|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
Woman have the RIGHT to do whatever they damn well please. It's your placing decisions above reproach from others that I don't get, or at least that appears to be the case.
To draw a parallel, I don't demand that black people not use the word nigger, equally I can hold that use of language up to scrutiny. You're discussing the symbolism and significance of terms, well IMO the use of nigger perpetuates the race divide, regardless of the mouth it comes from. For non-blacks it's obviously a pejorative term, for blacks it is definining them as the 'other' group in society.
Likewise, to me a woman using her 'erotic capital' is her decision, but society-wide such behaviour reinforces objectification of women. Just because somebody does something of their own volition does not remove the potential for it having a wider significance
|
On May 03 2013 05:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:23 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:20 Wombat_NI wrote:
You're creating this false dichotomy between 'wants to be attractive' and 'doesn't care about her looks' when we're clearly talking about something else.
People telling the latter to show her boobs is as bad as people calling the former immoral. Is that so difficult? This is complete nonsense. It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them? You actually haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about or, apparently, what anyone else is talking about. Literally nobody is arguing any of these things except you. Um... you actually said that you think its immoral. I don't say anything at all unless I'm asked. And if I'm asked, I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. What I'm standing on has been the same since I started talking in this thread. Women are allowed to do what they want--you acting like a puritan when you see someone naked has nothing to do with them wanting to do it. If they are forced into it, if they have no other choice but to do it, if they are not doing it out of their own free will--then yes its problematic; but not because they're naked, but because their being forced to do things they don't want to do. But if a woman decides she wants to look nice she doesn't need to hear crap from people like you calling her immoral.
You are the epitome of every reason why nobody takes feminism seriously these days. Do you know what a strawman is?
For the millionth time, I don't have a problem with women being naked. I don't have a problem with men being naked. I don't have a problem with anyone being naked. I have a problem when people objectify themselves by selling their sexual appeal, robbed of any personal factors, people who view them as objects. It isn't a matter of people being "allowed" to do things. It's a matter of whether those actions are morally good or bad. I could spend the rest of my life doing absolutely nothing and being mean to everyone I meet. This is something I'm allowed to do, but it's also incredibly cynical, and in my opinion, immoral.
Do you finally fucking understand how something being immoral has nothing to do with whether someone should be allowed to do something? I'm not trying to have people locked up for being naked. I'm saying I disagree with the objectification of sexuality which various forms of prostitution (even willing prostitution) propagate.
|
On May 03 2013 05:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:23 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:20 Wombat_NI wrote:
You're creating this false dichotomy between 'wants to be attractive' and 'doesn't care about her looks' when we're clearly talking about something else.
People telling the latter to show her boobs is as bad as people calling the former immoral. Is that so difficult? This is complete nonsense. It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them? You actually haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about or, apparently, what anyone else is talking about. Literally nobody is arguing any of these things except you. Um... you actually said that you think its immoral. I don't say anything at all unless I'm asked. And if I'm asked, I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. What I'm standing on has been the same since I started talking in this thread. Women are allowed to do what they want--you acting like a puritan when you see someone naked has nothing to do with them wanting to do it. If they are forced into it, if they have no other choice but to do it, if they are not doing it out of their own free will--then yes its problematic; but not because they're naked, but because their being forced to do things they don't want to do. But if a woman decides she wants to look nice she doesn't need to hear crap from people like you calling her immoral.
Why is a woman's desire to take her clothe off ok, while his desire to put her clothe back on is crap?
Not taking any sides, just curious. 
|
On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:23 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:20 Wombat_NI wrote:
You're creating this false dichotomy between 'wants to be attractive' and 'doesn't care about her looks' when we're clearly talking about something else.
People telling the latter to show her boobs is as bad as people calling the former immoral. Is that so difficult? This is complete nonsense. It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them? You actually haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about or, apparently, what anyone else is talking about. Literally nobody is arguing any of these things except you. Um... you actually said that you think its immoral. I don't say anything at all unless I'm asked. And if I'm asked, I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman.
Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. It is utterly detestable to assign an arbitrary price to one's sexuality or self-worth. I am against such behaviour for the same reason that I'd be against selling oneself into slavery.
I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes.
|
While the response she has been getting are horrible and I can understand her frustration it has less to do with people being sexist and everything to do with people being idiots. If an idiot sees a german guy making a youtube video, they will call him a nazi. If it's an asian or a black guy they will use what ever stupid racist slur they can come up with. It naturally follows that when they see a women they will make sexist remarks.
It's not only understandable that more women in general don't want to be part of an online community, it's a wonder anyone does. TL is one of the best moderated places and there are few places like it, but even so a lot of threads here are absolute garbage. I dread to think what it's like in other places.
|
On May 03 2013 05:59 Morken wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:23 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
People telling the latter to show her boobs is as bad as people calling the former immoral. Is that so difficult? This is complete nonsense. It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them? You actually haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about or, apparently, what anyone else is talking about. Literally nobody is arguing any of these things except you. Um... you actually said that you think its immoral. I don't say anything at all unless I'm asked. And if I'm asked, I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. What I'm standing on has been the same since I started talking in this thread. Women are allowed to do what they want--you acting like a puritan when you see someone naked has nothing to do with them wanting to do it. If they are forced into it, if they have no other choice but to do it, if they are not doing it out of their own free will--then yes its problematic; but not because they're naked, but because their being forced to do things they don't want to do. But if a woman decides she wants to look nice she doesn't need to hear crap from people like you calling her immoral. Why is a woman's desire to take her clothe off ok, while his desire to put her clothe back on is crap? Not taking any sides, just curious.
Because he does not decide when her clothes come on or off.
|
On May 03 2013 04:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:36 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:28 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 04:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:18 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 04:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:06 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:59 dUTtrOACh wrote:[quote] So, zero tolerance for intolerance, no conviction and no particularly strong emotions one way or another. It sounds very indifferent to me. That's the problem with the "playing the good guy side". If you're unwilling to hate any side for any reason, you're basically saying you don't give a shit, which is basically what the other person is saying. I think deep down, you both agree with one another. EDIT: As long as sexism, racism, and other isms exist, people will react to them differently when or if they encounter them. Not everyone has the same hands off approach to insults. For some people they mean fisticuffs, and for others they mean hurt feelings  , and for others, they mean nothing - water off a duck's back. Disagreeing with someone is not an excuse to police them. You can hate and dislike anything you want but it is not an excuse to actively attack them. I don't like it when WBC attacks people--it's not their right. I will not attack WBC--it's not my right. If I was an athiest--that does not give me the right to attack a catholic. If I was a catholic--that does not give me the right to attack an athiest. So do you think I should be allowed to say that, irrespective of their actions, the beliefs held by the WBC are not conducive to moral behaviour? Can I further say that I detest their hateful credo? Even if the WBC didn't hurt anyone, I'd like to think that I could say their beliefs are nonsense just by reading one of their pamphlets. You could definitely hate everything they do. But you would not be in the right to walk up to one of them and start yelling and screaming at them saying that their lifestyle is wrong for much the same reason that they are not in the right to walk up to you and yell at you about how your lifestyle is wrong. But you personally hating and disagreeing with a viewpoint is natural and human. Its not an excuse to be dicks about it. The WBC are being dicks about it going around yelling and protesting against lifestyles they disagree with--do you really want to be like them and do the same? I don't go up to random women and inquire about their sexual history, but if one voluntarily tells me about it I have absolutely no qualms saying that I think they may have behaved in a way that objectifies sexuality and is hence immoral. Similarly, if a woman does something in a public forum with a sexual motive, I'm well within my rights to voice my opinion on the matter on that public forum. Now, there's no need to be a dick about it, and generally speaking I try to be as polite as possible, but there's really no reason to be a dick ever toward anyone. For example, if a streamer becomes popular by knowingly dressing provocatively, showing her boobs, and flirting with her viewers with the obvious aim of marketing these things I can definitely say, if ever there is a public discussion about said streamer, that I find her behaviour repulsive because of the way it portrays female sexuality (i.e. as something that is an object to be sold without respect for the person behind it). Now, let me make it clear that I'm not basing this example on any actual streamer mentioned in this thread or on TL or anything like that. It's just an example. If that were the case then you're disagreeing with her marketing practices and should focus the discussion on proper allocation of product funds to hit target audiences within assumed target demographics--because none of what you said is really about her being dressed the way she is. You telling her she's being slutty does not actually target what you think your targeting. You are simply attacking her lifestyle and person hood. You asking her why she thinks her marketing plan hits the right demographics and having a discussion on screen hits and Search Engine presence based on customer marketing practices is something very much different. ...What? First off, I'm not saying she's slutty. I'm saying that I think her objectification of female sexuality is bad. I'm definitely saying that her lifestyle, in this respect at least, is bad. I'm attacking its moral legitimacy. I am not attacking her personhood; she is entitled to respect and fair treatment as a person. Furthermore, I am not telling her that she shouldn't be allowed to do what she does, but merely that I disagree with it and think that it's an immoral practice. In a similar fashion, I think people who willingly destroy their bodies with drugs are doing something wrong, despite my sympathy/empathy for their addiction. I'm not attacking their person, but instead saying that I believe their choice to have been the wrong one. Showing cleavage =/= objectification Objectification is associating a person with an object as two equal things. Her being sexy is not objectification. People only staring at her boobs is objectification. A woman walking naked is not objectification. Women being represented as prizes that a protagonist wins--is an objectification. Princess Peach is an objectification, Lara Croft is not. Lara Croft being talked about only for her boobs and ass is objectification, Chun-Li being talked about for her combos is not. Objectification is equating someone as an object instead of a person. Someone dressing up sexy is not objectification. Marketing your sexuality as an object/something to be purchased/the primary draw is objectification. What you said about search hits and whatever has nothing to do with the reason her marketing practices are inherently wrong. Being beautiful is not "inherently wrong" as you seem to think. Being a woman who is okay being beautiful =/= objectification. Her being treated as an object by the viewers is sexist. Some women retract away from the attention, others accept it as part of the deal. Attacking them for being beautiful is not however something that is ever warranted. Talking to them about whether or not they like the type of people showing up to their streams (target demographics) and asking them if they liked the online image they were presenting (search engine presence) and having there be dialogue between you two is the only way to actually discuss it. But calling them immoral for being pretty? Really?
I read through the last ~5 pages of your discussion.. So here's my take on this.
From my perspective it basically boils down to intent. Being beautiful or sexy isn't a "crime". But making a conscious decision *to* appear sexy in order to gain something (e.g. get viewers when streaming a game), is.
Maybe this hypothetical woman is just being who she is. Maybe she wears this sort of outfit everyday to feel comfortable. At the end of the day no one will admit anything. We're not trying to take a person to court to prove their "guilt" of objectifying themself to gain viewers, for example. It's all on them and their own conscience..
It's more about stereotyping and judging, I guess. A "gamer gurl" who wants attention *because* she's a girl in a world which mostly consists of guys is not unheard of. And some people dislike that kind of behaviour which isn't an unreasonable stance Imo..
So I do think that if a woman changes something about her behaviour in a way which emphasizes her body to get viewers because she *knows* that it's what men want to see, I have a right to call her on this kind of shallow behaviour.
|
On May 03 2013 06:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:59 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 05:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:23 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
This is complete nonsense. It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them? You actually haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about or, apparently, what anyone else is talking about. Literally nobody is arguing any of these things except you. Um... you actually said that you think its immoral. I don't say anything at all unless I'm asked. And if I'm asked, I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. What I'm standing on has been the same since I started talking in this thread. Women are allowed to do what they want--you acting like a puritan when you see someone naked has nothing to do with them wanting to do it. If they are forced into it, if they have no other choice but to do it, if they are not doing it out of their own free will--then yes its problematic; but not because they're naked, but because their being forced to do things they don't want to do. But if a woman decides she wants to look nice she doesn't need to hear crap from people like you calling her immoral. Why is a woman's desire to take her clothe off ok, while his desire to put her clothe back on is crap? Not taking any sides, just curious. Because he does not decide when her clothes come on or off.
Good thing I have nowhere said that I wish to be in charge of whether a woman takes her clothes on or off. Do you see me trying to illegalize prostitution or prosecute naked people?
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
Also, why is this fucking negative journalism so prevalent?
Where is the article praising the SC2 community for it's acceptance of transsexual players for example? A group that is much more discriminated against than homosexuals or women by mainstream society at large?
|
I think she's got noble intentions but the reality of what she's trying to do is just naive - she's trying to moderate the internet.
At least there's less noble causes you could fight for I guess.
|
On May 02 2013 20:16 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 20:09 Ahelvin wrote:On May 02 2013 20:06 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 20:03 Ahelvin wrote:On May 02 2013 20:01 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:59 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:57 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:56 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:55 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:52 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
But as a women when she speaks she speaks purely to get male attention because she's overreacting. Literally the response in this topic. I was expecting more from you KwarK. But if you're going to turn this into a circle jerk of "feminism is right" without bringing any semblance of an argument that pertains to the case in question, and not some vague "woman have it rough irl" that isn't even relevant, I'll just concede and find something better to do with my time. You're objectively wrong. The topic is better without more wrong on it. Feel free to leave. Thanks for pointing out how I'm wrong with actual examples other than "you're wrong". I didn't see the point if you were already passive aggressively leaving. I'm interested because you always claim that some of the views I agree with are "objectively wrong" and "sexist" but in no thread that I have seen you post in, did you actually refute any of it other than just fluff circlejerky statements that weren't even relevant to the case at hand. So in that sense, I'm really wondering if you can follow through and make an actual case. Ok. Would you argue that men and women are considered in the same way when it comes to what they are expected to do, how they should react given a certain situation, and that they have absolutely equal opportunities no matter what kind of activity they want to engage into? If you do not, please explain why. Personally, the conclusion that I have come to after looking at some of these issues is that human society will never get rid of discrimination without also getting rid of individualism. But that's likely grounds for another debate entirely. The problem I have with feminism defenders is how they never also look at the advantages that sexism would entail for women. Wrong. Entirely wrong. Feminism is all about making people conscious of the prejudice associated with each gender (and men are also subjected to it, the proof being the existence of words such as "man up" or "get some balls" : men are always expected to act strong, tough...) in order for individuals to be more free of doing what they really want to do and being what they really want to be, independently of what the society would like them to be given their gender. In theory. But in practice, tell me, why is no woman complaining that she is far more likely to receive custody of a child after a divorce? Why is no woman complaining about alimony, and the whole legal mechanism surrounding that? Why do they not also fight against the advantages that the same discrimination brings them?
Please, link me the source where you got the information that no woman ever complained about or problematized the things you mentioned
What makes women that point out injustices liable to fight against everything that is wrong with society? You might as well say "Why do you, as an anti-racist, fight only against racism????? Why do you not decrease poverty, or fight for womens right to abortion????". It's contra-productive to demand these things. What would be productive would be to take these issues, for an example that it is likelier for the mother to get custody of a child than for the father, that you clearly care about, on yourself. You can fight for that, I wouldn't blame you. On the contrary, even, I would respect you as I do with anyone who fights for a better and more just world.
Thanks btw for writing the OP
|
On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:23 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
People telling the latter to show her boobs is as bad as people calling the former immoral. Is that so difficult? This is complete nonsense. It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them? You actually haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about or, apparently, what anyone else is talking about. Literally nobody is arguing any of these things except you. Um... you actually said that you think its immoral. I don't say anything at all unless I'm asked. And if I'm asked, I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes.
Woman taking her clothes off =/= being a prostitute
If she was being forced to take her clothes off
If she was so financially destitute that she had no other choice but to take her clothes off
If she only took her clothes off because the people on stream kept asking for it and she's afraid to lose viewers
Then that would be a problem. If she, herself, wants to take her clothes off that is for her to decide. You being against it is your opinion--but gives you no right to attack her. For much the same reason the Westboro Baptist Church has no right to attack people either despite their moral qualms against them. Both you and the WBC have the right to be offended, and have the right to disagree with women/gays. Neither of you have the right to attack them.
Guess what, calling someone morally wrong because they show some skin *is* attacking them.
|
IMG: Thank you for not wearing a low cut top with your boobs out for views, i actually enjoyed this video due to what was on it, not because some girl has her boobs out and wants view like most youtube girls these days
Then, of course, there are comments that seem nice but are equally inherently sexist. In the picture above, ‘JackArtStudios’ has thanked me for wearing uncomfortable t-shirts and used some hugely negative stereotypes. Some women may exploit their sexuality for views but others do it for comfort, or because they didn’t want to change their clothing. Or because they didn’t consider anyone would be indecent enough to harass them because they’re physically female. There is no logical reason to assume that any woman has changed her apparel to appeal to you.
Drawing such a bold equality between "Yo bitch! Do you swallow" and thanks for not using your boobs for views is going too far. I get that feminists wish men didn't view videos with beautiful women. That the movement is on a crusade against stereotypes and I get that. She makes a logical leap from crass sexist language and pervasive stereotypes (Pretty women wear sexy clothing for views (1), and most youtube girls dress in sexy, comfortable clothing for the purpose today). If she, and other feminists that think similarly, want to change society, realize that a campaign anonymous posting of hateful sexist messages is radically different from comments that "seem nice" but contain stereotypes.
I think drawing sweeping logical equivalencies is one reason some feminists acquire a reputation not entirely contained in the campaign for gender equality.
|
On May 03 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:23 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
This is complete nonsense. It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them? You actually haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about or, apparently, what anyone else is talking about. Literally nobody is arguing any of these things except you. Um... you actually said that you think its immoral. I don't say anything at all unless I'm asked. And if I'm asked, I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes. Woman taking her clothes off =/= being a prostitute
Selling it is, though, which is what I've said from the start. Stop strawmanning me or I'm just not going to reply to you. It's the SELLING that's the moral issue, not the taking off of clothes.
|
On May 03 2013 06:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:59 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 05:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:23 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
This is complete nonsense. It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them? You actually haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about or, apparently, what anyone else is talking about. Literally nobody is arguing any of these things except you. Um... you actually said that you think its immoral. I don't say anything at all unless I'm asked. And if I'm asked, I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. What I'm standing on has been the same since I started talking in this thread. Women are allowed to do what they want--you acting like a puritan when you see someone naked has nothing to do with them wanting to do it. If they are forced into it, if they have no other choice but to do it, if they are not doing it out of their own free will--then yes its problematic; but not because they're naked, but because their being forced to do things they don't want to do. But if a woman decides she wants to look nice she doesn't need to hear crap from people like you calling her immoral. Why is a woman's desire to take her clothe off ok, while his desire to put her clothe back on is crap? Not taking any sides, just curious. Because he does not decide when her clothes come on or off.
This is a typical answer in such a debate. You don't even try to understand what other people mean. In your mind, everyone who doesnt agree with you, is an evil man who only desires to control women, strip them off their rights and keep them as sandwich slaves in their kitchen.
You, just as any other person who starts with this gender equality crap, doesnt care the slightest about actual equality and freedom.
Of course it is a woman's right (everyones right infact) to run around in a skimpy dress or strip infront of a camera, but so is it everyone's right to not like this behavior and deem it immoral.
You dont want men and women to be equal, you just want men to shut the fuck up, if they dont agree with women.
|
I think the words sexism and misogyny just muddy the discussion here, with even the people that use them most unable to give a consistent definition. I think it would be easier to argue "calling a girl names is wrong" or "phrases like 'tits or gtfo' are degrading", rather than "these things are wrong because they are sexist". Because then you have people bending and twisting the words misogyny and sexism to include or exclude whatever acts they choose.
Could we not just say "it is wrong to make bullying and harassing comments, and if you silently allow it to happen in your community, you are complicit." rather than "the community is sexist and misogynist, fix it"? I'm pretty sure everyone is able to empathize with the experience of being bullied and harassed, why destroy that natural empathy by using technical language of the social sciences, often in a loose and misleading manner?
|
On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:23 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:20 Wombat_NI wrote:
You're creating this false dichotomy between 'wants to be attractive' and 'doesn't care about her looks' when we're clearly talking about something else.
People telling the latter to show her boobs is as bad as people calling the former immoral. Is that so difficult? This is complete nonsense. It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them? You actually haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about or, apparently, what anyone else is talking about. Literally nobody is arguing any of these things except you. Um... you actually said that you think its immoral. I don't say anything at all unless I'm asked. And if I'm asked, I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act.
Women already have the legal right to act the way they want to act. The way you're phrasing it suggests that you want women to be free from the need to be "normal", that is, you think they should be able to do whatever the heck they want and not be judged.
Well, I've got bad news for you bro, the human race is against that. No one is exempt from the omnipresent requirement, the absolute necessity, to be normal. If you want to let your freak flag fly, then by all means do so, there is nothing stopping you except for the potential for major social consequences.
If you seek to remove those social consequences, then that is a hopeless task. It will never happen. It is almost in our nature to despise those that are abnormal. At the very least an abnormal person engenders far less positive emotion in his fellow man, to the point where the best he could hope for would be things like ambivalent tolerance, amusement or pity.
There were always be a "normal" way to behave, and there will always be consequences in breaking from that norm.
Deal with it.
I know I had to.
|
On May 02 2013 18:33 FrogOfWar wrote:
Quote:
Before I record the videos I create for various different companies I change my shirt from the loosely fitting singlet I usually wear during the day, to a high-collared t-shirt that will minimise my chances of being objectified. It’s less comfortable, it’s not what I would generally choose to wear, but I do it in attempt to avoid comments about my breasts, my chest, and my physique in general – I try to negate any harassment I possibly can.
...
Obviously, it doesn’t work. Instead of having people disregard gender entirely as it really shouldn’t be relevant to a video about game news, there are streams of responses from men complaining that a woman hasn’t revealed herself to them, as though it’s expected or it’s their right to ask for that. Not only is this incredibly discouraging – these videos take hours and hours of effort to create – it’s easy to feel like you simply can’t win. You can only ignore the comments, but that would make responding to the pleasant viewers or the ones who ask genuine questions impossible.
Sorry this is just rediculous, she prefers to wear clothes which accent her breasts and physique which will obviously draw looks, but as soon as she's on the web she's somehow disturbed by that thought and changes her clothes?
Also anonimity will lead to people being bigger jerks than they are. get over it ffs. everyone is offended by everything nowadays, its really quite sad.
|
On May 03 2013 06:15 Mothra wrote:
I think the words sexism and misogyny just muddy the discussion here, with even the people that use them most unable to give a consistent definition. I think it would be easier to argue "calling a girl names is wrong" or "phrases like 'tits or gtfo' are degrading", rather than "this is wrong because it is sexist". Because then you have people bending and twisting the words misogyny and sexism to include or exclude whatever acts they choose.
Could we not just say "it is wrong to make bullying and harassing comments, and if you silently allow it to happen in your community you are complicit." rather than "the community is sexist and misogynist, fix it"? I'm pretty sure everyone is able to empathize with the experience of being bullied and harassed, why destroy that natural empathy by using technical language of the social sciences, often in a loose and misleading manner?
You are completely right, but that would not sell well. That's what all this is about, that's why kotaku published this article. It's about getting views and making money with controversial issues. No one would post an article about how mean people on the internet are to beginners in starcraft who stream and screw up, because that would not sell well and therefore nobody cares about it.
You speak the truth, but sadly, there is no money to be earned with truth.
|
On May 03 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't?
It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them? You actually haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about or, apparently, what anyone else is talking about. Literally nobody is arguing any of these things except you. Um... you actually said that you think its immoral. I don't say anything at all unless I'm asked. And if I'm asked, I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes. Woman taking her clothes off =/= being a prostitute Selling it is, though, which is what I've said from the start. Stop strawmanning me or I'm just not going to reply to you. It's the SELLING that's the moral issue, not the taking off of clothes.
Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist.
you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
