise of "it'll make you hot".
That's not my issue. My problem is when REPORTERS and DEBATES are where the bull**** "I don't like her hair, dress, face, etc" come up. If some jackass is gonna vote based on a pretty face, that's his/her prerogative. But when the media can't seem to discuss a female politician without bring up her appearance, there's a huge problem there.
So, yeah, I don't give a damn if individuals are shallow and sexist and stupid. It's that EVERY discussion involving a female politician, whether on the news, a forum, or any place else, brings up appearance like it's a relevant issue.
BECAUSE IT IS RELEVANT. It is relevant because people are sexist pigs. People are swayed by hot guys and girls into buying everything. Everything! They talk about it because guys care about it. Guys care about it because everything in the world is about it. Movies, phones, cars, clothes, deodorant, food, soda, everything. They all have an image and that image is always sexy.
Why do think sex appeal is used? Because it works! People care about it! People will buy a product partly based on the sexual characteristics of a person standing next to it. OF COURSE they'll look at the sexual characteristics of the politician.
The point of advertising is to put the product in the best light possible. Duh? I mean, look at all the commercials for random-ass crap like sham-wow. It looks amazing on tv, but if you've seen videos of people with one they ordered to play with... yeah, no. And that's one with models at all. So of course they're going to use attractive people in ads for weight loss. It just makes sense to do that if you want the product to look as successful as possible.
And, no, it's NOT relevant. Just because people are thinking "wow, she's ugly" or "wow she's hot" is NOT a reason for it to come up on the news every goddamn time a woman is running for office, ESPECIALLY when it NEVER comes up for male politicians. Besides, you just showed another problem with it. Why is the standard "men?" Why is EVERYTHING directed at men? Not even actual men, but "typical" men. There's sexism on both sides and the majority of people (including all women) are marginalized. Women are horndogs just as much as men, but that gets ignored. Many men don't give a damn what the politician looks like as long as he or she is competent. Basically everyone is going out of their way to cater to sexist, horndog "typical" man who thinks about nothing but sex and will buy anything with boobs on it, when he is a tiny, tiny minority.
-
It seems like Blue Lion is talking a descriptive approach (this is what happens) but iamzack is talking a proscriptive approach (this is how the media should behave), but you're both saying the same things.
-
The point of advertising is to put the product in the best light possible. Duh? I mean, look at all the commercials for random-ass crap like sham-wow. It looks amazing on tv, but if you've seen videos of people with one they ordered to play with... yeah, no. And that's one with models at all. So of course they're going to use attractive people in ads for weight loss. It just makes sense to do that if you want the product to look as successful as possible.
Yes exactly, they put pretty faces on products, even if they're crappy products, because people like looking at pretty faces. When you're talking about politicians, people STILL like looking at pretty faces.
And, no, it's NOT relevant. Just because people are thinking "wow, she's ugly" or "wow she's hot" is NOT a reason for it to come up on the news every goddamn time a woman is running for office, ESPECIALLY when it NEVER comes up for male politicians. Besides, you just showed another problem with it. Why is the standard "men?" Why is EVERYTHING directed at men? Not even actual men, but "typical" men.
Why are things in a male dominated society directed at men? Gee, that's a tough one.
There's sexism on both sides and the majority of people (including all women) are marginalized. Women are horndogs just as much as men, but that gets ignored. Many men don't give a damn what the politician looks like as long as he or she is competent. Basically everyone is going out of their way to cater to sexist, horndog "typical" man who thinks about nothing but sex and will buy anything with boobs on it, when he is a tiny, tiny minority.
If that were true, they wouldn't use sex in ads. If they could make more money by not going out of their way looking for hot people to model their stuff, they would do it.
"Bob, we need to advertise our product. A vast majority want a reasoned well thought out ad showing our product's usefulness. A very small majority would like to masturbate furiously to our commercial."
"Well damn it. Let's find the hottest chicks we can find and make them jello wrestle."
Remove sexuality from the equation. Let's replace sexuality with something else. Let's say the color green. You're in a new bizarro world
People are swayed into buying products by green. If it has more green, it's better. Ads with more green sell more. People wear green clothes, eat green food, drive green cars. Their houses are green, phones are green, hair is green. People who had the most green got the best men or women. People cry "Don't look at my amount of green! Look at my personality!"
You go to a political debate. One person mentions how much green one of them is wearing.
"How dare you bring up green! Green has no bearing here! Why green is meaningless, this is important!"
You'd think they were &$%#ing bonkers. If green is so meaningless, why is their life saturated by it?
-
BlueLion. You are describing how things are. iamzack seems to agree with you that this is how things work. She is advocating for change in the political sphere.
If I understand correctly, your objection is that she should be advocating for change in all related spheres?
-
Exactly, if you have a problem with sexuality being an issue in this field, it should be so in all fields. Hence my "out hardcoring the hardcore".
I just don't get why she (and other people apparently) accept it as natural.
Sexuality saturates everything in American society. To be confused why it also is brought up in politics just boggles my mind.
-
:rolleyes:
Sexuality is not this force permeating every aspect of everything. It's just not. People need to learn when it's appropriate to bring up appearance and when it's not. Since it almost never gets brought up about male politicians, then it should not get brought up for female politicians either.
-
Do you know how many girls I've heard calling Obama "hot"?
-
Do you know how many girls I've heard calling Obama "hot"?
Well, you know what the girls say about black guys. *Fans self*
-
I would not refer to myself as a "hardcore" feminist. I don't even know what that is. That's being "hardcore" for sex equality. I don't see how there can be levels of equality. It's != or it's ==. But I see a time and place for sex appeal in advertising. Politics is not the time and place. Selling KY Jelly is a time and place.
Also, approximately 50% of the population is female, and another (though partially inclusive) large chunk of the population is prepubescent. Sex appeal in advertising is not very successful for those two groups. Most women tend to be turned off by excessive sexiness in advertising. So advertisements directed at women aren't boobsboobsboobs, but rather tend to have a more "wholesome" group of models. Advertisements directed at younger age groups do best if models are only slightly older than the target audience. Besides that, you have to factor in the many, many males who don't even fit the (rather negative) "typical male" stereotype.
So, yeah, sex appeal advertisements are directed at a smallish minority. That's why there aren't very many of them anymore.
-
:rolleyes:
Sexuality is not this force permeating every aspect of everything. It's just not. People need to learn when it's appropriate to bring up appearance and when it's not. Since it almost never gets brought up about male politicians, then it should not get brought up for female politicians either.
That is a hilarious statement.
"Sex isn't everywhere!"
:lol:
I would not refer to myself as a "hardcore" feminist. I don't even know what that is. That's being "hardcore" for sex equality. I don't see how there can be levels of equality. It's != or it's ==. But I see a time and place for sex appeal in advertising. Politics is not the time and place. Selling KY Jelly is a time and place.
Also, approximately 50% of the population is female, and another (though partially inclusive) large chunk of the population is prepubescent. Sex appeal in advertising is not very successful for those two groups. Most women tend to be turned off by excessive sexiness in advertising. So advertisements directed at women aren't boobsboobsboobs, but rather tend to have a more "wholesome" group of models. Advertisements directed at younger age groups do best if models are only slightly older than the target audience. Besides that, you have to factor in the many, many males who don't even fit the (rather negative) "typical male" stereotype.
So, yeah, sex appeal advertisements are directed at a smallish minority. That's why there aren't very many of them anymore.
Then why are you mad? If no one is paying attention to it and it's a smallish minority, what's the problem?
-
I propose that we stop talking about how she's a woman and start talking about how she's a moron ... in the spirit of gender equality of course.
-
I propose that we stop talking about how she's a woman and start talking about how she's a moron ... in the spirit of gender equality of course.
Second. Raise motion for vote. All in favour?
-
Aye.
Sarah Palin is so stupid, she got a locked in Mattress Discounters and slept on the floor! Ohhhhhhh!
EDIT: Okay, in the interest of making this not spam: I think she might be in for a disappointing surprise when she discovers that the Republican Party wants nothing to do with her. I actually think we should be much more afraid of her as a talking head than as a candidate for office.
-
Aye.
Why should we be afraid of her becoming a talking head if no-one cares enough to watch?
-
because not enough people realize that morons don't belong in positions of power, and they think it's neat to have someone like them in office instead of someone who can push through complete thoughts and ideas