|
On June 08 2013 07:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 07:13 theodorus12 wrote:On June 08 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 07:00 theodorus12 wrote:On June 08 2013 06:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 06:58 JimmiC wrote:
"modeling is about having good, in-fashion looks. what do you prefer athletics be about, the decades of training and the competition or how some woman happened to be blessed with talent and looks, the latter by sheer luck of genes?"
Athletics is about the competition, training so on, and for the record many peoples success in athletics has to do with "the sheer luck of genes" No way I can even jump like lebron or be that size no matter the training.
But just because Anna Kornikova got money and fame from her looks she didn't win a single extra match (unless the oppenent was mezmorized by her booty and missed the ball) In fact she never won a tournment.
"
What her looks got her is money through marketing and modeling. So I really don't see your point.
And many a guy has been overated by his looks, or personality, and made more money because of it. Look at Jon fitch in mma because he is boring he made less money then worse MMA atheletes. It's because pro sports are a entertainment buisness, those that entertain, whether it be looks, personality what ever.
ALSO if you want me to be really factual but politically incorrect, outside of a very very very few women stricly athletically speaking you would never watch them because they are worse. Slower, weaker so on. Danica would be a bit of a exception except the fact that she is a women has got her many benifts. On Athletisicm alone she probably would have never made it. No women Basketball player could compete, hockey, soccer, so on.
So by pure athletism womens sports should not exist just one for both genders, where only the best are,and it would be 99.9999999% men. It is posters like this that I wish I could block them from TL... Why? Because he is right and it hurts your feelings? People enjoy watching competition and having those competitions have arbitrary selling points. So whether the competition is Starcraft, Basketball, Magic the Gathering, Football, Chess, Hockey, etc... It doesn't matter what that competition is, there is someone out there who enjoys that sport. There is someone out there who enjoys watching billiards, even if billiard players are not as strong as football players. There are people who enjoy watching Nascar--despite nascar drivers being terrible at running compared to sprinters. There is a niche for everyone and telling those niche groups that their opinions don't count because they don't align with yours is severely xenophobic. You can't compare billiard to football etc. Why would I want to watch lesser (female) players playing a sport, when I could watch the men game and enjoy a better game? It's the same reason no one wants to watch bronze league tournaments. Most of the viewers of female sports most likely only tune in to watch some boobs... The US viewership watches more college sports than professional sports despite college sports being athletically inferior in every way. Every group has its fans.
I guess most guys who watch college football are in college themselves and thus have a relationship to the teams etc and most college players are probably still way better than the top female players.
|
On June 08 2013 07:24 theodorus12 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 07:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 07:13 theodorus12 wrote:On June 08 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 07:00 theodorus12 wrote:On June 08 2013 06:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 06:58 JimmiC wrote:
"modeling is about having good, in-fashion looks. what do you prefer athletics be about, the decades of training and the competition or how some woman happened to be blessed with talent and looks, the latter by sheer luck of genes?"
Athletics is about the competition, training so on, and for the record many peoples success in athletics has to do with "the sheer luck of genes" No way I can even jump like lebron or be that size no matter the training.
But just because Anna Kornikova got money and fame from her looks she didn't win a single extra match (unless the oppenent was mezmorized by her booty and missed the ball) In fact she never won a tournment.
"
What her looks got her is money through marketing and modeling. So I really don't see your point.
And many a guy has been overated by his looks, or personality, and made more money because of it. Look at Jon fitch in mma because he is boring he made less money then worse MMA atheletes. It's because pro sports are a entertainment buisness, those that entertain, whether it be looks, personality what ever.
ALSO if you want me to be really factual but politically incorrect, outside of a very very very few women stricly athletically speaking you would never watch them because they are worse. Slower, weaker so on. Danica would be a bit of a exception except the fact that she is a women has got her many benifts. On Athletisicm alone she probably would have never made it. No women Basketball player could compete, hockey, soccer, so on.
So by pure athletism womens sports should not exist just one for both genders, where only the best are,and it would be 99.9999999% men. It is posters like this that I wish I could block them from TL... Why? Because he is right and it hurts your feelings? People enjoy watching competition and having those competitions have arbitrary selling points. So whether the competition is Starcraft, Basketball, Magic the Gathering, Football, Chess, Hockey, etc... It doesn't matter what that competition is, there is someone out there who enjoys that sport. There is someone out there who enjoys watching billiards, even if billiard players are not as strong as football players. There are people who enjoy watching Nascar--despite nascar drivers being terrible at running compared to sprinters. There is a niche for everyone and telling those niche groups that their opinions don't count because they don't align with yours is severely xenophobic. You can't compare billiard to football etc. Why would I want to watch lesser (female) players playing a sport, when I could watch the men game and enjoy a better game? It's the same reason no one wants to watch bronze league tournaments. Most of the viewers of female sports most likely only tune in to watch some boobs... The US viewership watches more college sports than professional sports despite college sports being athletically inferior in every way. Every group has its fans. I guess most guys who watch college football are in college themselves and thus have a relationship to the teams etc and most college players are probably still way better than the top female players.
But if we're talking about only watching the best--why watch college when you can watch pros. The reason is because everyone has an niche that they like. Some like college, some like pro, some like women's. 50% of the population can relate to women's sports.
|
On June 08 2013 02:12 Zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 02:06 KingAce wrote:On June 08 2013 02:03 Zeo wrote:On June 08 2013 01:45 theodorus12 wrote:
Just looking at this topic I knew the op is from Sweden. What is it with you Swedes and all this forced political correctness and feminism.
So maybe girls in sports are sexualized, who cares? I mean its a huge selling point for them, if I want to see real sports or athletes who show what is possible with the human body I would watch superior male athletes, looking sexy is probably one of the biggest selling points if you wanna get to the main sports audience Just watched Djokovic-Nadal, 4h37m grueling match incredible tennis, 5 sets. Look over to womens tennis, Williams 6-0 6-1 ez game, Serena practically only plays in GS's and lol's her way through every game in 2 sets Is it fair women and men get the same amount of money even though womens tennis is a joke? Well you're not being objective. Calling women's tennis a joke is your opinion. Of all the female sports out there, In my opinion women's tennis is the most respected. Well there you go, the most respected womens sport, in its current state is a joke. During the 1998 Australian Open, sisters Serena and Venus Williams boasted that they could beat any man ranked outside the world's top 200. The challenge was accepted by Karsten Braasch, a German player ranked No 203 (his highest ranking was No 38). before the matches, Braasch played a round of golf in the morning, drank a couple of beers, smoked a few cigarettes, and then played the Williams sisters for a set each, one after the other. He defeated Serena, 6-1, and Venus, 6-2. Serena said afterwards "I didn't know it would be that hard. I hit shots that would have been winners on the women's tour and he got to them easily."
I would say calling women's tennis as a "joke" is a little exaggerated, because there is some level of competitiveness in it as well, but I agree if the "joke" means that there is no established dominant player like there is in men's, and the there seems to be a new champion in each grandslam every year. Except for the Williams sisters, who, as the other one stated, choose only to play in grand slams. If the best player in tour is not number one because of this complications, then there is a problem.
Also, VAMOS RAFA! That was a killer 5th setter comeback!
On June 08 2013 02:15 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 02:03 Zeo wrote:On June 08 2013 01:45 theodorus12 wrote:
Just looking at this topic I knew the op is from Sweden. What is it with you Swedes and all this forced political correctness and feminism.
So maybe girls in sports are sexualized, who cares? I mean its a huge selling point for them, if I want to see real sports or athletes who show what is possible with the human body I would watch superior male athletes, looking sexy is probably one of the biggest selling points if you wanna get to the main sports audience Just watched Djokovic-Nadal, 4h37m grueling match incredible tennis, 5 sets. Look over to womens tennis, Williams 6-0 6-1 ez game, Serena practically only plays in GS's and lol's her way through every game in 2 sets Is it fair women and men get the same amount of money even though womens tennis is a joke? I mean the Williams sisters finish their singles matches and then go off and play doubles too Athletes aren't paid by performance, they're paid by marketability. If the ratings for the two finals are equal (or predicted to be equal, because the pools are set in advance), then they should be the same. If they're not, then they shouldn't be. No one cares how good Nadal or Serena are unless they get people to watch them. Sports is entertainment, and performance doesn't necessarily translate to entertainment (we see this argument all the time in the SC2 forum with Koreans vs. Foreigners.)
This is not true, especially for international organized sports, and most especially for tennis. As the sports gets bigger, salary regulations gets necessarily imposed, as in the salary cap in NBA recently and very loosely in football. I am not familiar with the other sports, but tennis is definitely one sport where the pay is strictly reflective of performance. By pay here we mean official earnings, that is the champion gets the highest money, then the #2, #3, #4, #5.... #20, down the line. Whatever they earn outside the tournaments from advertising is not pay, and should be out of our discussion.
|
On June 08 2013 07:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 07:24 theodorus12 wrote:On June 08 2013 07:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 07:13 theodorus12 wrote:On June 08 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 07:00 theodorus12 wrote:On June 08 2013 06:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 06:58 JimmiC wrote:
"modeling is about having good, in-fashion looks. what do you prefer athletics be about, the decades of training and the competition or how some woman happened to be blessed with talent and looks, the latter by sheer luck of genes?"
Athletics is about the competition, training so on, and for the record many peoples success in athletics has to do with "the sheer luck of genes" No way I can even jump like lebron or be that size no matter the training.
But just because Anna Kornikova got money and fame from her looks she didn't win a single extra match (unless the oppenent was mezmorized by her booty and missed the ball) In fact she never won a tournment.
"
What her looks got her is money through marketing and modeling. So I really don't see your point.
And many a guy has been overated by his looks, or personality, and made more money because of it. Look at Jon fitch in mma because he is boring he made less money then worse MMA atheletes. It's because pro sports are a entertainment buisness, those that entertain, whether it be looks, personality what ever.
ALSO if you want me to be really factual but politically incorrect, outside of a very very very few women stricly athletically speaking you would never watch them because they are worse. Slower, weaker so on. Danica would be a bit of a exception except the fact that she is a women has got her many benifts. On Athletisicm alone she probably would have never made it. No women Basketball player could compete, hockey, soccer, so on.
So by pure athletism womens sports should not exist just one for both genders, where only the best are,and it would be 99.9999999% men. It is posters like this that I wish I could block them from TL... Why? Because he is right and it hurts your feelings? People enjoy watching competition and having those competitions have arbitrary selling points. So whether the competition is Starcraft, Basketball, Magic the Gathering, Football, Chess, Hockey, etc... It doesn't matter what that competition is, there is someone out there who enjoys that sport. There is someone out there who enjoys watching billiards, even if billiard players are not as strong as football players. There are people who enjoy watching Nascar--despite nascar drivers being terrible at running compared to sprinters. There is a niche for everyone and telling those niche groups that their opinions don't count because they don't align with yours is severely xenophobic. You can't compare billiard to football etc. Why would I want to watch lesser (female) players playing a sport, when I could watch the men game and enjoy a better game? It's the same reason no one wants to watch bronze league tournaments. Most of the viewers of female sports most likely only tune in to watch some boobs... The US viewership watches more college sports than professional sports despite college sports being athletically inferior in every way. Every group has its fans. I guess most guys who watch college football are in college themselves and thus have a relationship to the teams etc and most college players are probably still way better than the top female players. But if we're talking about only watching the best--why watch college when you can watch pros. The reason is because everyone has an niche that they like. Some like college, some like pro, some like women's. 50% of the population can relate to women's sports.
Just being the same gender is hardly something you can "relate" to in sports. Your college playing vs another another one that you know etc is something completely different.
Also college leagues etc are good for watching new talent, these players have room to grow and become better, but if you watch the top female players, they already are at their personal top and still are much worse than male players....
|
On June 08 2013 07:24 aike wrote:
We are guys, and most of us are straight, so obviously we aren't looking at male athletes in a sexual way? lol.
You don't need to be attracted to someone you sexualize.
If you look at a boy band and think the only reason they're popular is because of fangirls being attracted to them--you are sexualizing them.
|
On June 08 2013 07:32 theodorus12 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 07:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 07:24 theodorus12 wrote:On June 08 2013 07:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 07:13 theodorus12 wrote:On June 08 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 07:00 theodorus12 wrote:On June 08 2013 06:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 06:58 JimmiC wrote:
"modeling is about having good, in-fashion looks. what do you prefer athletics be about, the decades of training and the competition or how some woman happened to be blessed with talent and looks, the latter by sheer luck of genes?"
Athletics is about the competition, training so on, and for the record many peoples success in athletics has to do with "the sheer luck of genes" No way I can even jump like lebron or be that size no matter the training.
But just because Anna Kornikova got money and fame from her looks she didn't win a single extra match (unless the oppenent was mezmorized by her booty and missed the ball) In fact she never won a tournment.
"
What her looks got her is money through marketing and modeling. So I really don't see your point.
And many a guy has been overated by his looks, or personality, and made more money because of it. Look at Jon fitch in mma because he is boring he made less money then worse MMA atheletes. It's because pro sports are a entertainment buisness, those that entertain, whether it be looks, personality what ever.
ALSO if you want me to be really factual but politically incorrect, outside of a very very very few women stricly athletically speaking you would never watch them because they are worse. Slower, weaker so on. Danica would be a bit of a exception except the fact that she is a women has got her many benifts. On Athletisicm alone she probably would have never made it. No women Basketball player could compete, hockey, soccer, so on.
So by pure athletism womens sports should not exist just one for both genders, where only the best are,and it would be 99.9999999% men. It is posters like this that I wish I could block them from TL... Why? Because he is right and it hurts your feelings? People enjoy watching competition and having those competitions have arbitrary selling points. So whether the competition is Starcraft, Basketball, Magic the Gathering, Football, Chess, Hockey, etc... It doesn't matter what that competition is, there is someone out there who enjoys that sport. There is someone out there who enjoys watching billiards, even if billiard players are not as strong as football players. There are people who enjoy watching Nascar--despite nascar drivers being terrible at running compared to sprinters. There is a niche for everyone and telling those niche groups that their opinions don't count because they don't align with yours is severely xenophobic. You can't compare billiard to football etc. Why would I want to watch lesser (female) players playing a sport, when I could watch the men game and enjoy a better game? It's the same reason no one wants to watch bronze league tournaments. Most of the viewers of female sports most likely only tune in to watch some boobs... The US viewership watches more college sports than professional sports despite college sports being athletically inferior in every way. Every group has its fans. I guess most guys who watch college football are in college themselves and thus have a relationship to the teams etc and most college players are probably still way better than the top female players. But if we're talking about only watching the best--why watch college when you can watch pros. The reason is because everyone has an niche that they like. Some like college, some like pro, some like women's. 50% of the population can relate to women's sports. Just being the same gender is hardly something you can "relate" to in sports. Your college playing vs another another one that you know etc is something completely different. Also college leagues etc are good for watching new talent, these players have room to grow and become better, but if you watch the top female players, they already are at their personal top and still are much worse than male players....
Do you know how silly it sounds for you to think women can't relate to women but that college boys can relate to college boys as if college kids are the main viewing demographic of college sports?
|
On June 08 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 07:32 theodorus12 wrote:On June 08 2013 07:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 07:24 theodorus12 wrote:On June 08 2013 07:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 07:13 theodorus12 wrote:On June 08 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 07:00 theodorus12 wrote:On June 08 2013 06:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 06:58 JimmiC wrote:
"modeling is about having good, in-fashion looks. what do you prefer athletics be about, the decades of training and the competition or how some woman happened to be blessed with talent and looks, the latter by sheer luck of genes?"
Athletics is about the competition, training so on, and for the record many peoples success in athletics has to do with "the sheer luck of genes" No way I can even jump like lebron or be that size no matter the training.
But just because Anna Kornikova got money and fame from her looks she didn't win a single extra match (unless the oppenent was mezmorized by her booty and missed the ball) In fact she never won a tournment.
"
What her looks got her is money through marketing and modeling. So I really don't see your point.
And many a guy has been overated by his looks, or personality, and made more money because of it. Look at Jon fitch in mma because he is boring he made less money then worse MMA atheletes. It's because pro sports are a entertainment buisness, those that entertain, whether it be looks, personality what ever.
ALSO if you want me to be really factual but politically incorrect, outside of a very very very few women stricly athletically speaking you would never watch them because they are worse. Slower, weaker so on. Danica would be a bit of a exception except the fact that she is a women has got her many benifts. On Athletisicm alone she probably would have never made it. No women Basketball player could compete, hockey, soccer, so on.
So by pure athletism womens sports should not exist just one for both genders, where only the best are,and it would be 99.9999999% men. It is posters like this that I wish I could block them from TL... Why? Because he is right and it hurts your feelings? People enjoy watching competition and having those competitions have arbitrary selling points. So whether the competition is Starcraft, Basketball, Magic the Gathering, Football, Chess, Hockey, etc... It doesn't matter what that competition is, there is someone out there who enjoys that sport. There is someone out there who enjoys watching billiards, even if billiard players are not as strong as football players. There are people who enjoy watching Nascar--despite nascar drivers being terrible at running compared to sprinters. There is a niche for everyone and telling those niche groups that their opinions don't count because they don't align with yours is severely xenophobic. You can't compare billiard to football etc. Why would I want to watch lesser (female) players playing a sport, when I could watch the men game and enjoy a better game? It's the same reason no one wants to watch bronze league tournaments. Most of the viewers of female sports most likely only tune in to watch some boobs... The US viewership watches more college sports than professional sports despite college sports being athletically inferior in every way. Every group has its fans. I guess most guys who watch college football are in college themselves and thus have a relationship to the teams etc and most college players are probably still way better than the top female players. But if we're talking about only watching the best--why watch college when you can watch pros. The reason is because everyone has an niche that they like. Some like college, some like pro, some like women's. 50% of the population can relate to women's sports. Just being the same gender is hardly something you can "relate" to in sports. Your college playing vs another another one that you know etc is something completely different. Also college leagues etc are good for watching new talent, these players have room to grow and become better, but if you watch the top female players, they already are at their personal top and still are much worse than male players.... Do you know how silly it sounds for you to think women can't relate to women but that college boys can relate to college boys as if college kids are the main viewing demographic of college sports?
Why? I mean I also don't just relate to someone because he's male....
And the probably even bigger reason why so many watch college leagues is the 2nd part of my answer, but you don't respond to that..
On June 08 2013 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 07:24 aike wrote:
We are guys, and most of us are straight, so obviously we aren't looking at male athletes in a sexual way? lol. You don't need to be attracted to someone you sexualize. If you look at a boy band and think the only reason they're popular is because of fangirls being attracted to them--you are sexualizing them.
You still didn't tell us why sexualiziling someone is inherently bad. It's just human nature to do that and many times it's true especially in cases like your boyband example. Same with prejudices etc. it's just what we are and do....
|
On June 08 2013 06:07 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 05:59 sunprince wrote:On June 08 2013 05:25 ComaDose wrote:On June 08 2013 05:07 sunprince wrote:On June 08 2013 03:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Women in sports are not specifically sexualized. Its more that western cultures sexualizes women in general both professionally and privately. This leads to magazines and other media sexualizing women when they are presenting them to be consumed. Not necessarily because "Hey, this girl sucks at _____ lets sex her up to sell her."
The media doesn't care how good or bad someone is. They grab someone that sells (from any industry) and market that person however the general populous treats that specific gender.
So long as the population keeps being sexist, the media will continue to be sexist. When the population stops being sexist, the media will also stop being sexist. Corporations will do whatever makes money, so when you see some athlete being oversexualized it isn't the fault of the media objectifying that person, it's the fault of the population that maintains that media. Your entire thought process rests upon the sex-negative assumption that "objectification" or "sexualization" is sexist. In reality, viewing others as sexual beings is a normal part of healthy human sexual behavior, and the whole obsession with "objectification" is nothing more than the demonization of normal sexual desires. I disagree. Objectification means treating a person as a thing. which is not healthy human sexual behavior. There's a reason I put "objectification" in quotes. The whole point is that what is commonly demonized as "objectification" is nothing more than finding someone sexually attractive, which doesn't actually treat them as a thing. On June 08 2013 05:25 ComaDose wrote:On June 08 2013 05:11 sunprince wrote:On June 08 2013 03:07 micronesia wrote:On June 08 2013 03:05 rezoacken wrote:
Women are a bigger symbol of beauty/attractiveness, no news there.
And in the end these women do it for the $$$, they are certainly not the victims there. When you consider how much hard work and concentration is required to become a top player in a sport (men's or women's), I think you find it takes a lot more than a willingness to sell your visual prowess to be successful, financially or otherwise. To suggest anything to the contrary is actually rather offensive to these athletes. I believe the point being made is that marketing your own sexuality does not make you a victim of sexism, contrary to those who like to perpetuate female victimology. why would someone make such an irrelivant point? like who is even talking about that? and who are these people who think so I have never heard anyone with a shred of knowledge about gender issues claim anyone from sex workers to models is a victim of sexism based on their career choice :/ A large number of people here are arguing that portraying women sexually is sexist. The majority of feminists argue that sex workers are victims. it's objectification exactly, in this context, because in a great many cases in the OP and that other people have brought up, looks happen to outweigh athletic credentials. athletes can be sexually attractive, and even help in their own objectification (which most societies make very simple and profitable, if you fit the bill), and it still doesn't make it any less dehumanizing on an individual level.
Appreciating someone primarily for their physical appearance does not mean you are treating them as objects. The vast majority of models are appreciated primarily for their physical appearance, but it would be wrong to assert that models are treated as objects.
On June 08 2013 06:07 TheExile19 wrote:
then in your second statement you do that thing where you bring up feminists for no goddamn reason. may I suggest you make your own feminism thread? it won't be open long, but you have this endless need to self-flagellate about the topic.
ComaDose brought up the "anyone with a shred of knowledge about gender issues" point. This is nearly always used to imply feminists, since feminism is the dominant ideology in gender discourse. Feminism is also responsible for introducing the term "objectification" in a sexual context, and formed the paradigm for this entire thread's topic.
|
Attractive girls are sexualised.
Attractive men are sexualised.
Girls do sports.
Men do sports.
Since when did a slice of a Venn diagram merit a thread? 
|
On June 08 2013 07:36 theodorus12 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 07:24 aike wrote:
We are guys, and most of us are straight, so obviously we aren't looking at male athletes in a sexual way? lol. You don't need to be attracted to someone you sexualize. If you look at a boy band and think the only reason they're popular is because of fangirls being attracted to them--you are sexualizing them. You still didn't tell us why sexualiziling someone is inherently bad. It's just human nature to do that and many times it's true especially in cases like your boyband example. Same with prejudices etc. it's just what we are and do....
it's inherently lazy and dehumanizing to subject them to sexualized/stereotyped/prejudiced modes of thought. we all do it, but some of us are markedly less proud to do it and more fearful of typifying the laziest aspects of existing within a society as "human nature".
|
On June 08 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 05:59 sunprince wrote:On June 08 2013 05:25 ComaDose wrote:On June 08 2013 05:07 sunprince wrote:On June 08 2013 03:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Women in sports are not specifically sexualized. Its more that western cultures sexualizes women in general both professionally and privately. This leads to magazines and other media sexualizing women when they are presenting them to be consumed. Not necessarily because "Hey, this girl sucks at _____ lets sex her up to sell her."
The media doesn't care how good or bad someone is. They grab someone that sells (from any industry) and market that person however the general populous treats that specific gender.
So long as the population keeps being sexist, the media will continue to be sexist. When the population stops being sexist, the media will also stop being sexist. Corporations will do whatever makes money, so when you see some athlete being oversexualized it isn't the fault of the media objectifying that person, it's the fault of the population that maintains that media. Your entire thought process rests upon the sex-negative assumption that "objectification" or "sexualization" is sexist. In reality, viewing others as sexual beings is a normal part of healthy human sexual behavior, and the whole obsession with "objectification" is nothing more than the demonization of normal sexual desires. I disagree. Objectification means treating a person as a thing. which is not healthy human sexual behavior. There's a reason I put "objectification" in quotes. The whole point is that what is commonly demonized as "objectification" is nothing more than finding someone sexually attractive, which doesn't actually treat them as a thing. On June 08 2013 05:25 ComaDose wrote:On June 08 2013 05:11 sunprince wrote:On June 08 2013 03:07 micronesia wrote:On June 08 2013 03:05 rezoacken wrote:
Women are a bigger symbol of beauty/attractiveness, no news there.
And in the end these women do it for the $$$, they are certainly not the victims there. When you consider how much hard work and concentration is required to become a top player in a sport (men's or women's), I think you find it takes a lot more than a willingness to sell your visual prowess to be successful, financially or otherwise. To suggest anything to the contrary is actually rather offensive to these athletes. I believe the point being made is that marketing your own sexuality does not make you a victim of sexism, contrary to those who like to perpetuate female victimology. why would someone make such an irrelivant point? like who is even talking about that? and who are these people who think so I have never heard anyone with a shred of knowledge about gender issues claim anyone from sex workers to models is a victim of sexism based on their career choice :/ A large number of people here are arguing that portraying women sexually is sexist. The majority of feminists argue that sex workers are victims. Finding someone attractive has nothing to do with objectification or sexualization. Sexualization is the placing of emphasis on a person's worth equating their aesthetics with their value.
The problem is that people are equating finding female athletes attractive with sexualizing them.
On June 08 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Objectification is you're equating of a person with objects. Finding someone attractive has nothing to do with it, although that it normally the stimulus that provokes people to objectify. Such as when magazines have a tendency to say such and such woman is awesome, because of her legs (or breast, or hair, etc...) thereby placing her importance not on her being a person or on her accomplishments, but instead showcase her value based on the existence of fat on her chest, or the fact that she had someone dye her hair.
You have yet to argue or in any way demonstrate why placing importance on a person's body is equating them with an object.
You are also singling out appreciation of a person's sexual attractiveness as treating them as objects, while ignoring the fact that appreciating a person's accomplishment would arguably be called treating them as a success object by the same criteria.
On June 08 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
The problems with sexualization and objectification have nothing to do with how attractive someone is or how attracted you are to that someone.
If that were true, then you would not single out sexual objectification as the only form of objectification you have a problem with.
|
On June 08 2013 07:40 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 07:36 theodorus12 wrote:On June 08 2013 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 07:24 aike wrote:
We are guys, and most of us are straight, so obviously we aren't looking at male athletes in a sexual way? lol. You don't need to be attracted to someone you sexualize. If you look at a boy band and think the only reason they're popular is because of fangirls being attracted to them--you are sexualizing them. You still didn't tell us why sexualiziling someone is inherently bad. It's just human nature to do that and many times it's true especially in cases like your boyband example. Same with prejudices etc. it's just what we are and do.... it's inherently lazy and dehumanizing to subject them to sexualized/stereotyped/prejudiced modes of thought. we all do it, but some of us are markedly less proud to do it and more fearful of typifying the laziest aspects of existing within a society as "human nature".
Why would it be lazy or dehumanizing to see them exactly like they are? Most pretty bands are just where they are because of their looks etc..
I will still speak the truth and what I think. even though someones feelings might get hurt because he want's the world to be politically correct etc. all the time..
|
On June 08 2013 07:38 sunprince wrote:
Appreciating someone primarily for their physical appearance does not mean you are treating them as objects. The vast majority of models are appreciated primarily for their physical appearance, but it would be wrong to assert that models are treated as objects.
this is exactly what treating someone as an object is. the only difference is that modeling is treated with a modicum of respect and at least has defined relevance in reducing men and women down to nothing but the physical, even though in truth it's generally just as much in thrall to those nebulous beauty standards unless you're in orbit around where the weirder aspects of cutting-edge fashion tend to be.
ComaDose brought up the "anyone with a shred of knowledge about gender issues" point. This is nearly always used to imply feminists, since feminism is the dominant ideology in gender discourse. Feminism is also responsible for introducing the term "objectification" in a sexual context, and formed the paradigm for this entire thread's topic.
okay, but you're not addressing any paradigms of thought specifically attributed to any given school or critic of feminism, you seem to be just sharpening your teeth before you launch into MRA bullshit as you are given to do. this is a pretty specific topic that I don't particularly see a need to refer to feminism, the garguantuan mode of thought that it is, to really do anything with.
|
On June 07 2013 22:36 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 22:31 Shai wrote:
(Yes, I know there are chemical and physiological differences between the genders, but I'm making a point) Yeah you are making a dumb point. The differences are huge. And there are also special leagues for elder people, for young people etc. And sometimes watching a female sport is better than the male equivalant. For example I prefer watching womens volleyball over mens, simply becasue there are longer and more exciting rallies. Womens tennis is also basically a different sport from mens. Its very much a matter of taste what you like better.
Of course it's a matter of taste, but the vast majority of people who watch tennis prefer to watch the men's games. The standard is worlds above the women's tour; I don't think it is possible to say that it is better to watch, by any objective measure.
|
On June 08 2013 07:47 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 07:38 sunprince wrote:
Appreciating someone primarily for their physical appearance does not mean you are treating them as objects. The vast majority of models are appreciated primarily for their physical appearance, but it would be wrong to assert that models are treated as objects. this is exactly what treating someone as an object is. the only difference is that modeling is treated with a modicum of respect and at least has defined relevance in reducing men and women down to nothing but the physical, even though in truth it's generally just as much in thrall to those nebulous beauty standards unless you're in orbit around where the weirder aspects of cutting-edge fashion tend to be.
Then your same logic can be applied to show that any profession is objectified. After all, an athlete is reduced to an object to play sports for our entertainment and are thus entertainment objects. An engineer is reduced to an object to build things for our use and are thus construction objects, little better than machines. Etc,
|
|
|
On June 08 2013 07:47 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 22:36 Redox wrote:On June 07 2013 22:31 Shai wrote:
(Yes, I know there are chemical and physiological differences between the genders, but I'm making a point) Yeah you are making a dumb point. The differences are huge. And there are also special leagues for elder people, for young people etc. And sometimes watching a female sport is better than the male equivalant. For example I prefer watching womens volleyball over mens, simply becasue there are longer and more exciting rallies. Womens tennis is also basically a different sport from mens. Its very much a matter of taste what you like better. Of course it's a matter of taste, but the vast majority of people who watch tennis prefer to watch the men's games. The standard is worlds above the women's tour; I don't think it is possible to say that it is better to watch, by any objective measure.
Pretty much. I am not going to watch a WNBA game ever, since a top level AAU team(Junior-Senior in high school mens travel basketball) would play them competitively, and play a more fun to watch style(above the rim).
|
On June 08 2013 07:11 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 07:05 ComaDose wrote:On June 08 2013 07:02 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 08 2013 06:51 ComaDose wrote:On June 08 2013 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 08 2013 06:39 TheExile19 wrote:On June 08 2013 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
ummm, thats advertising. they display what people like: either you are incredibly talented, or you have a nice rack. the players have the right (albeit limited in some circumstances) to control the use of their image so if they are fine with it, its cool with me. ...that's great that you're cool with it, but participants in a sexist system of marketing, even with something we'd regard as autonomy/agency/ability to make choices, are still being exploited on some level because of the astronomical benefits of licensing your body's image to corporate advertising. it's a choice between financial success and personal well-being knowing that your image inevitably consumes you as a person and even as an athlete, how fuckin' fair is that? that totally ignores the other half of the coin where those who aren't gifted with acceptable genetics are told to fuck off regardless of accomplishment, no set-for-life-ride for you on the back of advertising. not only am i cool with it, they are too. probably loving their multi-million dollar contracts. they are not told to fuck off regardless of accomplishment. if you're the best in your field, you will be showered with money. as i said, be incredibly talented or have a nice rack. On June 08 2013 06:39 ComaDose wrote:On June 08 2013 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 08 2013 06:19 TheExile19 wrote:On June 08 2013 06:11 NTTemplar wrote:On June 08 2013 05:59 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
There's a reason I put "objectification" in quotes. The whole point is that what is commonly demonized as "objectification" is nothing more than finding someone sexually attractive, which doesn't actually treat them as a thing.
[quote]
A large number of people here are arguing that portraying women sexually is sexist. The majority of feminists argue that sex workers are victims. Let us get it clear that being sexist means you discriminate based on gender, in this regard portraying women sexually would be sexist if men weren't. However reality is that both men and women in many industries are portrayed sexually, hence there is no discrimination based on gender. why does every thread associated with gender discrimination on TL lean this way after a certain point the bolded conclusion, without any ameliorating statements, is fucking laughable. you can only possibly reach it if you ignore every other sphere of human interaction and media. On June 08 2013 06:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
people are using objectify and market interchangeably. sports figures are products so of course they are treated like objects/things. they are trying to sell themselves to others (especially sponsors). sports organizers are trying to sell their sports and when they have tits and ass, they are going to use it to sell to their consumers (men). men like boobs. ...yeah, what's your point, it still contributes to a sexist society and it still solidifies the image that only hot women with boobs that men like are rewarded. if you think that's inevitable, whatever, but it's still a little fucked, eh? ummm, thats advertising. they display what people like: either you are incredibly talented, or you have a nice rack. the players have the right (albeit limited in some circumstances) to control the use of their image so if they are fine with it, its cool with me. but if you're increadably talented and have a nice rack it is observed that you are judged more on your rack than your talent, both in the media and by the standard citizen. but mostly in the case of women. which is the sexualization and objectification we are talking about. i dont agree with that characterization. people arent saying "she won a gold medal, whatever, but look at that fucking rack!!" arn't they saying that? i thought thats what this topic was about and the relivance of the article referencing the record setting pole vaulting model. you said: "as i said, be incredibly talented or have a nice rack." those things are not mutally exclusive and there exists an exteremly talented woman with a nice rack who doesnt want the tabloids to read her cup size. might as well ask the tabloids to hire legitimate writers--it would be as productive. people want to know stuff, magazines sell it. maybe my world is isolated, but i have never seen someone disregard an olympian's achievements to discuss her rack size. of course sexualizing women is the best buisiness model currently. and the tabloids are just the easyest example. how bout the people in this thread that said: "i only watch girls sports cause they are hot." can you argue that that is not objectifying? do you think that takes away from the athlets acomplishment? (even if its not a gold medal?) i dont care why people watch women's sports, nor would i presume to tell people to only watch women's sports because of their talent. the only thing i remotely care about is how the sports themselves represent themselves. if women's NFL turned into this, I would have a problem: + Show Spoiler +but as long as it stays like this and advertises its sexiest girls to promote itself, i have no problem: + Show Spoiler +i have a problem with sports requiring girls to wear skirts/bikinis for no apparent reason other than to show their tits and ass. i do not have a problem with girls wearing skirts/bikinis to promote themselves outside of the actual sport. personally, i don't understand why someone would watch women's sports for the tits and ass. just watch porn.
oh okay. are there sports requiring girls to wear skirts/bikinis for no apparent reason other than to show their tits and ass? that would suck. but yeah i'm cool and not cool with those things too.
but I'm also not cool with people sexualizing and objectifying female athletes (read all women globally throughout history). that sucks too.
|
Yes, we should stop finding attractive people in sport attractive, men and female. How dare they appear half clad on magazine covers.
|
On June 08 2013 07:45 theodorus12 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 07:40 TheExile19 wrote:On June 08 2013 07:36 theodorus12 wrote:On June 08 2013 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 07:24 aike wrote:
We are guys, and most of us are straight, so obviously we aren't looking at male athletes in a sexual way? lol. You don't need to be attracted to someone you sexualize. If you look at a boy band and think the only reason they're popular is because of fangirls being attracted to them--you are sexualizing them. You still didn't tell us why sexualiziling someone is inherently bad. It's just human nature to do that and many times it's true especially in cases like your boyband example. Same with prejudices etc. it's just what we are and do.... it's inherently lazy and dehumanizing to subject them to sexualized/stereotyped/prejudiced modes of thought. we all do it, but some of us are markedly less proud to do it and more fearful of typifying the laziest aspects of existing within a society as "human nature". Why would it be lazy or dehumanizing to see them exactly like they are? Most pretty bands are just where they are because of their looks etc.. I will still speak the truth and what I think. even though someones feelings might get hurt because he want's the world to be politically correct etc. all the time..
the subject matter and your way of viewing the world that you are essentially arguing for is the dehumanizing aspect; the laziness is when you come into a thread and spout obvious truisms and consider them counter-arguments. just about anyone who's going to argue this from a progressive standpoint is pretty well aware just how marketing "justifies" the objectification of men and women; the point is whether that's a good or bad thing. in fact, the most depressing thing about gender threads on TL is that we never even get to that point, where we need to start providing links to academic studies to prove that in fact, women might not like being objectified and they might not like a society where people unironically say that women like wearing clothes for men and not for themselves. instead, we spend the entire time justifying the premises of the argument because people get pissed and defensive that:
1) their sacred cows are under fire (sexist tropes in video games, sexism in sports, a deep-seated belief that society is a-ok)
2) there are a frightening amount of people that just cannot be asked to care about the greater implications of the thread topic but still post anyway
saying that "it's just the way it is" is a massive intellectual copout. nothing is just the way it is, society is for the most part a construction that can be endlessly analyzed and sourced, and "it's just the way it is" is the simplest way to say that you consider society pretty much okay for you, most likely because your privilege (let loose the dogs of war) makes that possible. nothing wrong with that on its face, just stop pretending you're committing anything but sophistry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
