View Single Post
Old 11-21-2014, 09:19 PM   #371
_Hez_
Hez
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, AU
Posts: 775
Rep Power: 14 _Hez_ beat up jewski
Re: The (new) Fail/Win Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raad View Post
So yeah, again this is not upheld by a systematic sexual objectification of men (which would have to be necessary for your initial point to be valid) but by a language that devalues femininity. If we were talking about women calling male nurses faggots in hospitals I'd get your point.
I'm sorry, have you met a chick? They're not the sexual equivalent to "I can't see colour". They objectify as much as we do. And I can't help but notice that your whole side of the conversation presumes heterosexuality. Chicks objectify other chicks, and guys objectify other guys. There is nothing exclusive about objectification.

We are all a product of sex for fucks sake (intended pun), of course we're all going to be thinking about it and see potential partners in people. Am I the only one WTFing here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raad View Post
Again, their sexual objectification does not relate to any relevant historical or social context. I mean, do you understand why Dave Chappelle can paint his face white but why blackface is offensive? This is (kinda) the same thing.
Really, now?
Black face has a direct historical context to slavery and oppressive times for black people. It was actually done during that era.

Hipsters wearing ugly shirts of half-naked women has never been done in the history of oppressing women. My god what a disingenuous analogy.
Real world examples of sexy half-naked women exist everywhere, go to a beach and talk to them, they're fine with it. Why aren't you?

Maybe the line you're drawing in the sand shouldn't be at "guy wearing cartoon shirt of stripper-esque woman", maybe it should at "guy wearing cartoon shirt of harem".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raad View Post
I'm not actually arguing that we force pop stars to put clothes on or that we should burn this shirt or whatever. I'm just arguing about how sexual objectification of women relates to sexism and gender inequality in general. Words, cultural expressions etc don't exist independently in some kind of vacuum.
We've come full circle and you seem to be saying that sex sells, for both men and women. Yes, we're in agreement. My problem is in the alarmist and exclusive way you talk about these supposed problems, like it's only females who experience this.

Doesn't The fact that you show acknowledgment but complete disinterest to the male equivalent of objectification demonstrate that objectification isn't actually a problem? Or are you saying that women are just too prissy to handle a cartoon half-naked body printed on a shirt?
This is why people complain that the feminism you subscribe to doesn't empower women, it makes them out to be delicate little flowers that can't handle a shirt.

Also, if a chick sees a cartoon of a naked chick and is offended by their portrayal, maybe they shouldn't identify with the picture. Maybe the cartoon wasn't a portrait drawn for them personally. Maybe the world doesn't revolve around them. Maybe they should go protest money in politics instead of protesting some hipsters fashion sense.
_Hez_ is offline   Reply With Quote