YLYL Thread Sexism Discussion (split from Gay Teen thread).

[StrykerSteve]

Originally Posted by terminator

I lol'd.

[Hockey_Ninja]

Soooooo have we gotten to a rational decission yet?

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

I'm not just hung up on that. The point is that you have no right to pass judgement on those people. You can't argue that it's ok to judge models BECAUSE they take pictures for the public, but judge the private photographs of women that you were never intended to see. You know what female celebrities without make-up or without production quality look like? Women. Regular women. So by passing judgement on them as "Not beautiful" because they don't have make-up or aren't photoshopped, you are insulting pretty much every woman on the planet. Great work.

On your second point:
As pointed out, there's the rub. This IS society. This IS public. You are not behind closed doors. You are not in the boy's club or with your buddies. You are in a public space where WOMEN read your comments. You wouldn't make fun of a picture of a handicapped person in front of another handicapped person (just a random example), so why in the WORLD would you make disparaging comments about a woman in front of other women? Doesn't that go against how society functions?

This isn't talking about the talent or work-quality of someone. This is talking about the way someone is born, or in general, the physical attributes of someone. By turning that into a product for which you are to judge (like a hockey game, or an album, or whatever) you are objectifying these women.

If you want to look at a picture and point out the problems with THE PICTURE, then go crazy. Hell, if you want to take that picture and point out the problems with the way the model is posing, or the outfit, go crazy, because that's part of "the job" just like commenting on the Flames jerseys or Shane O'Brien's puck skills. But to take a picture and point out the body issues of the woman? Sorry, THAT isn't how society works.

But see, a model gets paid because of her looks. She's selling her looks as a product meant for consumption. Me as a consumer, I am fully within my rights to complain about my displeasure or exclaim my pleasure of the product I'm being presented. Because of her chosen field, she should also be aware that her looks will be scrutinized since that is the product which she chose to put out there for consumption.

Those comments aren't ever directed at women in general, but rather at the specific subject which is the model in the picture. So saying something like "Meh her ass is too big" should be looked at as poster A believes that model B's ass is too large. It doesn't mean that all men think that all women's asses are too large and therefore they all need to lose weight.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by _Q_

But see, a model gets paid because of her looks. She's selling her looks as a product meant for consumption. Me as a consumer, I am fully within my rights to complain about my displeasure or exclaim my pleasure of the product I'm being presented. Because of her chosen field, she should also be aware that her looks will be scrutinized since that is the product which she chose to put out there for consumption.

Those comments aren't ever directed at women in general, but rather at the specific subject which is the model in the picture. So saying something like "Meh her ass is too big" should be looked at as poster A believes that model B's ass is too large. It doesn't mean that all men think that all women's asses are too large and therefore they all need to lose weight.

Ok, so out of curiosity, your right to judge the personal photographs of women exists where in this example?

EDIT: And as a long aside, since you're the consumer, what is it you've purchased? What is it do you believe has been marketed to you? You are not buying the body of the woman, or even the picture of the woman, but in this consumer scenario you are purchasing a product, women are NOT that product.

Generally, beautiful women are used to promote a product (the debate over how that promotes the objectification of women is another), they are not the product. When a model poses for a photo-shoot, her beauty is being used to promote the sales of a magazine, the work of a photographer, a brand in general. The "consumers" of her as a "product" are the companies that hire her, not you, not perverts behind a keyboard, but the companies that actually PAY her.

YOU are often not the "consumer" of a model's work, nor are they the "product" which you are purchasing.

Go ahead, name one model you purchased, even one image you purchased from the YLYL thread, and then tell me you're the consumer and you have a right to judge the "product."

I feel filthy even trying to logically address that misogynistic line of thinking.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Ok, so out of curiosity, your right to judge the personal photographs of women exists where in this example?

I'm not sure I ever judged the personal photographs of women.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by _Q_

But see, a model gets paid because of her looks. She's selling her looks as a product meant for consumption. Me as a consumer, I am fully within my rights to complain about my displeasure or exclaim my pleasure of the product I'm being presented. Because of her chosen field, she should also be aware that her looks will be scrutinized since that is the product which she chose to put out there for consumption.

Those comments aren't ever directed at women in general, but rather at the specific subject which is the model in the picture. So saying something like "Meh her ass is too big" should be looked at as poster A believes that model B's ass is too large. It doesn't mean that all men think that all women's asses are too large and therefore they all need to lose weight.

Wow. Can I change my vote to the get rid of it option?

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I'm not sure I ever judged the personal photographs of women.

Yeah, you sure did:

Originally Posted by _Q_

Well those pictures are nothing special to me because there's nothing beautiful about them. They're crudely done cell phone pictures, with poor lighting and no make-up. The point of that post in the other thread was that you've gotta be seriously messed up to get off on those pictures.
.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

I'm not just hung up on that. The point is that you have no right to pass judgement on those people. You can't argue that it's ok to judge models BECAUSE they take pictures for the public, but judge the private photographs of women that you were never intended to see. You know what female celebrities without make-up or without production quality look like? Women. Regular women. So by passing judgement on them as "Not beautiful" because they don't have make-up or aren't photoshopped, you are insulting pretty much every woman on the planet. Great work.

Can you see the differentiation between judging a professional modelling pic designed to sell the physical form and a private picture of a woman?

Or are both "insulting to pretty much every woman on the planet"?

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Can you see the differentiation between judging a professional modelling pic designed to sell the physical form and a private picture of a woman?

Or are both "insulting to pretty much every woman on the planet"?

I'm curious to see if _Q_ can, because so far he's judged both.

Can you see the difference between a company who hires models to pose for pictures for them, and a random guy on the internet judging them?

Because one is actually a consumer of what they're "selling" (hint: it isn't the creep who she isn't marketing herself to).

Maybe people need a lesson in what it is a model does, what their actual job is, and who they actually market themselves towards. Because it kind of seems like a whole lot of people think they're magically consumers of women because they see pictures of them on their internet.

[Itse]

I have to say that I agree that if you're a (sterotypical) model, your looks are to a certain degree fair game. A model is specifically turning him/herself into an object to be looked at and knowingly entering him/herself into what is essentially a beauty competition in which only the most popular looks can make a living.

It's kind of the same thing that it's perfectly okay for everyone in the hockey world to discuss PK Subbans fat percentage.

Of course if I was king of the world we'd do away with professional modelling altogether and put strict regulations on photomanipulation, but I'm not.

There are exceptions to every rule, and this is one of them.

Of course there's limits to what I'd consider okay. "Butterface", "dirty hippie feet", "gross tattoos" etc are not what I'd consider "criticism".

[DiracSpike]

Seems like the thing to do is only allow for pic posting. People can still post pictures of what they find attractive and any potential for lewd commenting can be eliminated. Even the posts that weren't offensive like "ya man she's so hot" don't really add anything of value.

[Antithesis]

People are behaving in such a manner that is causing (it seems) significant discomfort to a group of members on the site. I really fail to see how the response to this can be anything other than:

- What can we do to fix this?
- Taking the steps to follow through
- Working toward a more inclusive community

For what it's worth, and it may well be very little, the women posting in this thread have made very reasonable, well thought out, and thought-provoking responses. Additionally, this group has participated in meaningful and (I've found) valuable ways over the years. It would be a shame to lose them to something that should be easily fixed.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Maybe people need a lesson in what it is a model does, what their actual job is, and who they actually market themselves towards. Because it kind of seems like a whole lot of people think they're magically consumers of women because they see pictures of them on their internet.

Well, it depends a lot on what kind of a model we're talking about exactly, but if your aim is to be a star model or an actress, then you absolutely want to be a favorite of horny teenage boys, dudebros and internet creeps. Those guys bring in a lot of clicks and eyeballs in the attention-centered world of wannabe celebrities.

Which is a huge reason why I really can't understand why some women would want that life.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Itse

Well, it depends a lot on what kind of a model we're talking about exactly, but if your aim is to be a star model or an actress, then you absolutely want to be a favorite of horny teenage boys, dudebros and internet creeps. Those guys bring in a lot of clicks and eyeballs in the attention-centered world of wannabe celebrities.



Which is a huge reason why I really can't understand why some women would want that life.

Again, while looks may play a major factor in popularity of people in those professions, that's not what models or actresses are selling to the general public.

We do not buy actresses or models. We do not even buy anything they specifically are selling. We may buy movies, or magazines, but any actual "product" being sold by these people is being consumed by those who produce those movies and magazines. That "product" is not being sold to the general public.

People are not products, and to say a lonely boy on the Internet has the right to publicly critique the physical appearance of a model because he feels he is the consumer and she is the product is not only wrong and shows a complete lack of understanding, but crass and repulsive.

Sadly, the "product/consumer" argument is not the only irksome one that people use in their defence of their right to treat women like objects.

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

I like the idea of the thread in general, I'm almost 40 and appreciate the female form, in all of it's glory. Sharing examples of what I feel is beautiful and seeing what others appreciate is something I enjoy. One of the reasons I spend time here is because it represents my many interests.

That being said, the moment I posted pictures of my wife, whom I consider gorgeous, with or without makeup, and got ridiculed for it, was the moment I knew I could live without the thread.

People's tastes are always going to differ, but the respect piece should be universal.

Your wife IS beautiful, and you're a lucky guy.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Again, while looks may play a major factor in popularity of people in those professions, that's not what models or actresses are selling to the general public.

We do not buy actresses or models. We do not even buy anything they specifically are selling. We may buy movies, or magazines, but any actual "product" being sold by these people is being consumed by those who produce those movies and magazines. That "product" is not being sold to the general public.

People are not products, and to say a lonely boy on the Internet has the right to publicly critique the physical appearance of a model because he feels he is the consumer and she is the product is not only wrong and shows a complete lack of understanding, but crass and repulsive.

Sadly, the "product/consumer" argument is not the only irksome one that people use in their defence of their right to treat women like objects.

I agree with you here but it is in direct contridiction with what the marketer is doing. Especially with models andwith actresses doing a maxim spread. They are trying to sell the model as the product and get you to associate the product with the model. They want you to buy the product as a proxy to purchasing the model. In the case of actresses in maxim type magizines they are very clearly selling themselves in order to make money or promote a movie they are in.

So the industry producing the pictures is most definately trying to sell women as objects. I might be convincing myself that the pictures themselves are the problem and not just the comments

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

We do not buy actresses or models. We do not even buy anything they specifically are selling. We may buy movies, or magazines, but any actual "product" being sold by these people is being consumed by those who produce those movies and magazines. That "product" is not being sold to the general public.

That is purely a matter of definition, and I think most professionals in marketing would disagree with you. To me your logic sounds like the actual product is the movie ticket, not the movie. I think it's perfectly valid to say that the actor is the product that someone is buying. The whole shebang of "going to the movies" is only the extremely complicated system through which that persons money is transferred.

...to say a lonely boy on the Internet has the right to publicly critique the physical appearance of a model because he feels he is the consumer and she is the product is not only wrong and shows a complete lack of understanding, but crass and repulsive.

I'm sorry if you think it's crass and repulsive, but I think we'll have to just agree to disagree. For the record I think everything about that system is mostly sick and harmful to both genders in general.

In any case, this is kind of a silly argument to have, since what a couple of (more or less) feminists think about this stuff isn't going to change the world in any way.

[taco.vidal]

Lonely boy? Thats pretty condescending to whoever you directed that reply.

It sounds like you have a problem with the fact that "sex sells" and that you don't have a good understanding of how marketing works.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Again, while looks may play a major factor in popularity of people in those professions, that's not what models or actresses are selling to the general public.

We do not buy actresses or models. We do not even buy anything they specifically are selling. We may buy movies, or magazines, but any actual "product" being sold by these people is being consumed by those who produce those movies and magazines. That "product" is not being sold to the general public.

People are not products, and to say a lonely boy on the Internet has the right to publicly critique the physical appearance of a model because he feels he is the consumer and she is the product is not only wrong and shows a complete lack of understanding, but crass and repulsive.

Sadly, the "product/consumer" argument is not the only irksome one that people use in their defence of their right to treat women like objects.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

Lonely boy? Thats pretty condescending to whoever you directed that reply.



It sounds like you have a problem with the fact that "sex sells" and that you don't have a good understanding of how marketing works.

Au contraire, "sex sells" is an undebatable reality. I simply have a problem with people proclaiming they are purchasing women, which thus gives them rule to superficially critique them ad infinitum.

"Lonely boy" was not directed at any specific person, but rather a characterisation of the typical person guilty of offering minute criticisms (too fat, weird tattoo, don't like her haircut, would not bang) that are offensive and irrelevant.

If that chapped your ass, I'd hate to see how you would've reacted to the more apt "Neanderthal" or "Cave Dweller" which came a close second and third. That said I'm not too concerned, as anyone offended by the comment is likely guilty of the original offence to which I speak, and likely guilty of much worse labels than "Lonely boy".

[woob]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Au contraire, "sex sells" is an undebatable reality. I simply have a problem with people proclaiming they are purchasing women, which thus gives them rule to superficially critique them ad infinitum.

"Lonely boy" was not directed at any specific person, but rather a characterisation of the typical person guilty of offering minute criticisms (too fat, weird tattoo, don't like her haircut, would not bang) that are offensive and irrelevant.

If that chapped your ass, I'd hate to see how you would've reacted to the more apt "Neanderthal" or "Cave Dweller" which came a close second and third. That said I'm not too concerned, as anyone offended by the comment is likely guilty of the original offence to which I speak, and likely guilty of much worse labels than "Lonely boy".

Oh Chill - You can't go chastising people about their right to judge and such and then do the exact same thing yourself. Your argument kind of loses steam and you look a bit hypocritical.

Or is it the ol' "me calling a group of guys names is ok because rampant sexism, misogyny, etc!"?