big sigh

Funny how they are all sexualised

They love to pretend they are persecuted over their juvenile bikini babe threads. My view is don't give them the attention.


At Sat Sep 21, 2013, 02:27 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

The sickos at the "Men's Group" has done it again
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113910284

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

"Sickos"??? Really?? Is it OK to call DUers that now?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Sep 21, 2013, 02:38 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: God. I can only imagine with that group has going now. DU wants to allow a reactionary MRA section of the site, people are going to comment on what they are. Those are the breaks.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: I think it is spam. Are the spammers capturing legit DU'ers accounts these days?
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: THE ALERTER NEEDS TO FIND A LIFE.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: The thread is in poor taste but to call the whole group sickos is too much
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

If you think I am, I'll delete it. But first check.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=10191

I don't think you're a bad person period. Nor do I think posting in those threads necessarily makes anyone a bad person, but the threads are sexist and juvenile. The girly threads are actually low on my offensive meter compared to what else is posted in that group.

Posted a pic of Brad Pitt. Just to deflate the boy's club nature of the thing. But beefcake pics have their own and sexist element.

They probably assumed you were gay, but it was a nice effort.

and sexism is not a progressive value. However, sexist portrayals of men vs. sexist portrayals of women display a different historical and cultural context with the latter having the disadvantage because of the difference in the power dynamic.

It's a question of power, a historically oppressed group in contrast to a dominant group. Some men want to pretend that sexism applies equally, or that feminism is itself sexism. It's an attitude entirely divorced from historical understanding and current social reality.

That thread looking for signs of misandry was pretty funny. It took them a month to find one example. Anyone of us could point to several examples of sexism against women each and everyday. Yesterday there were at least two threads in GD referring to women as sluts in the subject title. The first was allowed to stand by a jury and I don't know if anyone even bothered alerting on the second since we know too many accept degradation of women as the norm.

Our problem is that we see all male sexuality as pathological.

and make life oppressive for them by demanding equal rights.

For somebody who claims to not "want to give them attention", you certainly don't seem to miss a single syllable that is poster there.

I'm too uneducated and maladjusted to remember anything. Everyone knows a Ph.D. for a woman is the equivalent of a high-school degree for a man. I'm too scatterbrained to keep track of anything. It's my hormones. I can't help it.

I'll take Notable Doctorate earners who aren't exactly known for their intellect, for $200, Alex.

Rand Paul
Bill Frist
Rick Santorum
Ron Paul
Phil McGraw
Michelle Bachman...

and the list goes on....

Okay. Whatever you say. You know better. I'm only a wimenz.

I'm sorry you see everything as some sort of conspiracy to take all women down, but there really are many of us who've excelled in fields that include men, and who aren't threatened by all those things you seem to be. As a very young woman I went through some really tough situations where I was targeted because I was a woman and physically not as strong, but I came through it not seeing the world through the eyes of a victim, but a survivor .... and guess what, I still don't see anything that includes mention of woman in a desirable way as objectifying, insulting or abnormal. Johnny Depp could eat crackers in my bed anytime, maybe I'll post a semi-nude picture of him and see if all the 'menz' here feel victimized. You really need to get over speaking for all of us. Some things are just normal and this has been true from the beginning of time. Help out at a women's shelter, round up non-perishables, blankets, toys ... petition your lawmakers to change policy that really does harm women, join and donate to organizations that target children and women made vulnerable by poverty - spread the word, there are many online orgs now that are working hard to do just that.

Speak for yourself. We're not all poor, put-upon 'wimenz' and some of us even enjoy looking at beautiful people.

and haven't even bothered to read my responses in this thread. Even so, the sarcasm icon should have been a clue to even the least observant. A casual glance at your post shows it to entirely unrelated to me and anything but your own internal dialogue, You rants and personal attacks are boring. Keep talking to yourself because what you say has zero interest to me. Consider that a permanent reply to any and all future posts.

Anyone who can invent a rant like that in response to a joke is beyond discussing with. Your relentless animosity toward me is juvenile.

started in on me with your sock.

And I realize that helping people in real life would have zero interest to you. Playing victim is apparently much more satisfying.

Like telling you what the article actually said? Yes, reading comprehension truly is an unforgivable sin. More junior-high petty vindictiveness.

Reading comprehension is clearly a recurring problem, since you've decided to attack me about the bikini babes thread rather than the members here who actually complain about it. Your boyfriend is the one who accused the women of this group of being "uneducated and maladjusted," as well as a host of other slurs I don't recall. If I repeat his words in jest, it's portraying women as victims, if he does, it's brilliance. Boys are always so much smarter.

What are you going on about now?

The language echoed the level of conversation presented to me. I wouldn't have thought that would have been particularly difficult to figure out. Note references to playground and cafeteria.

LOL. And say hello to your lovely wife for me .... tell her not to worry, I was called Saddam Hussein's girlfriend at one time too! Not to worry, you're much nicer than he was, I'm sure lol.

something that can be made to see all women as victims, ad nauseum.

men in the subjection of other women, not someone who works against it.

If you want to defend the bikini babes thread, common sense would mean arguing with someone who actually complains about it, not the person who suggested ignoring it. But of course the point isn't substance is it? It's the fact that you don't like a particular girl on the playground.

persuade others they're victims day after day after day after day. And I've already told you, I don't like or dislike you .... I don't know you. I sure didn't like your sock, though.

Last edited Mon Sep 23, 2013, 04:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Bullying is several people ganging up on one, which is what you engaged in last night and on other occasions. It is hurling bigoted slurs and defending them because you don't like the people they are directed against. It is telling random strangers to piss off because you have a bad day. What it is not is having the nerve to post about background checks, disagree with a man, or object to another woman being called an "attention whore." It is following someone into a group, not engaging with the subject matter and instead carrying out personal grudges. You and your friend's escapade in the Gungeon managed to get two threads locked, while the host invited me to repost my OP without the disruptors. It is truly unfortunate that you see a discussion of expanded background checks keeping guns out of the hands of felons and those adjudicated a danger to themselves and others as less important than your personal vendetta. For some reason, the host did not agree.

Your invocation of the short-lived sock is your common go-to when you lack the capacity to respond substantively, which is often. You would do well to spend less time engaging in petty fights with strangers and thinking about something that matters in life. What a complete waste of energy. This site is designed to discuss politics. It is not a junior high playground. I understand you hate me. Fine. You're obviously heavily invested in that hatred, but that really is your problem. I, on the other hand, am unconcerned with your existence. Now, I request you leave me alone and find a more appropriate outlet for your frustrations.

So tell me, genius... that first post of yours that I replied to in that thread... exactly how did it pertain to CC activism?

We were talking about background checks. I was establishing common ground with NYC_Skp, who identifies as a 2A defender but is quite reasonable on gun control issues. He was talking about being banned from the Gun Control Reform Activism forum and believes the banning was personal. Perhaps it was. I don't know the circumstances. So I told what I thought was a funny story. I did not name either the host or the banned person. The message was meant to be: "Don't feel bad. It happens elsewhere too. I appreciate your support on background checks." You might have observed that support is pretty rare among gungeon folk. I saw it as an amusing story to be friendly with a perceived adversary on gun control, which is my principal political concern. Now, I could have left the name of the group off, and on reflection I should have. It wasn't key to the story. As I told Warren, I would have happily edited it out on request. But your goal clearly wasn't keeping confidentiality of your group, since you decided to focus on a personal grudge and bring more exposure to the ban. In the process, you winded up getting two threads locked. Congrats. I have no doubt you enjoyed yourself.

called a 'whore', when I went and checked, that wasn't the case at all. I was called to jury duty for a post in that thread ....... and no, I didn't get anything shut down.

That short-lived sock was used purposefully in a thread right along with your BB handle .... dishonest and weird, although I give you credit for not screwing up and answering yourself lol. No worries about how I spend my time. I've posted here more than usual lately because I was so against striking Syria - about 6 posts per day. As compared to your 64 posts per day ... I don't think you're in a position to criticize anyone for their time spent here. And I've told you, I don't hate anonymous names on a message board although I know repeating it over and over makes you feel .... something or other, and believe me, not an ounce of my being is 'invested' in making you feel anything, nor do you frustrate me. I respond to posts. Especially those that imply things that are blatantly false.

If dating is what they were really talking about then faces or names would be enough. Would you post a picture of a stranger you would like to date in a wet T-shirt or sprawled on a bed in a negligee?

WE ARE SO PERSECUTED BY TEH WOMINZ!

I'm pretty sure I'm a feminist, and there's a few threads in that group that offend me as a woman, but that one's not one of them. I'm guessing most adults, be they male or female, have one or more celebrities they think are really hot and sexually attractive. I don't think it's creepy, but pretty normal. Back in the 90's I seriously lusted after Eddie Vedder, and to a lesser and more cerebral extent, Lou Barlow. That doesn't mean I was at any risk of becoming a creepy stalky type, in fact it's the opposite. It's not like yr ever going to meet them and it's worshipping from a distance sort of thing. If it's okay for me as a woman to think a male celebrity is really hot, then I can't turn around and say there's something sick and unhealthy when men think a female celebrity is really hot

but I am against using that as an excuse to post what are exploitative images.

I said in an earlier post if expressing your desire was what was wanted then a head and shoulders shot or just a name and link is sufficient.

The people whose images are being posted are making a good deal of money off their sexiness. Makes me wonder who's being exploited--the person who's being photographed or the person who's drooling over the picture.

If people choose to make money off their looks, I say "more power too them." If I were a super-sexy model-type male, I'd be tempted to make money off of it too.

What's wrong with that, really?



-Laelth

The images are first used by the publicists to sell, later they are used by consumers to excite others. I am sure that one or two of the models will be exhibitionist and hence OK with such pictures. On the other hand I am sure most would prefer not to be so pictured if there was an alternative.

... that so many people are flat out willing to be exploited? Even I would sign up, if I had the body and the looks for it.

Is poverty the problem from your point of view? Or, is it the fact that humans are sexual animals? If you think poverty is the problem, I am right there with you, and I'd support any number of programs designed to aid people who are being exploited due to their poverty. If, on the other hand, the problem is that humans are sexual beings and, as a result, they lust after and desire persons they find attractive, then I can't follow you. I don't see that as a problem. I think that's natural and, ultimately, desirable.

-Laelth

Given little choice is not the same as willing. Doing what you are told is necessary to keep your job is not the same as willing.

Because you regard sex a a sales technique I presume you also justify sex work using the same premises; I do not.

My question, quite specifically, was directed toward the problem that you feel needs to be addressed.

What is that problem, exactly? What is the cause of the exploitation you see? If you can't identify its cause, I can't help you find a solution.

-Laelth

What you call willingness is too often outside pressure to conform. This blindness as to the influences that drive those pictured is of the same type that allows sex work to proliferate in ignorance of the pressures applied to even the most willing participant.

In the thread I find objectionable the use of (admittedly mild) erotic images indicates that those posting are not interested in "dates" but in sexual toys.

Does that just apply to women, or does it go for men as well? If so, I've posted lots of exploitative images in a few music forums away from DU over the years

I said that in the context of this particular Mens Group thread (which asked which celebrities the poster would like to date) a name or head and shoulders shot would have been sufficient.

If you looked at many of the photos on that thread you would see that they are "cheesecake" or "beefsteak" shots; disordered or wet clothing, disordered or wet hair, mouths open, blemishes photoshopped out. Essentially the thread was about titillation.

It's weird to post images of them in lingerie on a center-left political board.

I was having a think about this last night, and I was wondering if the reaction would be similar if a thread on totally hot celebrities were started in The Lounge. There's areas of DU where talk isn't about politics and turns to chatty stuff, so if it were started in GD, I'd probably be thinking it's weird to see it there or in any other group or forum that's devoted to political stuff...

I just don't think the thread's exploiting women, or creepy or anything. While all my totally hot celebs I can think of are really cool musicians from the 90's, if my area of interest was male models, I could outdo any guy on producing pics with lots of flesh and provocative poses....

And as I mentioned really cool and totally hot celebs from the 90's, here's Lou Barlow, who was sexy as hell when he got that bored look happening. My quest for the next year is to sneak this clip into every forum or group at DU without people noticing I'm on a quest

I would have missed it - because I have that one in the trash can.

I don't. Or perhaps they just keep it to themselves because they know it to be anti-social?

I really don't. But I think some men on the Internet are only what they perceive a man "should be" when they are playing on the Internet.

50-60 years ago. It also may just be bluster and compensation for whatever goes on at home.

I noticed that some have interpreted my comment about female misogynists to include themselves. Since I don't know these people at all, I couldn't possibly make such a determination. If that is what they choose to call themselves, I defer to them on the matter.

If you make a comment about female misogynists while yr arguing with another woman in this group and she takes offense, then that definitely does not mean that she calls herself a misogynist. That means that she's seen that comment as an insult aimed at her. I've taken offense in the past coz one or two people at DU called me a terrorist supporter. Me taking offense at that doesn't mean I choose to call myself that, so it's the same with what you said. Instead of following it up with a post designed to double-down on the insult, maybe work on communicating with others in this group in a more constructive way? Because some of what I'm reading is bringing back memories of Meta, imo...

And when it comes to other groups you really don't like, there's a thing called Trash that will make groups and forums vanish. There's also the ignore button. I think it'd be a good idea to use those tools that Skinner provided us with...

Or in the thread where I mentioned female misogynists, which is locked. I was arguing with no woman at the time.
If people decide to take things personally when something is not directed at them, there is nothing I can do about that. I find it a bit unusual when it's someone I've never communicated with, but that kind of psychological tendency is well above my pay grade.

And the group is firmly in the trash can now. Thanks for caring.

You might realize this entire thread is dedicated to a thread in another group. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you take it up with the hosts.

Don't let me stand in the way of you continuing whatever it is you think yr doing here...

I don't think you have any idea. Do you know what this thread is about? You again seem to miss the context and just don't care. Your rendition of the events are simply not accurate.

Now, I have put one person in this thread on ignore, so if they are complaining, I have no longer have awareness of it. I believe that would be following the spirit of your advice, even if your rendition of the precise circumstances are off.

And duh. I do know what this thread is about, so knock off the patronising stuff. I know you won't, but at least I asked

and I don't see your name listed as host or queen.

Go on at home.

I think some people are aware that my husband is an avid reader of DU but does not post as English is not his first language in spite of living here for about 8 years as a little kid.

But he showed me the men's group under his login last night. Note: He stalks me at DU and wanted to know what kind of shenanigans I was getting into in the women's group yesterday morning!

I was not surprised - but he had a few choice words that I won't repeat here. And he just loves redqueen and seabeyond's minds to bits and pieces - and was pissed when he saw what was hidden as an op by rq. His words - "Those boys (stress boys) can't handle a few images showing them the type of boys (again stressed boys) they are."

ETA: A feminist man's perspective - they don't LIKE women enough to listen to them -and that's why they don't have one. Women know. . .

What wonderful insight.

say hello for me.

Isn't it nice having an evolved man for a partner?

but it's also generational. The average age on this site is fairly old, I would guess mid 60s. I'm starting to wonder of what many people long for on any number of issues is a restoration to the past, an idealized past, but the past nonetheless. In terms of gender, that means women weren't so uppity and knew to hold their tongues near men. Or perhaps it's just people reveal parts of themselves on line that they are more circumspect about offline because they don't fear the social ramifications. Some of these groups can have insidious effects because they create the false perception that everyone thinks like their members. Then there is the dynamic where people behave differently in groups and go further than they would as individuals (as demonstrated in an extreme way in the Stanford Prison Experiment). I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's far from a reflection of liberal communities outside of this site.

You seem to believe the publicity about the "older generation".

In addition you are completely ignorant of other cultures. Having been brought up in the UK we have naked women and men on display in our parks, gardens and museums; we are also well aware that many of the portraits made by classic artists showed the subjects "en dishabille" precisely for the same purposes of titillation that the "cheesecake" and "beefsteak" images used in that thread.

I've lived in the UK and Brazil, and traveled many other places. Sigh. We also have naked women in our museums, as they do in France, Italy, Holland, Mexico, Brazil, etc. . .. Few places do not. I can't believe you're actually arguing that the Brits are open about sex.

I would have figured the Alice avatar was a clue, if not the feminism and info on the profile page.

For the most part - when it comes to the right to abortion or to equal pay, legal issues and the like - you'd be right in assuming all liberal men respect women's rights, as far as that goes.

The issues raised in Miss Representation, in Killing Us Softly, in Sexy Baby... these are not so well received. We've made progress with rape culture though. There's much less victim blaming here now than there was a few years ago. It's far from perfect but there is noticeable progress. The stuff about objectification and hypersexualization is going to be a much harder issue to raise awareness about though, for obvious reasons.

I think they support it because it advantages them. I'm not talking about all liberal men, of course, but the ones who oppose equal rights in other ways. Abortion makes it easier for them to have sex without permanent consequences. When it comes to things like EEOC law, however, they put up resistance. When it comes to areas that prompt them to give up any of their privilege, whether competing for jobs or adjusting their behavior, they don't like it. So I don't see them as supporting equal rights at all. The hostility toward discussions of domestic violence and rape are obvious red flags indicating they devalue women.

Gen's husband made a wonderful observation, if you read her post above. He looked around and said: They don't like women enough to listen to what they say. That really encapsulates it perfectly.

Those few liberal men who somehow manage to argue that the wage gap doesn't exist... or that domestic violence is actually the result of female violence and/or a cottage industry run by da eebil bad feminists (i.e. not the fun kind), with statistics cooked to overhype male violence against women... or that education itself is being maliciously and institutionally unfair to boys and men... as for those types, I'm quite sure you're right. But that's a small minority of allegedly liberal men.

On the other hand, though, of the vast majority of actually liberal men, I really do think they simply have a massive (and massively self-serving) blind spot when it comes to the objectification and hypersexualization of women.

there's a difference between guys getting worked up over beautiful gals and guys being sickening by objectifying women in general - it's the difference between men being men and men being assholes

Last edited Wed Sep 25, 2013, 02:40 AM - Edit history (1)

The analogy with open carry was priceless.

Are such women "assholes"?

What do you think about people being upset by others objectifying other people?

Why do you think that men "getting worked up" is unavoidable for real men (tm); are men just machines unable to control their impulses?

Let's say that you are walking down a road in sexy clothes, that is your choice. Then a guy sees you and rings up all his male friends to come and look at the sexily dressed woman until you have a crowd of 100 or so guys all following you and saying how sexy you are and how they would like to "date you" (know what they mean, nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more). Are you saying you would be comfortable with that?

You have little sense of how a new normal for society must be formed if we are not to be overwhelmed by the same old garbage. The sort of garbage I mean is the garbage that empowers stalkers, abusers and rapists.