|
On June 08 2013 05:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 04:58 NTTemplar wrote:On June 08 2013 02:15 aTnClouD wrote:
Beauty gives women power and people take advantage of it to make money. This is as old as humans. Not false, but I'd still like to expand that to: Being attractive gives people power, and people take advantage of it to make money. Both men and women benefit greatly from being attractive, ignoring the fact that its both genders opens up many gender based rude remarks, like this thread has shown to a degree. Taking advantage of being attractive =/= being sexualized. A good looking guy with the same qualifications as an ugly guy is more likely to be popular/advanced--but that doesn't mean that his boss wants to fuck him on the carpet. It's simply our societal standards of placing value on aesthetics. Sexualized is when the idea of sex replaces or comes out in front of the object in question. Here's an example. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/record-setting-oregon-high-jumper-top-fashion-model-152515924.htmlThe article talks about this awesome pole vaulter and that the reason she's special is that she's a model too. They then compare her as the next "Alison Stokke" who got famous for being good looking when doing her warm ups as opposed to someone like Blanka Vlašić. We are not even given the girl's name until the third paragraph where we are then told that she's actually broken high jump records previously set by other eventual Olympiads; but the story itself focuses on her beauty and on her similarity to other high jumpers also praised for their beauty. Her record breaking feat is actually put as a backdrop that enhances the fact that she's beautiful. That is what sexualizing means. It's not simply that we find someone sexually attractive, that's a natural act. Sexualize is when we prioritize the aesthetics of the person over the accomplishments of the person. Beckham, for example, still has fame because he did well for England and he was really good looking so a lot of women started watching futbol also. But, when Beckham is being interviewed, when he is on magazine covers, does the media talk about the shape of his abs or the look of his skin while he sweats in the field. Do they say "Omg Beckham, you look just like Ricky Martin, when you were out there I felt like I was watching the next Justin Beiber." No, they don't, they still acknowledge either his current or past play skill, and even play it up to be a lot more than it actually is/was. They don't tell the world that he's the next Hoyt Richards. It's very easy to confuse this, especially with how young the demographic of TL is, but complaints about "sexualizing ______" is not a complaint on being attracted to or finding a specific person or persons attractive. It is the juxtaposition of a person's worth being leaned more heavily on their attractiveness moreso than their accomplishments. This isn't a sports problem, lots of industries have this problem. The problem isn't finding something sexually pleasing, the problem is equating that sexuality as one of the more important traits of the person. I used Ricky Martin as an example, to show how this isn't a female issue, but a societal issue. Ricky Martin is a singer first, entertainer second. And yet, I've seen a few people in this thread disparage his skillset as being "boy band" suggesting that his talent as a musician is less meaningful and less important than his good looks. I even used him as an example earlier to make the point more apparent. In that moment of my comparing Ricky Martin to Beckham, I was sexualizing both Ricky Martin and Beckham because I was making the suggestion that it is their looks that is their main trait, as opposed to it being simply one of the many traits they have. It seemed normal, because we live in a sexist society where sexualizing people is deemed normal.
The quoted comments were about beauty rather than sexualizing, hence why I commented on attraction.
However Beckham does get sexualized a lot, not being a vivid football watcher myself, the majority I read and have heard of beckham has been looks related; from his perfumes, modelling, haircuts etc
It is to the extent were only my football watching friends would mention his accomplishments within the sport, while the rest would say in some form "that handsome footballer" or less world aware friends would simply address him as a model and brand for different cosmetics.
And for your 2nd statement I'd like to point out that it is perfectly valid for women: "A good looking girl with the same qualifications as an ugly girl is more likely to be popular/advanced--but that doesn't mean that her boss wants to fuck her"
The statement appears valid more often for guys, partially due to a larger amount of "bosses" being males, but more importantly due to men generally being more comfortable with publicly sexualizing someone, while women tend to be more private in most things sex related.
A group of girls in my area is far more likely to talk about Beckhams looks than his football skills between themselves. However guys talking about women's beach volleyball will mostly point out looks both privately between themselves and publicly with people they don't know well or at all, in larger crowds, at dinner tables etc.
I was actually thinking about earlier how popstars in particular might be a group where it is pretty even, teenage girls pronouncing their love for bieber because he is "so hot", or women wanting to bang enrique iglesias because he is "the sexiest man alive" etc seems to happen as frequently if not more frequently than I hear people talk about banging selena gomez or something, actually can't think of a female popstar I hear guys sexualizing as frequently as I hear justin bieber, one direction or enrique iglesias sexualized.
|
On June 08 2013 05:59 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On June 08 2013 05:59 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
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.
The problems with sexualization and objectification have nothing to do with how attractive someone is or how attracted you are to that someone.
|
On June 08 2013 05:59 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +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.
gonna have to disagree with you again. no one demonizes finding people sexually attracitve. but yeah... reducing someone to their physical apearance is what we are talking about and thats objectification. Show nested quote +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.
talking about a womans sexual appearance unprovoked is a result of society sexualizing women and holding them to rediculous beauty standards which is sexist yeah. thats not portraying women sexually... tho... i dont think we are talking about that... Also wtf. The majority of feminists do not argue that sex workers are victims. where did you get that?
|
On June 08 2013 05:59 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On June 08 2013 06:10 ComaDose 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. gonna have to disagree with you again. no one demonizes finding people sexually attracitve. but yeah... reducing someone to their physical apearance is what we are talking about and thats objectification. Show nested quote +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. talking about a womans sexual appearance unprovoked is a result of society sexualizing women and holding them to rediculous beauty standards which is sexist yeah. thats not portraying women sexually... tho... i dont think we are talking about that... Also wtf. The majority of feminists do not argue that sex workers are victims. where did you get that?
Whether or not sex workers are victims is a pretty huge bone of contention in modern feminism in my experience. It stems from the fact that, undeniably, there are lots of sex worker victims. Obviously this doesn't imply necessity, but I suppose both sides feel like the other side is ignoring something really important (autonomy vs exploitation).
|
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.
|
On June 08 2013 06:14 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 06:10 ComaDose wrote: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. gonna have to disagree with you again. no one demonizes finding people sexually attracitve. but yeah... reducing someone to their physical apearance is what we are talking about and thats objectification. 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. talking about a womans sexual appearance unprovoked is a result of society sexualizing women and holding them to rediculous beauty standards which is sexist yeah. thats not portraying women sexually... tho... i dont think we are talking about that... Also wtf. The majority of feminists do not argue that sex workers are victims. where did you get that? Whether or not sex workers are victims is a pretty huge bone of contention in modern feminism in my experience. It stems from the fact that, undeniably, there are lots of sex worker victims. Obviously this doesn't imply necessity, but I suppose both sides feel like the other side is ignoring something really important (autonomy vs exploitation).
Absolutely! with the current legal view of prostitution it creates a very dangerous environment for some women. and there was the whole fiasco in iceland with the "feminist" banning strip clubs or something to that effect.
I feel like the majoity of educated feminists are in favour of allowing women to make what ever desision they want with regards to their own body tho.... at least i hope so.
|
On June 08 2013 06:11 NTTemplar 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. 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?
|
On June 08 2013 06:05 NTTemplar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 05:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 08 2013 04:58 NTTemplar wrote:On June 08 2013 02:15 aTnClouD wrote:
Beauty gives women power and people take advantage of it to make money. This is as old as humans. Not false, but I'd still like to expand that to: Being attractive gives people power, and people take advantage of it to make money. Both men and women benefit greatly from being attractive, ignoring the fact that its both genders opens up many gender based rude remarks, like this thread has shown to a degree. Taking advantage of being attractive =/= being sexualized. A good looking guy with the same qualifications as an ugly guy is more likely to be popular/advanced--but that doesn't mean that his boss wants to fuck him on the carpet. It's simply our societal standards of placing value on aesthetics. Sexualized is when the idea of sex replaces or comes out in front of the object in question. Here's an example. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/record-setting-oregon-high-jumper-top-fashion-model-152515924.htmlThe article talks about this awesome pole vaulter and that the reason she's special is that she's a model too. They then compare her as the next "Alison Stokke" who got famous for being good looking when doing her warm ups as opposed to someone like Blanka Vlašić. We are not even given the girl's name until the third paragraph where we are then told that she's actually broken high jump records previously set by other eventual Olympiads; but the story itself focuses on her beauty and on her similarity to other high jumpers also praised for their beauty. Her record breaking feat is actually put as a backdrop that enhances the fact that she's beautiful. That is what sexualizing means. It's not simply that we find someone sexually attractive, that's a natural act. Sexualize is when we prioritize the aesthetics of the person over the accomplishments of the person. Beckham, for example, still has fame because he did well for England and he was really good looking so a lot of women started watching futbol also. But, when Beckham is being interviewed, when he is on magazine covers, does the media talk about the shape of his abs or the look of his skin while he sweats in the field. Do they say "Omg Beckham, you look just like Ricky Martin, when you were out there I felt like I was watching the next Justin Beiber." No, they don't, they still acknowledge either his current or past play skill, and even play it up to be a lot more than it actually is/was. They don't tell the world that he's the next Hoyt Richards. It's very easy to confuse this, especially with how young the demographic of TL is, but complaints about "sexualizing ______" is not a complaint on being attracted to or finding a specific person or persons attractive. It is the juxtaposition of a person's worth being leaned more heavily on their attractiveness moreso than their accomplishments. This isn't a sports problem, lots of industries have this problem. The problem isn't finding something sexually pleasing, the problem is equating that sexuality as one of the more important traits of the person. I used Ricky Martin as an example, to show how this isn't a female issue, but a societal issue. Ricky Martin is a singer first, entertainer second. And yet, I've seen a few people in this thread disparage his skillset as being "boy band" suggesting that his talent as a musician is less meaningful and less important than his good looks. I even used him as an example earlier to make the point more apparent. In that moment of my comparing Ricky Martin to Beckham, I was sexualizing both Ricky Martin and Beckham because I was making the suggestion that it is their looks that is their main trait, as opposed to it being simply one of the many traits they have. It seemed normal, because we live in a sexist society where sexualizing people is deemed normal. The quoted comments were about beauty rather than sexualizing, hence why I commented on attraction. However Beckham does get sexualized a lot, not being a vivid football watcher myself, the majority I read and have heard of beckham has been looks related; from his perfumes, modelling, haircuts etc It is to the extent were only my football watching friends would mention his accomplishments within the sport, while the rest would say in some form "that handsome footballer" or less world aware friends would simply address him as a model and brand for different cosmetics. And for your 2nd statement I'd like to point out that it is perfectly valid for women: "A good looking girl with the same qualifications as an ugly girl is more likely to be popular/advanced--but that doesn't mean that her boss wants to fuck her" The statement appears valid more often for guys, partially due to a larger amount of "bosses" being males, but more importantly due to men generally being more comfortable with publicly sexualizing someone, while women tend to be more private in most things sex related. A group of girls in my area is far more likely to talk about Beckhams looks than his football skills between themselves. However guys talking about women's beach volleyball will mostly point out looks both privately between themselves and publicly with people they don't know well or at all, in larger crowds, at dinner tables etc. I was actually thinking about earlier how popstars in particular might be a group where it is pretty even, teenage girls pronouncing their love for bieber because he is "so hot", or women wanting to bang enrique iglesias because he is "the sexiest man alive" etc seems to happen as frequently if not more frequently than I hear people talk about banging selena gomez or something, actually can't think of a female popstar I hear guys sexualizing as frequently as I hear justin bieber, one direction or enrique iglesias sexualized.
I agree with everything you said. The reason I was using male examples on sexualization is that I wanted to point out that sexualization is not inherently directed at women and hence its very silly to me when people bring up that "women evolved to breed" or "women are considered really beautiful" when how pretty women are is not actually what is being talked about when you bring up sexualization.
I find men are the ones who sexualize male popstars moreso than anyone because they're usually the most vocal about how that popstar's worth is less because they imply that a male popstar is only famous for his sexiness than for his talent. The reverse happens (usually) when women are sexualized by men wherein most of men I know will praise a woman for being beautiful, but not comment on her talents. They are both the same action of sexualizing another person. its just that men usually do it maliciously to other men while doing it "in praise" to other women.
|
On June 08 2013 06:19 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 06:11 NTTemplar wrote: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. 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.
I find the number of those types of comments correlates to how often sunprince comments on a thread.
|
On June 08 2013 06:19 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 06:11 NTTemplar wrote: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. 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. Show nested quote +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.
|
On June 08 2013 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 06:19 TheExile19 wrote:On June 08 2013 06:11 NTTemplar wrote: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. 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.
I don't think he was talking about how much control the athletes have with their image but more that the perpetuated status-quo is, to him, a negative attribute that shouldn't be maintained.
|
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 solely on the back of advertising.
I will say that as far as sexism in society goes, this isn't exactly a hot button issue mostly because of what I assume most of you on the other side of the aisle are protesting for: if they're getting rich and they're making the choice, who gives a shit? well, it makes society look just a little less progressive and a little more demeaning to fatties and uglies who are bombarded with how that society thinks the male and female ideals are out of their reach, but aside from that, I guess it's no biggie.
|
On June 08 2013 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 06:19 TheExile19 wrote:On June 08 2013 06:11 NTTemplar wrote: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. 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.
|
While the intentions of bringing the sport back into focus are indeed admirable, the question itself seems rather self explanatory.
If it results in positive reinforcement, it will be done.
Be it money, fame, recognition and admiration for your body or whatever, people will do what ever reinforces them.
|
|
|
On June 08 2013 06:42 JimmiC wrote:
This just in "people like looking at good looking people"
Also breaking news "Athletes tend to have good bodies"
The same is true for men as well, If you don't think Jeter's smile, Beckam... so on and so on have not got more attention/money/sponerships do to there looks then you are crazy. Looks matter to marketers both genders there is even a profession called "modeling" just because of this.
Go figure that if some one could be successful at sports and goodlooking that they would be even more marketable and get more money and attention. Shocking!
what if you dont want people to think about your boobs
|
On June 08 2013 06:42 JimmiC wrote:
This just in "people like looking at good looking people"
Also breaking news "Athletes tend to have good bodies"
The same is true for men as well, If you don't think Jeter's smile, Beckam... so on and so on have not got more attention/money/sponerships do to there looks then you are crazy. Looks matter to marketers both genders there is even a profession called "modeling" just because of this.
Go figure that if some one could be successful at sports and goodlooking that they would be even more marketable and get more money and attention. Shocking!
That's not what's being talked about.
|
On June 08 2013 06:39 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +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:Show nested quote +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: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. 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!!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
