Men read terrible tweets to female sportswriters

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Ummm ok...I almost feel like you are remembering a different thread than me lol. I remember a lot of pictures of models and actresses. Pictures from Maxim and that sort of thing.

What you're describing sounds like some creepy sub Reddit.

There was also an incident where a dude posted a picture of his wife and another poster harped on him for posting pictures of "average" women in the thread.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

That article is about advertising and does not explain in any way why pictures of beautiful women is objectification. if my memory serves, 99% of the pictures from the thread meet exactly zero of those categories let alone 1 or 2 or all.

As for the second and third parts of your post, none of what you wrote seems relevant to either this thread or my points.

This thread is about the horrendous filth spewed at public women online. My contention is that a lot of that stems from a culture which objectifies women. The article I linked to describes what objectification looks like in advertising, I expected you to be able to make the link between these two points:

3) Does the image show sexualized persons as interchangeable? and

5) Does the image suggest that sexual availability is the defining characteristic of the person?

and the old YLYL thread. I would contend that every single image in that thread met point 5 and the thread as a whole very clearly met point 3. Here's another quote from part 4 of that series:

Girls are raised to view their bodies as a project they have to constantly work on and perfect for the adoration of others, while boys are raised to think of their bodies as tools to master their surroundings.

I feel this perfectly encapsulates the problem with the YLYL thread, but I'm not going to delve further into an old argument that's been settled as far as the site is concerned.

Here's part two of that article, where the harm of objectification is discussed: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2012/07/0...rt-2-the-harm/

Beyond the internal effects, sexually objectified women are dehumanized by others and seen as less competent and less worthy of empathy by both men and women. Furthermore, exposure to images of sexually objectified women causes male viewers to be more tolerant of sexual harassment and rape myths.

This point directly supports my contention that the overall societal objectification of women, of which the old YLYL thread was but a tiny slice, contributes to the behaviour which is the subject of this thread: women being "dehumanized by others and seen as less competent and worthy of empathy" and how "exposure to images of sexually objectified women causes male viewers to be more tolerant of sexual harassment."

My main point is that threads like this and the elimination of the YLYL thread are positive indicators that the needle is moving in terms of the overall acceptance of sexual objectification of women and this will result in reducing the incidences of actions like the tweets in the OP.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Great, I can't wait until we get to go back to being as puritanical about sex as we were 150 years ago. Sounds like progress.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Ummm ok...I almost feel like you are remembering a different thread than me lol. I remember a lot of pictures of models and actresses. Pictures from Maxim and that sort of thing.

What you're describing sounds like some creepy sub Reddit.

People see things through the lenses through which they want to look...

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Great, I can't wait until we get to go back to being as puritanical about sex as we were 150 years ago. Sounds like progress.

I don't know what to think about posts like this except to think that this is you being intentionally contrary and argumentative

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Actually it was a pretty drive by post because I have no intention of having the argument at all. You probably know by now that if I did, the post would have been three paragraphs, not one sentence.

That being said, I'll just ask a question and then hang up and listen: how does Driveway's view of women's sexuality and female objectification not completely eliminate the porn industry?

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by driveway

This thread is about the horrendous filth spewed at public women online. My contention is that a lot of that stems from a culture which objectifies women. The article I linked to describes what objectification looks like in advertising, I expected you to be able to make the link between these two points:
and the old YLYL thread. I would contend that every single image in that thread met point 5 and the thread as a whole very clearly met point 3. Here's another quote from part 4 of that series:

I feel this perfectly encapsulates the problem with the YLYL thread, but I'm not going to delve further into an old argument that's been settled as far as the site is concerned.

Here's part two of that article, where the harm of objectification is discussed: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2012/07/0...rt-2-the-harm/

This point directly supports my contention that the overall societal objectification of women, of which the old YLYL thread was but a tiny slice, contributes to the behaviour which is the subject of this thread: women being "dehumanized by others and seen as less competent and worthy of empathy" and how "exposure to images of sexually objectified women causes male viewers to be more tolerant of sexual harassment."

My main point is that threads like this and the elimination of the YLYL thread are positive indicators that the needle is moving in terms of the overall acceptance of sexual objectification of women and this will result in reducing the incidences of actions like the tweets in the OP.

I disagree quite strongly. This is where the theory around objectification gets on really shaky ground. Pretty much the only demonstrated real damage the objectification of women (excluding porn) has caused is about how women think of themselves and other women. Pretty all of this has to do with the comparison of women and objects in advertising. (The same effect is showing up around men these days too, though it's not yet as bad as for women). Yes, exposure to images of sexually objectified women causes male viewers to be more tolerant of sexual harassment, but only for a short period of time afterwards, and only properly demonstrated after watching certain kinds of porn. It's related to psychological priming which effects us in many ways beyond objectification (how much your willing to pay for something is also affected, for example).

3) Does the image show sexualized persons as interchangeable? and

Not any more interchangeable than any two fully clothed persons. If the image you displayed is the standard, then definitely not. The poses, styles, etc were all largely unique. I don't know why the sexualized part matters for this criteria. Seems rather arbitrary and unrelated to thinking of of people as interchangeable.

5) Does the image suggest that sexual availability is the defining characteristic of the person?

No. Sexual availability wasn't implied in the vast majority of the pictures unless you had no idea of what sexual availability means. These were mostly models posing for the camera. Posing for a camera with little clothing and sexual poses indicates sexual availability no more than if they had clothing on. Further, the comments in the thread indicated that other people didn't think these were sexually available people either.

Nevertheless, I'm glad the thread is gone, because it makes CP more welcoming for women.

Finally, I think objectification of women is utterly and completely unrelated to the incidents of the tweets. indeed, if these people thought of women as objects, why bother with the tweets? Objects don't care if you insult them. It would be like threatening your fridge in front of 100 million people. No, it's clear they recognize that that these insults and threats work because the know that on the receiving end there is a thinking, feeling person, the exact opposite of what i'd expect given your theory. They are meant to hurt or threaten without the person having to put themselves on the line for the same treatment. I do however think they don't realize how much these tweets can hurt and threaten the people the receiving end.

The puritanical, far right Christians I know (since I used to be one, I know a lot of them) would very much agree with your assessment though. It's the very same rational they use to justify their requirements for women to dress modestly.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I don't know what to think about posts like this except to think that this is you being intentionally contrary and argumentative

I agree, but it is a fair point as objectification is, and has been for decades already, a favorite argument of puritanical Christians to enforce "modesty" standards on women. It does seem at times that parts of society have come a full circle.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Actually it was a pretty drive by post because I have no intention of having the argument at all. You probably know by now that if I did, the post would have been three paragraphs, not one sentence.

That being said, I'll just ask a question and then hang up and listen: how does Driveway's view of women's sexuality and female objectification not completely eliminate the porn industry?

Porn is inherently sexual, and the various players in a porn-related setting are all pretty interchangeable, on both sides of the coin. (There are still issues with the treatment of women in the porn industry, but that's another argument for another day).

This is not about being puritanical. Not wanting women's bodies to be the backdrop for selling cars/beer/burgers is not about being prudish, it's about treating women as more than just eye-candy.

If women want to wear short skirts and show cleavage, that's up to them, whatever makes her happy. It's not about covering their bodies for the sake of some form of modesty, it's about treating them as actual humans and not just advertisements.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That being said, I'll just ask a question and then hang up and listen: how does Driveway's view of women's sexuality and female objectification not completely eliminate the porn industry?

Well, I never actually said anything at all about women's sexuality or my view of it, so you're kinda putting words in my mouth, but if you really are concerned about the intersection between modern feminism, sex, objectivity, and pop-culture here's a reading list for you:

The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedman; A Room of One's Own by Virginia Wolfe; The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf; Sexual Politics by Kate Millett; How to Be a Woman by Caitlin Moran; and Bad Feminist by Roxane Gay.

These six books would give you a pretty good overview of second and third-wave feminism. If you're really worried about the porn industry, I recommend The Ethical Slut by Dossie Easton; PoMoSexuals by Carol Queen; or if you're looking for something a little more academic Deviations by Gayle Rubin.

Originally Posted by sworkhard

I disagree quite strongly. This is where the theory around objectification gets on really shaky ground.
...
Nevertheless, I'm glad the thread is gone, because it makes CP more welcoming for women.

I'm glad you're glad it's gone, I'm not having the argument about it again.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

...

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Great, I can't wait until we get to go back to being as puritanical about sex as we were 150 years ago. Sounds like progress.

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I don't know what to think about posts like this except to think that this is you being intentionally contrary and argumentative

There does seem to a be a streak of puritanism in the new left and modern feminism. Sexuality is scary. Women are fragile, vulnerable, and passive. In the age-old tension between freedom and safety, it's best to side with safety. Pictures and language need to be scrutinized for sexual provocation.

There's a religious tenet in all of the Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), that when you have lustful thoughts, the devil is in your heart. Modern feminism seems to concur.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by driveway

if you really are concerned about the intersection between modern feminism, sex, objectivity, and pop-culture here's a reading list for you:
The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedman; A Room of One's Own by Virginia Wolfe; The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf; Sexual Politics by Kate Millett; How to Be a Woman by Caitlin Moran; and Bad Feminist by Roxane Gay.
These six books would give you a pretty good overview of second and third-wave feminism.

Thanks for the suggestions, but I don't think I'll be taking you up on that. As far as my interaction with it goes, which has been observation from a distance, I have no inclination to get any closer to modern feminism. It seems to accuse me of being part of the problem while demanding that I be part of the solution - born sick and commanded to be well. What feminism is these days strikes me as an exclusionary, overtly hostile, highly moralistic and dogmatic moral community. I have no doubt that you yourself have good intentions, but I want no truck with it.

Whatever modern feminism's project is, I have difficulty believing it'll be able to achieve much of use without the participation of the average guy, and as things currently stand it'll have to do so without the participation of at least this one; I'm sitting this one out.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by driveway

I largely disagree with this. I think that's exactly what's so troubling about internet trolling and harassment is that it absolutely is people who are otherwise totally well adjusted and 'normal.' Yes, there are people with mental illnesses and such represented in the population of trolls, but I bet the vast, vast majority of them aren't, in day-to-day interactions are respectful, and find this activity to be a kind of release, or they get some endorphin rush from it, or something else.

It's not scientific, but I read r/relationships (it's my version of trash reality tv) and something that's popped up a lot more than once is the "My SO is perfect in every way, but I just found out they're a horrible internet bully/troll, what do I do?" thread.

...

I see what you're saying, but I'd argue our standards for "normal" allow for some wild variation. When somebody says "he's a totally normal guy, but he does this brutal thing for kicks", I would strongly disagree he's normal at all. I think getting a release or endorphin rush by making a rape threat is a sign that there is a disconnect. The person may be high functioning and capable of coming-off pleasant in certain situations, but there is still a serious underlying issue there.

I'm going to pick on spanking for a moment, but just as an example. You hear all the time "my dad spanked the hell out of me as a little kid, and I turned out great!". I've heard that from a couple friends, who in all honesty didn't turn out great at all. It's not like they're in the bathroom cutting or taking anti-psychotic meds, but they do have some interesting quirks about them (short-fused, brutal at relationships, etc.). Are those quirks related to spanking? Probably not – it's most likely a combination of factors – but my point is I think we tend to label ourselves and others as "normal" that have some pretty clear abnormalities.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Thanks for the suggestions, but I don't think I'll be taking you up on that. As far as my interaction with it goes, which has been observation from a distance, I have no inclination to get any closer to modern feminism. It seems to accuse me of being part of the problem while demanding that I be part of the solution - born sick and commanded to be well. What feminism is these days strikes me as an exclusionary, overtly hostile, highly moralistic and dogmatic moral community. I have no doubt that you yourself have good intentions, but I want no truck with it.

Whatever modern feminism's project is, I have difficulty believing it'll be able to achieve much of use without the participation of the average guy, and as things currently stand it'll have to do so without the participation of at least this one; I'm sitting this one out.

You are the king of saying what should be said in 10 words and somehow making it into 500 words.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There does seem to a be a streak of puritanism in the new left and modern feminism. Sexuality is scary. Women are fragile, vulnerable, and passive. In the age-old tension between freedom and safety, it's best to side with safety. Pictures and language need to be scrutinized for sexual provocation.

There's a religious tenet in all of the Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), that when you have lustful thoughts, the devil is in your heart. Modern feminism seems to concur.

Not really. Sex+ is pretty much a central tenet of modern feminism. There's even a sub-genre of "feminist porn."

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Thanks for the suggestions, but I don't think I'll be taking you up on that. As far as my interaction with it goes, which has been observation from a distance, I have no inclination to get any closer to modern feminism. It seems to accuse me of being part of the problem while demanding that I be part of the solution - born sick and commanded to be well. What feminism is these days strikes me as an exclusionary, overtly hostile, highly moralistic and dogmatic moral community. I have no doubt that you yourself have good intentions, but I want no truck with it.

This amuses me.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

You are the king of saying what should be said in 10 words and somehow making it into 500 words.

Feminists will have to do this one without him, he's sitting this one out!!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Not really. Sex+ is pretty much a central tenet of modern feminism. There's even a sub-genre of "feminist porn."

One of my hobbies is boardgaming. On about a weekly basis, there are threads on the Boardgamegeek forums about the unsuitability of a particular game for families owing to the perception of sexualized artwork. Whenever that happens, you can be sure the person complaining is either A) a religious conservative, or B) a self-identified progressive feminist (usually male). I just find it interesting how much the two groups have in common.

[GGG]

Is the reason the comments between Men and Women sportscasters more related to homophobia than sexism?

Many people hope that criminals are raped in prison to get what they deserve. The revenge fantasy. So this is a common thing about both genders as the worst thing that can happen to someone.

In online trolling the same is it the same "getting revenge on this person who slighted your team" motivation? The problem being you cant say you would rape the male sportscaster without in the mind of the bro-culture likely hurling the insults and women, emasculating themselves by saying they are homosexual.

Is the reason that the vitriol is worse because there are worse insults available to the homophobic sexist person making the comments.