EPTIs women's sport sexualized? - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
TheExile19
513 Posts
If sexualization was the main reason to watch sports, and female sports would it not make sense that womens sport get more veiwers, since most veiwers of sports are men and they would find women more seually apealing then males? here, I pulled the only relevant statement out of that agonizing wall of text and it's still a strawman. I did end up reading all of it though and absolutely none of it has anything to do with disproving that women's sports are sexualized and that women are objectified. half that wall is talking about how it still takes effort to be an athlete regardless of physical attractiveness, when nobody ever disputed that. I can only conclude that your point is that women's sports are somehow lesser than men's and that justifies the sexualization. the problem is that it doesn't justify anything; it doesn't justify selling your image to pander to horny men, and it doesn't make it any healthier for the overall society on a level that you consistently refuse to engage this topic upon. | ||
|
ishyishy
United States826 Posts
Here's something to think about: not only are people used and seen as objects for marketing, but the consumers are nothing but objects too! You just represent money to companies, and that's all you are. Cash, that's it. How does it feel? User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
TheExile19
513 Posts
On June 11 2013 05:22 ishyishy wrote: Jeez, TLDR to the first post on this page. No thank you. Here's something to think about: not only are people used and seen as objects for marketing, but the consumers are nothing but objects too! You just represent money to companies, and that's all you are. Cash, that's it. How does it feel? it feels like you're trying to be an edgy teenager, frankly. that said, no one expects companies who pay for advertisements to give two shits about a progressive society. the only point of discussions like these is to affect individuals, i.e. avoiding/going around all that messy objectification from corporate entities that hold entirely too much power. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
I don't watch tennis. I don't care about it at all. I learned about Kornikova by buying groceries, watching tv shows, listening to people when in line at the post office. She is part of the American zeitgeist. For what? Not tennis skill. Why? Because we place value on her despite her limited skill set because we put precedence on her looks than her tennis skill. How much money sharapova makes does not at all erase the existence of Kornikova in popular culture. You keep wanting to bring up the existence of more and more random people to try to counteract the existence of sexualization as if I the sexualization we place on one person disappears if you do something to another. Why do you think that this is how the world works. Also, on your comment on A I do not believe that people watch women's sports for sex. You guys said that. I'm the one you were calling blind when I said people watch their niche. In fact, the person who said that people only watch sports for best possible skill did not have a refute when I pointed out that college ball ha more fans than pro ball. Why? Because as. Have always said in this thread, people watc what they like for their own reasons. People watch women's sports because they like women's sports. You, sunprince and a few other guys were the ones telling me I was wrong for saying that and now you 180 your stance? On B You initial stanc was that people were blind if they didn't accept that women were prettier. Your stance then became that wanting to have sex with women is not evil. You currenty have your stance be that money is what counts. In a few pages your stance will change again. As will be expected. On C You still have this fetish for canceling out one example by the existence of other examples. When the question is whether or not we sexualize women in sports, the times we don't does not cover up the times we do. They are separate instances tha don't cancel each other out like a math problem. You keep asking me about women sexualizing men when al my examples are of men sexualizing men. Since you can't seem to keep the sexes straight I decided to show you how simply wanting to have sex with something does not sexualize it. Your response is to accuse me of wanting to fuck sheep. If you don't have an argument against something it's better to step away from a discussion. On your attempt to 180 my discussion with someone else (because you apparently believe everything I say is directed at you). Human beings mimic their idols for what they idolize them for. The reason women's magazines talk abou Beauty tips is because western culture tells women that their beauty is what matters--so they buy whatever helps them be beautiful. It's a very MRA stance to not accept this, and it's obvious your an MRA boy and hence will never accept the possibility that women have it hard in the world so there's no reason to bother arguing with you on something we disagree on so fundamentally. I used my example of watching 4 different Terran players as inspiration. Innovation, because he's the best right now. ForGG, because his execution is crisp. DeMuslim, becase he's slow enough for me to actually copy. And MMA because I'm a fanboy. Don't root for DeMuslim because he's white. I'm not even white--I'm Asian, if I rooted based on culture or race I'd root for Sen, not Terran. However, since I (like most people) don't like thing on one dimensional axioms, I keep track of many players to inspire me, all for different reasons. I don't need to only watch the best much like I don't need to only watch the worse. Each person graded on their own merit and each person teaching me something I wouldn't learn from the others. I'm sorry that you don't see how pressured women are to becoming sexy. How much they are forced into that role. I'm sorry that you honestly believe the reason women get dressed is so people want to fuck them like its some sort of invitation. I'm sorry that you truly believe in the enforcement of gender roles. But if you're going to go full blown MRA on this then I'm just going to have to assume you're a lost cause and ignore you. I hope you go back to reddit. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 11 2013 05:22 ishyishy wrote: Jeez, TLDR to the first post on this page. No thank you. Here's something to think about: not only are people used and seen as objects for marketing, but the consumers are nothing but objects too! You just represent money to companies, and that's all you are. Cash, that's it. How does it feel? Companies only market what sells. Currently, sexualization sells. Why? Because western culture only cares about what women look like, and not what they accomplish. When western culture stops treating women like this, corporate establishments will stop treating women like this. It isn't that corporations are sexists, it's that the west is. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 11 2013 05:45 JimmiC wrote: ???????????????????????? I cannot believe you read what I wrote and came to that conclusion unless you are pure trolling. I brought up how the best women from each sports makes the most money regardless of looks. And I gave examples with numbers. I then brought up how Men work the same way as far as looks making a difference for people who make it but are not the greatest. Showing that though sexualization exists to some degree, it does in both but not to some harmful degree. As most mentioned some level of sexualization is garunteed. I also said that if sexualation was what matter womens sports would get more attention and viewers and not less. Gave examples. I pointed out though didn't get into the level of detail of some other posters that "male sports" which are actually gender not specific, any gender can participate, get teh most veiwers because those viewers care about the level of sport not whether or not they would like to have sex with the person. I was saying skill becuase people were saying "only looks matter that is how they are valued" I was bringing up that these people are still amazing atheletes even if they are not the best and the reason we know there name is the sport not there looks. There by showing athletics matter. I'm going to assume you are just being difficult for its own sake and like to stir the pot, If you actaully believe what you wrote I suggest you take a reading comprehension course or something. You brought up that Kornikova makes similar money to Serena and that somehow proves that there's no sexualization. How exactly do you think that makes sense? You showed that sexualization happens in mens sports too--but sexualization happening in men's sports does not cancel out sexualization in women's sports. No one has said that people watch women's sports for sex except you and your ilk. Me and exile have been saying for many pages now that people watch what they want to watch and that just because men sprinters are faster it doesn't mean people are not impressed by women sprinters. It's been exile and me who have been telling you guys that people can enjoy women's sports without sexualization. It's been you guys who keep saying that men's sports is better and so there's no reason to watch women's sports. Also, I pointed out though didn't get into the level of detail of some other posters that "male sports" which are actually gender not specific, any gender can participate, get teh most veiwers because those viewers care about the level of sport not whether or not they would like to have sex with the person You honestly believe sports gets views based on highers skills? College sports have a bigger audience than pro sports and, be definition, college sports is weaker in skill than pro sports. Money and viewership wise, that statement is completely wrong. Also, I was saying skill becuase people were saying "only looks matter that is how they are valued" I was bringing up that these people are still amazing atheletes even if they are not the best and the reason we know there name is the sport not there looks. There by showing athletics matter. No one is saying that they're not amazing athletes. In fact, what we've been saying is that their looks gets precedence over their results. You know what that sentence requires? That the person has results. Of course they're all athletes--that's why we call them athletes. They are athletic by definition--otherwise we wouldn't call them athletes. | ||
|
TheExile19
513 Posts
I brought up how the best women from each sports makes the most money regardless of looks. And I gave examples with numbers. examples, with numbers!!!!! you say. all I see is a boring tangent into a strawman you created i.e. people apparently claiming that the only successful female athletes are successful because of their looks, when one of my earliest points in the thread was that the most egregious part of female athlete sexualization in a vacuum is that women who don't fit nebulous beauty standards don't get what is essentially free money for doing nothing but having good genes. I then brought up how Men work the same way as far as looks making a difference for people who make it but are not the greatest. Showing that though sexualization exists to some degree, it does in both but not to some harmful degree. As most mentioned some level of sexualization is garunteed. cool, want to try restating that conclusion in the proper context now, i.e. the rest of the notably sexist culture of good looks? no, you don't and you never have. this has been beyond the question of whether there is sexualization in women's sports for so long that we should be tacitly addressing the applications of those sexist standards and their psychological/sociological effects (or at least the existence of proper research for those effects), but no, apparently we're still justifying that they even exist in an important fashion when all you need to do to reach that conclusion is look at the greater culture surrounding women's sports. I also said that if sexualation was what matter womens sports would get more attention and viewers and not less. Gave examples. it's almost like it's an amalgam of human athletic achievement and cynical sexual pandering or something and you can't separate them which prompted the thread I pointed out though didn't get into the level of detail of some other posters that "male sports" which are actually gender not specific, any gender can participate, get teh most veiwers because those viewers care about the level of sport not whether or not they would like to have sex with the person. utterly irrelevant I was saying skill becuase people were saying "only looks matter that is how they are valued" I was bringing up that these people are still amazing atheletes even if they are not the best and the reason we know there name is the sport not there looks. There by showing athletics matter. strawman/facile point. who in the world claimed athletics were not relevant to...athletics. ???????????????????????? I cannot believe you read what I wrote and came to that conclusion unless you are pure trolling. I'm going to assume you are just being difficult for its own sake and like to stir the pot, If you actaully believe what you wrote I suggest you take a reading comprehension course or something. aggregated your cringeworthy passive-aggressiveness because, well, it begged to be. your confidence in ...whatever you are doing in this thread is pretty astounding. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 11 2013 05:47 JimmiC wrote: Stop stating your opinions as facts. I have shown many examples of Athletes female and male getting sponsorships when they are not "attractive" based on merit. The "fact" you keep spouting is "western culture only cares about what women look like, and not what they accomplish" is False, so stop it. If you need examples out side of sport look at Rosie odonel, Oprah, Margret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, so on. sPorts examples just read a higher post. You love thinking that everything I say is directed at you don't you? Like I've said, if you want to pretend that women are not being treated this way then I have nothing to say to you since that MRA stance of ignoring women's plights is just not worth arguing against. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 11 2013 06:00 r.Evo wrote: ...what exactly is bad about sexualization in both men or women's sports? If someone is attractive it's simply human to say "Hey, he/she is sexy!" ~ that statement is not mutually exclusive with any statement about that persons capabilities as an athlete. Within the confines of the specific action there is no harm. The problem people like myself have with it is not that sports sexualizes athletes but how that sexualization perpetuates social normative practices that encourages gender norms as opposed to allowing the fullness of possibility within youth. I don't like it when a mother calls her daughter princess any more than I don't like it when a yahoo article of a high school high jumper who just broke an american high school record is described as a model instead of being described as a record breaking athlete. + Show Spoiler + http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/record-setting-oregon-high-jumper-top-fashion-model-152515924.html It's the pieces adding up to a larger problematic whole wherein girls are taught to only care about their looks. Sports is not the problem, western culture is the problem. | ||
|
Maekchu
140 Posts
No one is going to come out and openly admit it, but there was a case some years ago where it was considered whether or not female badminton players should wear skirts like tennis players, in order to attract more viewers. But in most cases it's not that bad and it depends on the specific sport. I think one of the pretty obvious sports where you would say it is definitely sexualized is the Lingerie Football League. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://static.onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Lingerie-Football-League-056.jpg) We can discuss back and forth whether this is bad or not. But in the end, the amount of viewers will decide. The more viewers, the more money, the better training facilities etc. | ||
|
TheExile19
513 Posts
On June 11 2013 06:00 r.Evo wrote: ...what exactly is bad about sexualization in both men or women's sports? If someone is attractive it's simply human to say "Hey, he/she is sexy!" ~ that statement is not mutually exclusive with any statement about that persons capabilities as an athlete. magpie has an overall better grasp on the macro effects of sexism than I do, but what isn't being accounted for in your statement is the reinforcement of cultural standards that elevating attractive female athletes up to being grandiose, smiling totems of society does to other women, most notably young girls. the most incontrovertible evidence for the harm being done to women through these standards is the epidemic of body disorders which someone helpfully brought up earlier, all initiated by the artificial need to be rail-thin, or rather the encouragement of a pathology of weight loss. it may be natural to sexualize and objectify women athletes, but is it really worth what we're getting from it on a macro level, i.e. advertising dollars, mild titillation and an overall contribution to a regressive view of what amounts to both genders? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 11 2013 06:11 Maekchu wrote: Well, it's just how the world is. You might disagree with this, but what decides it is what the majority of the world population wants to watch. No one is going to come out and openly admit it, but there was a case some years ago where it was considered whether or not female badminton players should wear skirts like tennis players, in order to attract more viewers. But in most cases it's not that bad and it depends on the specific sport. I think one of the pretty obvious sports where you would say it is definitely sexualized is the Lingerie Football League. + Show Spoiler + We can discuss back and forth whether this is bad or not. But in the end, the amount of viewers will decide. The more viewers, the more money, the better training facilities etc. Yes, it is how the world is. I was under the assumption that the OP made this thread because, (a) he sees this happening in the world, and (b) he wants to know if it is our moral imperative to do something about it (or at least feel bad about it). | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 11 2013 06:16 Acritter wrote: Aren't men sexualized too, to some degree? I've heard women talk about how hot male athlete X is before, but I guess that's probably just anecdotal. Men are very much sexualized as well. But rarely in the same way. You see, it's not that a person is hot that sexualizes them--its not a crime to be attractive. It's when you're looks starts being put ahead of your talents that it starts becoming "sexualization." Go on youtube, or buzzfeed, or facebook. Keep track of how often beiber's talent is put into question using the fact that he has fangirls as the argument against his talent. Look at how often an insult to a woman is that "she looks like a man" suggesting that she isn't attractive as somehow a big blow to their worth as a human being as opposed to when people say that ____ male celebrity looks like a girl (implying that they aren't as tough as they claim to be). It has nothing to do with being attracted to someone, no one is against that. It' has everything to do with how we equate their looks with their worth that it becomes problematic. | ||
|
TheExile19
513 Posts
On June 11 2013 06:16 Acritter wrote: Aren't men sexualized too, to some degree? I've heard women talk about how hot male athlete X is before, but I guess that's probably just anecdotal. of course. the eternal divide here, however, is to what extent male sexualization harms or disenfranchises them in society compared to women. while I will say that I don't enjoy that dichotomy, because I fully believe that there are very specific, isolated cases where harmful practices to males thrive (most of them, from my limited perusal, seem to cluster around children and child custody), I will also say that it's very difficult for me to focus on the needle in the haystack of societal issues that basically constitutes what we know as the MRA sphere. actually getting on topic, it would be fair to say that men are objectified as well as women in sports, but any comments about equality of objectification pretty much go out the window when you consider the larger cultural context where women are bombarded daily with images and schematics for what they should be, have to be, to find a husband/have a career/have any sense of confidence about their looks, all while bearing children if they're predisposed to wanting them. it's this complex where I believe any comparisons between genders fall away, because sociological studies simply do not effectively show any comparable complex for men, and there are no phenomena anywhere near those we associate with teenaged girls. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
