On June 08 2013 08:11 AUFKLARUNG wrote: KEY ISSUES: 1. Sports is generally about performance and skills; 2. When it is mediated through mass media, specifically television, due to the media's visual nature, physical attractiveness (face) of the athletes become an important consideration; 3. This practice - emphasis on attractiveness - is more prevalent in women sports more than in men. A. Physical unattractiveness does not hinder the watchability of a male athlete as long as he excels at his sport (Ribery) but physical unattractiveness (face, or the hesitation towards muscle-bound women like in weighlifting, WNBA, etc.) in women is a crucial factor in deciding an athlete's and the sports popularity. B. On the converse side, attractive female athletes may and do enjoy immense popularity despite only C. Media and sports executives encourage and aggressively enforce this phenomenon further be "regulating" the sports to highlight the femininity and sexuality of women, as in dress code.
POINTS OF DISCUSSION: 1. The discussion is not about whether male or female athletes have beautiful faces and bodies; 2. Is this solely because of the demography of the audience/viewer who are predominantly male, thus necessitating in the highlighting of the sexuality of women. Conversely, theoretically, if there were more women audience, would it be logical to conclude that men sports would be significantly sexualized as well? 3. Is this a good thing (sexualization for the sake of watchability)? Is there a women sports which is watch primarily because of the athletes skills, and how does it differ from the general practice of the "sports-entertainment" phenomenon. How do we remove or minimize the objectification of women sports?
Think of the following athletes: Lebron James, Chris Bosh, Mike Tyson, Manny Paqcaiou, Michael Phelps, Kimbo Slice, Brock Lesner, Novak Djokovic, Ronaldinho, and Rooney. There are a lot others but let us stop here for now. This are people who are presently or at one time in the past have commanded the adulation of the people, who would not hesitate to spend time and money to watch them play.
Now consider the following. Maria Sharapova, Victoria Azarenka, Meisha Tate, Michelle Jenneke, and Danica Patrick. These are incredible and successful athletes themselves, like the male group above. The difference is that the group above are one which by normal standards we would not consider aesthetically pleasing, but the latter group belong to people known for their beauty.
The argument for this case is that when it comes to men sports, appearance is not much of or at all a factor of popularity, as long as they are great athletes at their sports. On the women's side however, popularity is determined not only by excellence, but more so by physical attractiveness. Don't get me wrong, Sharapova, Azarenka, and others are great athletes, at the top of their respective sports at one time or the other, but it can be argued that their popularity is determined mostly on their being beautiful and sexy. They are more prone to submit to the viewers and desire to sexualize female, and to assume the view that they have to be pretty in order to demand attention. Case in point, these athletes may go down as #100 or #5000 in their sports, yet it wont matter. We would still watch Sharapova or Jenneke play tennis or run. I would. Another case in point, at one time, tennis and badminton players were required by the sanctioning bodies to wear skirts in order to appear feminine. It was not a problem in tennis as most are already into skirts. In badminton there was some resistance, claiming sexism. Another case in point, womens basketball and football. The world tunes in to watch FIBA and NBA. But who even watches WNBA or womens basketball and football in general?
Most importantly, even if we watch women athletes, sure bet goes that we watch them to watch and adore them, and not to watch them at play as athletes. Who cares about Sharapova's pasing shots or Jenneke's pacing. We simply want to admire their faces and bodies, mostly. This is not the case with men's sports. We dont watch the La Liga or UEFA, or NBA or whatever else in order to admire how handsome the male athletes are. You will be hard put to find someone who will tell you that Messi is good looking, although he is, but everyone will immediately tell you how great he is at football.
I know this is a complex issue, one that involves the viewers demographics, the economics of television production, and the cross-cultural attitude on gender roles in general, but what do you think about women in sports being sexualized?
This argument is incredibly weak. Some portion of marketing goes to sexualization - for example, women's tennis and volleyball players doing Clariol or Maybelline commercials- but on the whole no it is not.
Sex sells. It absolutely does. Picking the best-looking people in any given sport to use as figureheads for advertising has happened for dozens of years. Ricky Fowler has dozens of advertising deals only because he's a young, handsome guy- not because he's terribly good at golf. David Beckham is even MORE sexualized than any of the women you mentioned.
Additionally, the reason we watch the French Open and not the WNBA is that the level of competition is higher in women's tennis than in women's basketball. Women's pro basketball has a shockingly low level of competition- a good men's highschool team could probably beat most women's pro teams. However, top women tennis players are very, very good at tennis (much closer to the men in terms of performance, and the competition with each other is great).
For the most part, women sports is not as fast / hard / strong / high etc. as male sports and why would you want to watch something weaker, when you can watch the real limit humans can reach in a sport in terms of speed, strength, power, height etc.?
Um. Why are there male athletes who are sexy to women? Just because you don't rate men by their appearence, but by their achievements, it doesn't mean women wouldn't always say Beckham is better then Ribery. Duh.
Valid point. Though you can argue that there are handsome and sexualized male athletes as well - C. Ronaldo, Beckham. I see your point though that the issue is more on the essential nature of the production of the sport for media consumption, and as such, it is a sad reality that women sports falls victim to sexualization. My issue with some female sports is that the sports, or the audience, has been used to the male version of it that it seems slow or tame or uninteresting when women play it, like football and basketball.
yeah I'm sure photos like the following are only aiming at their sports success! You might not find him aesthetically pleasing, I'm sure many women would disagree
I am not saying that male athletes are ugly and female athletes are all pretty. The point of the discussion is that women sport is often sold on the account of the beauty of its athletes.
I don't know if it's different in Europe, but I know women who will watch (American) football solely because they think some of the players are attractive, so it's not like the sword only cuts one way. There are lots of ads with male athletes posing like models, too; think of Beckham and Cristiano Ronaldo.
Of course it is. For example, the biggest star to come out of the London Olympics for South Korea, arguably more so than Kim Yunah, was Son Yeon Jae. + Show Spoiler +
Korea won 28 medals with 13 of them being golds. Son Yeon Jae placed 5th. Women's sport is as much about getting sponsorships based on appearance as it is about success (e.g. Kournikova). The main problem for female athletes it that most sports viewers are men. Men who either want to watch their own gender in competition or, if that's not an option, at least see a nice ass.
Read some MMA newsfeed and look at the comments. If news is about a guy the comments are always about his next fights, performance and such. If its a female fighter comments are always about how hot she is and how much everyone would like to bang her, almost no comment about her as a fighter.
i agree with some of your points disgree with others but your post is really all over the place dude. there are plenty of womlen who are popular athletes that arent pretty and white. the williams sisters, marta, greiner, etc. do some watch sharpova only and not for her skill? yeah. do ads with sharpova typically play on her beauty and are directed from the male perspective? yeah
as far as people not watching certain female sports, that has more to do with the sports themselves than anything else. the most popular ones typically are sports where the males and females play virtually the same sport. teniis, soccer, etc. wnba and nba are worlds apart as far as how the game is played. softball is totally different than baseball. womens lax and hockey are totally different than the male counterparts
i also think it is silly to assume that there arent lots of women and gay dude who watch sports pretty much for the attractive people just like the are dudes whod watch genneken run because they wahcked off to her once
On June 07 2013 22:26 Sword of Omens wrote: Also, there may be male athlete models who are sexualized as well, but this phenomenon is much much more prevalent in women sport
Only because more men are watching sports. From my own observations though it seems that women care at least as much about the sexual aspect of men in sports, then men do for female athletes. Probably even more.
2. The existence of female sports is sexist. Most major professional sports leagues allow women. I wouldn't pay money to watch the 500th best players play a sport, so why pay money to watch women who aren't at the top of the game play? I get told all the time there's no difference between the abilities of men and women, so why should I watch people who are, by professional standards, bad? (Yes, I know there are chemical and physiological differences between the genders, but I'm making a point)
As was said already in this topic, to me it makes sense watching women´s sport for aesthetic reasons, because, why would you watch women´s sport for the sport, if you can just watch the same sport performed at a higher level by males. Unless your such a fan of that particular sport that you watched all male tournaments already and want to watch some more.
Therefore the ratio of people watching for sexy time compared to people watching for sport should always be higher on women´s sport. That, and men are bigger horndogs than women.
Most would consider these men attractive, and a VERY quick google search shows lots of images obviously highlighting this.
I would point out that tennis in general seems to be as much about eye appeal as the competition. I for one enjoy watching tennis for both of these reasons, and would find Sharapova prancing around in a bikini to be attention-grabbing but wouldn't hold interest after a couple minutes of gawking. The fact that these women ARE very fit and successful athletes adds a lot to just being cute. I'm sure those so oriented feel the same way about the guys.
I don't know why people don't watch women's basketball or soccer, as I don't find those sports interesting regardless, but I would hazard to guess its because of lack of hype and lower level of play.
Another element to consider is that generally speaking, is that women athletes are much less relatable to male sports viewers, and aside from some prime examples not terribly physically attractive, so they have less interest in watching their sports.
Well, some sports do it, some don't. You can question the rules of beach volleyball, where it was ruled until last year (!) that girls have to play in a Bikini. But this basically an exception! It's quite difficult to decide if the sport does the sexualizing or the media/social environment! It's everywhere! I'm member of the German Piratenpartei (pirate party). We had a (young and attractive) female representative, that really got fed up, that the press talked more about her looks instead our political view she told them about. The same in sports: I think most of the female sport teams take their sport quite seriously! But the "outside" just watches to get a nice view at a little naked skin!
I have no problem watching women soccer or women handball or others. But maybe I'm the wrong guy to ask because I'm a dancer and pair dancing is quite the most sexualized sport out there :D
Maybe I'm a sexist pig but only times I would watch female sports are.
a) There's an finnish athlete aiming for top ranks, I have certain amount of"patriotism" call it whatever you want in me for that. b) I'l briefly watch some cutey like Sharapova or that one hurdles chick perform sports at whatever skill level, probably a random youtube video or something, I won't actually sit on front of TV waiting for their game.
Otherwise men are at much higher level in all physical sports of interest to me so of course I rather watch male sports when female top athletes are below male amateur level. However I do know women that pretty much only watch certain matches and events due to the guys they find attractive, so the sexism goes both ways.
To add in my point I should mention that I don't follow finnish male football either because the level of play is so low it hurts to watch, meanwhile I'm quite avid follower of champions league.
On June 07 2013 22:27 QuanticHawk wrote: i agree with some of your points disgree with others but your post is really all over the place dude. there are plenty of womlen who are popular athletes that arent pretty and white. the williams sisters, marta, greiner, etc. do some watch sharpova only and not for her skill? yeah. do ads with sharpova typically play on her beauty and are directed from the male perspective? yeah
as far as people not watching certain female sports, that has more to do with the sports themselves than anything else. the most popular ones typically are sports where the males and females play virtually the same sport. teniis, soccer, etc. wnba and nba are worlds apart as far as how the game is played. softball is totally different than baseball. womens lax and hockey are totally different than the male counterparts
i also think it is silly to assume that there arent lots of women and gay dude who watch sports pretty much for the attractive people just like the are dudes whod watch genneken run because they wahcked off to her once
Add Steffi Graf to that list.
Really this topic is just off to a bad start simply because the OP is kind of bad and a bit too biased.
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.
On June 07 2013 22:29 Scarecrow wrote: I'm pretty sure the Nada's body thread puts us ahead of the curve
Yup, also in most fields like soccer it is practicly like watching the b team of some local league of men playing. Woman are inferior athletes when it boiles down to pure raw strength, so of course I do not watch them weightlifting unless they are stunningly beautiful, because if I want to see the greatest athletes, I watch men.
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.
nothing against you but it's interesting your mentioning exactly the 2 most sexualized women sports. (beach) volleyball and tennis have strict dressing codes for women where they have to wear the shortest hotpants possible or be disqualified (LOL). i'd say the organisations that force these rules are sexist for sure.
On June 07 2013 22:27 QuanticHawk wrote: i agree with some of your points disgree with others but your post is really all over the place dude. there are plenty of womlen who are popular athletes that arent pretty and white. the williams sisters, marta, greiner, etc. do some watch sharpova only and not for her skill? yeah. do ads with sharpova typically play on her beauty and are directed from the male perspective? yeah
as far as people not watching certain female sports, that has more to do with the sports themselves than anything else. the most popular ones typically are sports where the males and females play virtually the same sport. teniis, soccer, etc. wnba and nba are worlds apart as far as how the game is played. softball is totally different than baseball. womens lax and hockey are totally different than the male counterparts
i also think it is silly to assume that there arent lots of women and gay dude who watch sports pretty much for the attractive people just like the are dudes whod watch genneken run because they wahcked off to her once
Add Steffi Graf to that list.
Really this topic is just off to a bad start simply because the OP is kind of bad and a bit too biased.
i agree the op is bad (even if well intentioned and the topic is good) not really biased just put together really poorly, just runs all over the place with no clear train of thought
Have you SEEN girls STARE at the male Olympic swimmers?
Unfortunately, the reality of human biology is that when it comes to physical, athletic ability, men are more powerful and faster than women. The overwhelming majority of western sports fans want to see the biggest, strongest athletes compete. This is why heavyweight is most popular weight class in most combat sports.
Actually, let's take boxing as an example. Heavyweight boxing is the most popular and has the largest prize pools of any weight class. Personally, I think watching the smaller guys is more interesting because the fights are technical and less about raw power, but it seems the rest of the world doesn't agree with me.
So this obsession we have with raw power essentially discounts the athletic value of women's sports, which allows the sexualization to stand out. Sexualization in sports exists for both male and female athletes, but of course you notice it more with women because the viewership values their other abilities less.
On June 07 2013 22:23 Sword of Omens wrote: I am not saying that male athletes are ugly and female athletes are all pretty. The point of the discussion is that women sport is often sold on the account of the beauty of its athletes.
no its not. because women sports are usually all women, only the successful ones will be noticed the most, just the same as male sports.
or in the case of danica patrick, who was noticed because she broke into a male dominated sport, even if with little success.
whether or not these same female athletes then go onto market themselves to the world in a more sexualized fashion is whole other discussion. but it is not the primary reason they become noticed.
There were a couple stories a few years ago IIRC that went into how the LPGA was hiring advisers/stylists for the golfers who just were dressing horribad. It was overshadowed a bit by the row about wanting the LPGA golfers to speak English.
On June 07 2013 22:23 Sword of Omens wrote: I am not saying that male athletes are ugly and female athletes are all pretty. The point of the discussion is that women sport is often sold on the account of the beauty of its athletes.
no its not. because women sports are usually all women, only the successful ones will be noticed the most, just the same as male sports.
or in the case of danica patrick, who was noticed because she broke into a male dominated sport, even if with little success.
whether or not these same female athletes then go onto market themselves to the world in a more sexualized fashion is whole other discussion. but it is not the primary reason they become noticed.
the op is right to a degree. patrick has some talent, but lets be real, her opportunities and her media push dont have a damn thing to do with that. skillwise shes no different from the other middling dudes that only hardcore nascar fans know. there has been plenty of patricks or kournakovas through the years, whose reputation is built much more on looks than anything else. it opens doors, media fawns over them instead or more skilled but less pretty females in those fields. that is because our media lens really is basically from the male perspective. you dont see a male player getting more opportunties because he's a stud
Although my perspective as a heterosexual may not be the most accurate, it always seemed to me like attractive male athletes are a lot more common than attractive female ones (possibly because there's a greater pool of well known male athletes). I also don't think it's unfair to say that the majority of a male athlete's female fanbase is hooked by looks or personality rather than skill and results.
It's really a natural human reaction on either gender's side. Hardcore sports fans (of either gender) will usually look beyond that, but a more casual audience will always appreciate the physical beauty of athletes of the gender they're attracted to.
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.
nothing against you but it's interesting your mentioning exactly the 2 most sexualized women sports. (beach) volleyball and tennis have strict dressing codes for women where they have to wear the shortest hotpants possible or be disqualified (LOL). i'd say the organisations that force these rules are sexist for sure.
no shit really? dress code for tennis seems horrible.
Men's sports are sexualized too when they have to appeal to the other demographic of sports, women., Google Tom Daley if you want some of that, he was England's poster boy during 2012 London Games I believe.
Women's sports also have to appeal to those who mainly watch sports, men.
Attractive and athletic people always get the most attention and have an advantage in life, whether it be sports or any other profession really. It goes for men and women.
The natural tendency of men to put more emphasis on appearance for their mates combined with a greater percentage of males watching sports explains the OP's subject pretty easily.
On June 07 2013 22:58 Kipsate wrote: Men's sports are sexualized too when they have to appeal to the other demographic of sports, women., Google Tom Daley if you want some of that, he was England's poster boy during 2012 London Games I believe.
Women's sports also have to appeal to those who mainly watch sports, men.
The op could be written better, but I think it is arguing more on the essentialist aspect of the sport than on mere demography. Of course there are good looking male and female athletes, but the problem the op is trying to raise, I think, is that women athletes have to be packaged more on their looks in addition to their skills in order to be popular, which is not usually the case with male athletes.
Because people only appreciated Marion Jones for her sexy feminine body.
On second thought, probably not since she was roided up to the point of looking like a man--but regardless, people still admired her performance until they found the drugs.
Yes it is and no, it's not a problem. We have to remember that professional athletes do not get paid just because they're good at a particular game. They get paid because people want to watch them play and therefore businesses are willing to spend money on sponsorship and advertising. At the end of the day, pro athletes are entertainers.
Since women are worse at sports than men and female sexuality is regarded as more valuable than male sexuality, it makes perfect sense that a greater degree of sexualization occurs with women's sports. Without that, a lot less people would be interested in women's sports and female athletes would make much less money.
People are sexualized. By extension, women in sports are sexualized - they wear light outfits and they're in good shape... If they weren't sexualized, we'd have to wonder why. People like to see hot athletes... Not to mention, there's nothing inherently wrong with it.
We can pretend to ourselves that photos of sexy women are somehow degrading to women, but in reality, the only harmful thing is viewing women as inferiors.
How often have you heard women say they'd jump Johnny Depp's bone, is sexualizing him somehow degrading to men or should we just admit that being sexually attracted to some one does not a sexist make?
Male athletes are idealized- they're presented, marketed, and defined by their ability. Female athletes, or really, anything, are sexualized. They're defined by their appearance and the desire that people have for them.
Majority of people who watch sports are male. When you compare the two sports, most males are not comparing beauty and talent for male dominated sports. However, with women dominated sports, men can compare beauty and talent.
On June 07 2013 23:29 FSKi wrote: I thought this would be a topic about sexism in esports, aka having separate tournaments for women even though the strength and speed differences which exist in physical sports don't exist on the internet in terms of video game performance. That's a real topic for this site.
I would venture to say that is more about marketing than anything.
PLus, while there is not a physical barrier in place like other sports, there are way less women then men on the scene, and more than likely they do not have the same support systems in place at the time as males and it is harder for them to compete with someone who plays for 12 hours a day and has a coach
The difference is that the group above are one which by normal standards we would not consider aesthetically pleasing
Allow me to stop you right there. First off, almost any of the men you listed are or were EASILY physically attractive due to being in peak shape. You would have to look high in low in any professional sports league to find a player who could not walk into a bar and walk out minutes later with someone eager to sleep with him or her, purely on the basis of raw sexual attraction.
As for all these pictures of female athletes in Maxim - there was no contract that forced them to do that. Women have agency, believe it or not, and its not for the likes of tl to tell the women who choose to engage in risque photoshoots how to live.
The difference is that the group above are one which by normal standards we would not consider aesthetically pleasing
Allow me to stop you right there. First off, almost any of the men you listed are or were EASILY physically attractive due to being in peak shape. You would have to look high in low in any professional sports league to find a player who could not walk into a bar and walk out minutes later with someone eager to sleep with him or her, purely on the basis of raw sexual attraction.
As for all these pictures of female athletes in Maxim - there was no contract that forced them to do that. Women have agency, believe it or not, and its not for the likes of tl to tell the women who choose to engage in risque photoshoots how to live.
The difference is that the group above are one which by normal standards we would not consider aesthetically pleasing
Allow me to stop you right there. First off, almost any of the men you listed are or were EASILY physically attractive due to being in peak shape. You would have to look high in low in any professional sports league to find a player who could not walk into a bar and walk out minutes later with someone eager to sleep with him or her, purely on the basis of raw sexual attraction.
As for all these pictures of female athletes in Maxim - there was no contract that forced them to do that. Women have agency, believe it or not, and its not for the likes of tl to tell the women who choose to engage in risque photoshoots how to live.
Franck Ribery. Probably one of the most well-known active French soccer players, plays for one of the top-10 sports clubs in the world, and is probably the ugliest fucking athlete I've ever seen in my life.
Took about three seconds.
Most flattering picture I could find on Google. You should see him when he smiles.
That said, the dude is still fucking awesome at soccer.
On June 07 2013 22:22 nkr wrote: most females i discussed football with couldnt care less about players like wayne rooney or ronaldinho
but when christina ronaldo or dianne beckham are brought up, they are huge fans
Ronaldo and Beckham are also some of the greatest players ever to grace the game. Athletes will have better bodies because they treat their bodies well, and exercise very frequently.
Of course, but it's not as though male athletes are sexualized in a similar, though admittedly lesser, capacity. This does nothing to support the notion of a systematic patriarchal discriminatory society though. If anything, it demonstrates the much higher price we, in human societies, place on female sexuality vs male sexuality. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap, men are the disposable sex.
And also keep in mind that a lot of the discrepancy in how much appearance matters in athletics between males and females can be explained by 2 more things: 1). Appearance matters more for females outside of sporting arenas and it's only an extension. 2) most sports viewers are male. Of course female fans of the NBA are flicking their beans to thoughts of Lebron.
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.
nothing against you but it's interesting your mentioning exactly the 2 most sexualized women sports. (beach) volleyball and tennis have strict dressing codes for women where they have to wear the shortest hotpants possible or be disqualified (LOL). i'd say the organisations that force these rules are sexist for sure.
On June 08 2013 00:39 Drowsy wrote: Of course, but it's not as though male athletes are sexualized in a similar, though admittedly lesser, capacity. This does nothing to support the notion of a systematic patriarchal discriminatory society though. If anything, it demonstrates the much higher price we, in human societies, place on female sexuality vs male sexuality. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap, men are the disposable sex.
Wilt Chamberlain.
wat? you just said males are sexualized in a lesser capacity and we place a higher price on female sexuality, but you don't think this has the potential to put men (the "judges" of physical appearance) in a relatively higher possition? or effect average women negatively?
I read that like: "we judge your looks harder and sexualize you more based on your sex, but its not sexist cause i find your sexuality valuable." wat?
On June 08 2013 00:39 Drowsy wrote: Of course, but it's not as though male athletes are sexualized in a similar, though admittedly lesser, capacity. This does nothing to support the notion of a systematic patriarchal discriminatory society though. If anything, it demonstrates the much higher price we, in human societies, place on female sexuality vs male sexuality. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap, men are the disposable sex.
Wilt Chamberlain.
wat? you just said males are sexualized in a lesser capacity and we place a higher price on female sexuality, but you don't think this has the potential to put men (the "judges" of physical appearance) in a relatively higher possition? or effect average women negatively?
I read that like: "we judge your looks harder and sexualize you more based on your sex, but its not sexist cause i find your sexuality valuable." wat?
A given women above an attractiveness threshold in any public arena will have far more capacity to exploit her sexuality for popularity, personal, and financial gain than a given man of the same attractiveness. That threshold is probably pretty damn low too. Yes, this sounds like a huge advantage to me. That's not to say it's not sexist, just sexism in the direction opposite to the one the jezebelers would like to believe.
From the sports I follow (badminton/basketball) this isn't really the case. This might be mainly because I only watch Asian badminton so there's not western exposure to this, and from what I've seen of the wNBA it's not very interesting and britney griner isn't exactly the kind of person you want on magazine covers
On June 08 2013 00:39 Drowsy wrote: Of course, but it's not as though male athletes are sexualized in a similar, though admittedly lesser, capacity. This does nothing to support the notion of a systematic patriarchal discriminatory society though. If anything, it demonstrates the much higher price we, in human societies, place on female sexuality vs male sexuality. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap, men are the disposable sex.
Wilt Chamberlain.
wat? you just said males are sexualized in a lesser capacity and we place a higher price on female sexuality, but you don't think this has the potential to put men (the "judges" of physical appearance) in a relatively higher possition? or effect average women negatively?
I read that like: "we judge your looks harder and sexualize you more based on your sex, but its not sexist cause i find your sexuality valuable." wat?
A given women above an attractiveness threshold in any public arena will have far more capacity to exploit her sexuality for popularity, personal, and financial gain than a given man of the same attractiveness. Yes, this sounds like a huge advantage to me. That's not to say it's not sexist, just sexism in the direction opposite to the one the jezebelers would like to believe.
so you chalk up being objectified as a good thing for all women becuase attractive women are objectified in a good way? what if attrative women dont want to be objectified while they are hosting a board meeting or something? nvm like 80% of the average population that does suffer the negative effects of this judgement litterally everyday.
You cant say its okay to sexualize and objectify half the population of the planet becuase some women benifit from it im sorry thats just toooooo wrong.
How much harder is it for an ugly woman than an ugly man by your own logic? which group would you say is larger?
Do you honestly believe attractive women enjoy the majority of the attention they get in those public places? EDIT:+ Show Spoiler +
On June 08 2013 00:58 saddaromma wrote: its simple. boys watch sports, girls don't. therefore, hot chicks are popular, and hot guys are not.
The difference is that the group above are one which by normal standards we would not consider aesthetically pleasing
Allow me to stop you right there. First off, almost any of the men you listed are or were EASILY physically attractive due to being in peak shape. You would have to look high in low in any professional sports league to find a player who could not walk into a bar and walk out minutes later with someone eager to sleep with him or her, purely on the basis of raw sexual attraction.
As for all these pictures of female athletes in Maxim - there was no contract that forced them to do that. Women have agency, believe it or not, and its not for the likes of tl to tell the women who choose to engage in risque photoshoots how to live.
There is. I read earlier about dress codes!
Uh huh. And if a baseball player thinks his skin tight, butt revealing pants are over the top and uncomfortable, or if a male athlete in the nfl isnt keen on having a female "interviewer" and camera crew ogling him and his friends in the locker room in various states of undress, they are in the exact same position.
I mean... Forgive me, but I just don't get the point here. It isnt discrimination to want to watch the highest level of competition, which just happens to be found within the major male sports leagues. Like, what is the proposed solution? Force audiences to watch women's leagues more even though the level of competition is lower? Force female sports leagues to desexify their dress codes? And when ratings inevitably drop then what? Government subsidies?
I dunno, I guess I'm just old fashioned or something. To me, sexism is discrimination on the basis of gender. Not the failure of society to provide special privileges for female sports leagues so that only the male ones have to cater to the actual audiences and deal with problems of supply and demand.
The difference is that the group above are one which by normal standards we would not consider aesthetically pleasing
Allow me to stop you right there. First off, almost any of the men you listed are or were EASILY physically attractive due to being in peak shape. You would have to look high in low in any professional sports league to find a player who could not walk into a bar and walk out minutes later with someone eager to sleep with him or her, purely on the basis of raw sexual attraction.
As for all these pictures of female athletes in Maxim - there was no contract that forced them to do that. Women have agency, believe it or not, and its not for the likes of tl to tell the women who choose to engage in risque photoshoots how to live.
There is. I read earlier about dress codes!
Uh huh. And if a baseball player thinks his skin tight, butt revealing pants are over the top and uncomfortable, or if a male athlete in the nfl isnt keen on having a female "interviewer" and camera crew ogling him and his friends in the locker room in various states of undress, they are in the exact same position.
I mean... Forgive me, but I just don't get the point here. It isnt discrimination to want to watch the highest level of competition, which just happens to be found within the major male sports leagues. Like, what is the proposed solution? Force audiences to watch women's leagues more even though the level of competition is lower? Force female sports leagues to desexify their dress codes? And when ratings inevitably drop then what? Government subsidies?
I dunno, I guess I'm just old fashioned or something. To me, sexism is discrimination on the basis of gender. Not the failure of society to provide special privileges for female sports leagues so that only the male ones have to cater to the actual audiences and deal with problems of supply and demand.
Dont derail the discussion. You mentioned agency, I simply answered you that there is no such thing in womens tennis as there is a required dress code that flatters their feminine aspect, therefore sexualization.
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.
nothing against you but it's interesting your mentioning exactly the 2 most sexualized women sports. (beach) volleyball and tennis have strict dressing codes for women where they have to wear the shortest hotpants possible or be disqualified (LOL). i'd say the organisations that force these rules are sexist for sure.
Well, thats just not true :
just saw they changed the rules for beach volleyball just before the olympics, so maybe it's outdated: link.
but it existed before:
The Associated Press reports that the International Volleyball Federation has modified its rules to allow "shorts of a maximum length of (1.18 inches) above the knee, and sleeved or sleeveless tops."
other sports are trying to do the same. like badminton and others which tried to force women to wear skirts.
Uhm, nope. It is the contrary actually, more proof of women's sexuality being used for male enjoyment = sexualization of women, not as athletes though in this case.
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.
nothing against you but it's interesting your mentioning exactly the 2 most sexualized women sports. (beach) volleyball and tennis have strict dressing codes for women where they have to wear the shortest hotpants possible or be disqualified (LOL). i'd say the organisations that force these rules are sexist for sure.
I didn't think that regular volleyball has any real differences between men and women dress codes? Beach volleyball, sure. But he didn't say that; you did.
For what it's worth, I agree that women's volleyball is more interesting because of the longer rallies. I'd also add figure skating to that list because the women always seem to be more graceful to me. Of course, that could have something to do with it being a sport that is incredibly female dominated.
Another one would be curling. I find that I like enjoy both men's and women's curling equally. The skill level difference isn't nearly as drastic as it used to be and the top women's team can give the top men's team a run for their money (that being said, at the very top men still have an edge). One thing I noticed is that the women's curling is a lot more even than with men's curling; upsets are a lot more likely.
So here's the skip for a top ranked team in Sweden. Do you think she was picked for her looks?
On June 08 2013 00:39 Drowsy wrote: Of course, but it's not as though male athletes are sexualized in a similar, though admittedly lesser, capacity. This does nothing to support the notion of a systematic patriarchal discriminatory society though. If anything, it demonstrates the much higher price we, in human societies, place on female sexuality vs male sexuality. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap, men are the disposable sex.
Wilt Chamberlain.
wat? you just said males are sexualized in a lesser capacity and we place a higher price on female sexuality, but you don't think this has the potential to put men (the "judges" of physical appearance) in a relatively higher possition? or effect average women negatively?
I read that like: "we judge your looks harder and sexualize you more based on your sex, but its not sexist cause i find your sexuality valuable." wat?
A given women above an attractiveness threshold in any public arena will have far more capacity to exploit her sexuality for popularity, personal, and financial gain than a given man of the same attractiveness. Yes, this sounds like a huge advantage to me. That's not to say it's not sexist, just sexism in the direction opposite to the one the jezebelers would like to believe.
From what I've heard about studies looking at things like who gets invited to a job interview, the advantage a handsome man has is stronger than a woman being beautiful. I think I've heard the same about studies where people get to evaluate a situation or an argument, with the only difference being how beautiful someone is. There's something where being beautiful can have downsides for women, but for men it's more likely to be a positive, and the effect is also stronger. That said, I'm really not sure I remember this right.
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.
nothing against you but it's interesting your mentioning exactly the 2 most sexualized women sports. (beach) volleyball and tennis have strict dressing codes for women where they have to wear the shortest hotpants possible or be disqualified (LOL). i'd say the organisations that force these rules are sexist for sure.
Well, thats just not true :
just saw they changed the rules for beach volleyball just before the olympics, so maybe it's outdated: link.
The Associated Press reports that the International Volleyball Federation has modified its rules to allow "shorts of a maximum length of (1.18 inches) above the knee, and sleeved or sleeveless tops."
other sports are trying to do the same. like badminton and others which tried to force women to wear skirts.
Isn't it obvious from my picture that my post is only about Tennis ? There you can see that in Tennis there is absolutely no rule to wear hotpants
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.
nothing against you but it's interesting your mentioning exactly the 2 most sexualized women sports. (beach) volleyball and tennis have strict dressing codes for women where they have to wear the shortest hotpants possible or be disqualified (LOL). i'd say the organisations that force these rules are sexist for sure.
Well, thats just not true :
just saw they changed the rules for beach volleyball just before the olympics, so maybe it's outdated: link.
but it existed before:
The Associated Press reports that the International Volleyball Federation has modified its rules to allow "shorts of a maximum length of (1.18 inches) above the knee, and sleeved or sleeveless tops."
other sports are trying to do the same. like badminton and others which tried to force women to wear skirts.
Isn't it obvious from my picture that my post is only about Tennis ? There you can see that in Tennis there is absolutely no rule to wear hotpants
guess i mixed up tennis and badminton. i apologize. but my point wasn't about the sports. it's just that those rules do exist.
Uhm, nope. It is the contrary actually, more proof of women's sexuality being used for male enjoyment = sexualization of women, not as athletes though in this case.
I think the point being made is that the sport will be made sexual to bring in a higher audience. If a majority of the viewer base was women you'd probably see guys running around trying to be sexy instead.
On June 08 2013 00:39 Drowsy wrote: Of course, but it's not as though male athletes are sexualized in a similar, though admittedly lesser, capacity. This does nothing to support the notion of a systematic patriarchal discriminatory society though. If anything, it demonstrates the much higher price we, in human societies, place on female sexuality vs male sexuality. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap, men are the disposable sex.
Wilt Chamberlain.
wat? you just said males are sexualized in a lesser capacity and we place a higher price on female sexuality, but you don't think this has the potential to put men (the "judges" of physical appearance) in a relatively higher possition? or effect average women negatively?
I read that like: "we judge your looks harder and sexualize you more based on your sex, but its not sexist cause i find your sexuality valuable." wat?
A given women above an attractiveness threshold in any public arena will have far more capacity to exploit her sexuality for popularity, personal, and financial gain than a given man of the same attractiveness. Yes, this sounds like a huge advantage to me. That's not to say it's not sexist, just sexism in the direction opposite to the one the jezebelers would like to believe.
so you chalk up being objectified as a good thing for all women becuase attractive women are objectified in a good way? what if attrative women dont want to be objectified while they are hosting a board meeting or something? nvm like 80% of the average population that does suffer the negative effects of this judgement litterally everyday.
You cant say its okay to sexualize and objectify half the population of the planet becuase some women benifit from it im sorry thats just toooooo wrong.
How much harder is it for an ugly woman than an ugly man by your own logic? which group would you say is larger?
Do you honestly believe attractive women enjoy the majority of the attention they get in those public places? EDIT:+ Show Spoiler +
On June 08 2013 00:58 saddaromma wrote: its simple. boys watch sports, girls don't. therefore, hot chicks are popular, and hot guys are not.
omg get back in your time machine please
bolded: The majority of women are pretty damn hot from age 18-30 and will have some opportunity to sell their sexuality. When we're talking physically active elite athletes nearly you can bump that up to nearly all of them. The capacity to commodify one's sexuality among all females still far outstrips all males. Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice; nobody is putting a gun to their head and asking them to pose for maxim. Having one's sexuality commodified doesn't just happen automatically, there has to be some participation.
underlined: Okay? Hell no I don't think it's okay. It's totally unfair that people should be able to leverage their sexuality to such an extent and gain power/wealth/fame through it when it would be otherwise undeserved. For women its a relatively inborn characteristic as well and difficult to improve. It's very unfair to those females who aren't born with it and to the majority of men who will never be able to leverage their sexuality in a similar manner for personal gain. In athletics, people are gaining fame/popularity/sponsorships/money on things they were largely born with that are sometimes unrelated to their actual athletic skills (depends on the sport). If I was a tall, lanky, butchy WNBA player who was making significantly less money and accruing less sponsorships/recognition than worse basketball players who were simply prettier of course I'd be pissed. But alas, while I hate it, I don't think its from some systematic socially engineered conspiracy. It's from immutable laws of human biology and its here to stay, and let's not lie to ourselves about who's winning from the arrangement and who's losing.
Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will.
Well, to return to the athletics discussion, if objectification bothers an athlete they should probably not agree to maxim photoshoots.
It seems to me that the OP contains a whole lot of assumptions about who watches sports and for what reasons. You really don't think Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte were objectified by anyone during the Olympics? Footballers and basketball players don't get objectified? Not only are they objectified in a sexual manner, but they're even objectified in a very general way. We send them to combines to measure their physical attributes, one after another like processing cattle.
Even the examples you give show that performance really isn't everything. Kimbo Slice, Brock Lesnar, Chris Bosh. Why are these the names that you remember? It's not due to their dominance in sport.
When asked about the possibility of there being a female NBA player:
Battier was also asked if he thought it would just be a publicity stunt and turn into a sideshow if it happened.
"Listen, this whole thing is a sideshow," Battier said. "What's one more trailer on this sideshow?"
He's right. This is the entertainment industry and players are not paid by performance. They're paid by marketability, whether male or female or anything else. It just so happens that performance contributes greatly to marketability, but it's nowhere near the be all and end all.
On June 08 2013 00:50 Kamakiri wrote: I would only watch women sports for looks tbh, i see no reason to watch female hockey, football, etc.
To be honest, a few years ago, Women's tennis was hugely popular in Belgium because of Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters. Neither of them is physically attractive but people just wanted to see their fellow countrywomen beat other players.
Is sports sexualised? It obviously is, to a certain extent. Athletics features a lot of scantly dressed men and women with bodies a lot of people find attractive, and athletes are often aware of that. There are of course men and women who do not want to sexualize themselves because of cultural reasons (think of muslim athletes) or because they just don't care. A lot of female track runners wear little more than very small bikini bottoms/hotpants nowadays but I doubt that wearing normal shorts would hurt their results much. You don't see men running in their undies either.
However, I don't think people of either sex watches sports just to see the bodies of trained athletes. In the end, most people watch sports to see amazing physical feats or to cheer for their favourite player or team. If that athlete is good looking, well, that's nice bonus.
Sport's popularity has little to do with sexuality. Football players are often very dense or ugly, but their skills are respected by almost literally everyone, and football is by far the most popular sport in the world.
Another example: starcraft 2. Most pro players fall in one of the following categories, or a combination of them: obese, underweight/scrawny, socially awkward. There are very few "normal" progamers, mainly because being a progamer is in no society except South Korea considered a normal occupation. Most people in their late teens or early twenties spend their time hanging out with friends, working or studying, not playing a single video game for ten to twelve hours a day. Still, does anyone here care? When I watch MLG, WCS, Dreamhack or any other tournament, I don't care what the person looks like because I'm busy being amazed at the way he plays the game.
The difference is that the group above are one which by normal standards we would not consider aesthetically pleasing
Allow me to stop you right there. First off, almost any of the men you listed are or were EASILY physically attractive due to being in peak shape. You would have to look high in low in any professional sports league to find a player who could not walk into a bar and walk out minutes later with someone eager to sleep with him or her, purely on the basis of raw sexual attraction.
As for all these pictures of female athletes in Maxim - there was no contract that forced them to do that. Women have agency, believe it or not, and its not for the likes of tl to tell the women who choose to engage in risque photoshoots how to live.
There is. I read earlier about dress codes!
Uh huh. And if a baseball player thinks his skin tight, butt revealing pants are over the top and uncomfortable, or if a male athlete in the nfl isnt keen on having a female "interviewer" and camera crew ogling him and his friends in the locker room in various states of undress, they are in the exact same position.
I mean... Forgive me, but I just don't get the point here. It isnt discrimination to want to watch the highest level of competition, which just happens to be found within the major male sports leagues. Like, what is the proposed solution? Force audiences to watch women's leagues more even though the level of competition is lower? Force female sports leagues to desexify their dress codes? And when ratings inevitably drop then what? Government subsidies?
I dunno, I guess I'm just old fashioned or something. To me, sexism is discrimination on the basis of gender. Not the failure of society to provide special privileges for female sports leagues so that only the male ones have to cater to the actual audiences and deal with problems of supply and demand.
Dont derail the discussion. You mentioned agency, I simply answered you that there is no such thing in womens tennis as there is a required dress code that flatters their feminine aspect, therefore sexualization.
Male athletes are required to display themselves on national tv half naked, in a locker room, with a female interviewer standing right next to them. I challenge you to find a similarly extreme case of sexualization directed at female athletes, or cheerleaders for that matter.
On June 08 2013 00:39 Drowsy wrote: Of course, but it's not as though male athletes are sexualized in a similar, though admittedly lesser, capacity. This does nothing to support the notion of a systematic patriarchal discriminatory society though. If anything, it demonstrates the much higher price we, in human societies, place on female sexuality vs male sexuality. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap, men are the disposable sex.
Wilt Chamberlain.
wat? you just said males are sexualized in a lesser capacity and we place a higher price on female sexuality, but you don't think this has the potential to put men (the "judges" of physical appearance) in a relatively higher possition? or effect average women negatively?
I read that like: "we judge your looks harder and sexualize you more based on your sex, but its not sexist cause i find your sexuality valuable." wat?
A given women above an attractiveness threshold in any public arena will have far more capacity to exploit her sexuality for popularity, personal, and financial gain than a given man of the same attractiveness. Yes, this sounds like a huge advantage to me. That's not to say it's not sexist, just sexism in the direction opposite to the one the jezebelers would like to believe.
so you chalk up being objectified as a good thing for all women becuase attractive women are objectified in a good way? what if attrative women dont want to be objectified while they are hosting a board meeting or something? nvm like 80% of the average population that does suffer the negative effects of this judgement litterally everyday.
You cant say its okay to sexualize and objectify half the population of the planet becuase some women benifit from it im sorry thats just toooooo wrong.
How much harder is it for an ugly woman than an ugly man by your own logic? which group would you say is larger?
Do you honestly believe attractive women enjoy the majority of the attention they get in those public places? EDIT:+ Show Spoiler +
On June 08 2013 00:58 saddaromma wrote: its simple. boys watch sports, girls don't. therefore, hot chicks are popular, and hot guys are not.
omg get back in your time machine please
bolded: The majority of women are pretty damn hot from age 18-30 and will have some opportunity to sell their sexuality. When we're talking physically active elite athletes nearly you can bump that up to nearly all of them. The capacity to commodify one's sexuality among all females still far outstrips all males. Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice; nobody is putting a gun to their head and asking them to pose for maxim. Having one's sexuality commodified doesn't just happen automatically, there has to be some participation. underlined: Okay? Hell no I don't think it's okay. It's totally unfair that people should be able to leverage their sexuality to such an extent and gain power/wealth/fame through it when it would be otherwise undeserved. For women its a relatively inborn characteristic as well and difficult to improve. It's very unfair to those females who aren't born with it and to the majority of men who will never be able to leverage their sexuality in a similar manner for personal gain. In athletics, people are gaining fame/popularity/sponsorships/money on things they were largely born with that are sometimes unrelated to their actual athletic skills (depends on the sport). But alas, while I hate it, I don't think its from some systematic socially engineered conspiracy. It's from immutable laws of human biology and its here to stay, and let's not lie to ourselves about who's winning from the arrangement and who's losing.
Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will.
Well, to return to the athletics discussion, if objectification bothers an athlete they should probably not agree to maxim photoshoots.
you do know this so called "advantage" is a 100% male created and controled thing right?
and its not really your place to tell women that an oportunity to leverage their sexuallity is more valuable than not being judged based on your looks constantly. additionally your not in a possition to state that the majority of women 18-30 are attractive and you also dont seem to realize this is less than half the female population. you say "Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice" but it is not their choice to be judged constantly on their physical apearance. most people dont make their sexuality a commodity, but they are still objectified.
immutable laws of human biology? what are you a rottweiler? i hope you're on a leash caveman!
Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will.
so that makes it okay to objectify all women against their will? its her responsibitliy as an attractive female to deal with stupid men?
one thing that has to be kept in mind is that the ideal male body is very athletic/muscular, while the ideal female body is much slimmer and should only exhibit a mild degree of visible muscles. therefore, the amount of different sports in which the male athletes automatically have a body conforming to beauty standards is much higher than for females. female weightlifters or basketball players, for example, dont have bodies that conform with how the majority of us would paint the ideal female body. therefore, the degree of sexualization of females is not that high in these sports.
tennis, beach volleyball, figure skating, rythmic gymnastics, golf and some sorts of track and field are pretty much the only sports which naturally form a female body in the "ideal" way - therefore, it is not surprising that these are the sports where the majority of sexualization is taking place.
On June 08 2013 00:39 Drowsy wrote: Of course, but it's not as though male athletes are sexualized in a similar, though admittedly lesser, capacity. This does nothing to support the notion of a systematic patriarchal discriminatory society though. If anything, it demonstrates the much higher price we, in human societies, place on female sexuality vs male sexuality. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap, men are the disposable sex.
Wilt Chamberlain.
wat? you just said males are sexualized in a lesser capacity and we place a higher price on female sexuality, but you don't think this has the potential to put men (the "judges" of physical appearance) in a relatively higher possition? or effect average women negatively?
I read that like: "we judge your looks harder and sexualize you more based on your sex, but its not sexist cause i find your sexuality valuable." wat?
A given women above an attractiveness threshold in any public arena will have far more capacity to exploit her sexuality for popularity, personal, and financial gain than a given man of the same attractiveness. Yes, this sounds like a huge advantage to me. That's not to say it's not sexist, just sexism in the direction opposite to the one the jezebelers would like to believe.
so you chalk up being objectified as a good thing for all women becuase attractive women are objectified in a good way? what if attrative women dont want to be objectified while they are hosting a board meeting or something? nvm like 80% of the average population that does suffer the negative effects of this judgement litterally everyday.
You cant say its okay to sexualize and objectify half the population of the planet becuase some women benifit from it im sorry thats just toooooo wrong.
How much harder is it for an ugly woman than an ugly man by your own logic? which group would you say is larger?
Do you honestly believe attractive women enjoy the majority of the attention they get in those public places? EDIT:+ Show Spoiler +
On June 08 2013 00:58 saddaromma wrote: its simple. boys watch sports, girls don't. therefore, hot chicks are popular, and hot guys are not.
omg get back in your time machine please
bolded: The majority of women are pretty damn hot from age 18-30 and will have some opportunity to sell their sexuality. When we're talking physically active elite athletes nearly you can bump that up to nearly all of them. The capacity to commodify one's sexuality among all females still far outstrips all males. Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice; nobody is putting a gun to their head and asking them to pose for maxim. Having one's sexuality commodified doesn't just happen automatically, there has to be some participation. underlined: Okay? Hell no I don't think it's okay. It's totally unfair that people should be able to leverage their sexuality to such an extent and gain power/wealth/fame through it when it would be otherwise undeserved. For women its a relatively inborn characteristic as well and difficult to improve. It's very unfair to those females who aren't born with it and to the majority of men who will never be able to leverage their sexuality in a similar manner for personal gain. In athletics, people are gaining fame/popularity/sponsorships/money on things they were largely born with that are sometimes unrelated to their actual athletic skills (depends on the sport). But alas, while I hate it, I don't think its from some systematic socially engineered conspiracy. It's from immutable laws of human biology and its here to stay, and let's not lie to ourselves about who's winning from the arrangement and who's losing.
Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will.
Well, to return to the athletics discussion, if objectification bothers an athlete they should probably not agree to maxim photoshoots.
you do know this so called "advantage" is a 100% male created and controled thing right?
and its not really your place to tell women that an oportunity to leverage their sexuallity is more valuable than not being judged based on your looks constantly. additionally your not in a possition to state that the majority of women 18-30 are attractive and you also dont seem to realize this is less than half the female population. you say "Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice" but it is not their choice to be judged constantly on their physical apearance. most people dont make their sexuality a commodity, but they are still objectified.
immutable laws of human biology? what are you a rottweiler? i hope you're on a leash caveman!
Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will.
so that makes it okay to objectify all women against their will? its her responsibitliy as an attractive female to deal with stupid men?
Did you read anything I posted?
Actually, if I'm reading your post correctly, you're asserting that sexuality is not remotely biological and is 100% socially constructed. Not only that, but the "rules" of it are entirely made by males. If this is the case or anything near it, I'm afraid we live in different worlds can't have a civil conversation on this topic.
On June 08 2013 00:39 Drowsy wrote: Of course, but it's not as though male athletes are sexualized in a similar, though admittedly lesser, capacity. This does nothing to support the notion of a systematic patriarchal discriminatory society though. If anything, it demonstrates the much higher price we, in human societies, place on female sexuality vs male sexuality. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap, men are the disposable sex.
Wilt Chamberlain.
wat? you just said males are sexualized in a lesser capacity and we place a higher price on female sexuality, but you don't think this has the potential to put men (the "judges" of physical appearance) in a relatively higher possition? or effect average women negatively?
I read that like: "we judge your looks harder and sexualize you more based on your sex, but its not sexist cause i find your sexuality valuable." wat?
A given women above an attractiveness threshold in any public arena will have far more capacity to exploit her sexuality for popularity, personal, and financial gain than a given man of the same attractiveness. Yes, this sounds like a huge advantage to me. That's not to say it's not sexist, just sexism in the direction opposite to the one the jezebelers would like to believe.
so you chalk up being objectified as a good thing for all women becuase attractive women are objectified in a good way? what if attrative women dont want to be objectified while they are hosting a board meeting or something? nvm like 80% of the average population that does suffer the negative effects of this judgement litterally everyday.
You cant say its okay to sexualize and objectify half the population of the planet becuase some women benifit from it im sorry thats just toooooo wrong.
How much harder is it for an ugly woman than an ugly man by your own logic? which group would you say is larger?
Do you honestly believe attractive women enjoy the majority of the attention they get in those public places? EDIT:+ Show Spoiler +
On June 08 2013 00:58 saddaromma wrote: its simple. boys watch sports, girls don't. therefore, hot chicks are popular, and hot guys are not.
omg get back in your time machine please
bolded: The majority of women are pretty damn hot from age 18-30 and will have some opportunity to sell their sexuality. When we're talking physically active elite athletes nearly you can bump that up to nearly all of them. The capacity to commodify one's sexuality among all females still far outstrips all males. Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice; nobody is putting a gun to their head and asking them to pose for maxim. Having one's sexuality commodified doesn't just happen automatically, there has to be some participation. underlined: Okay? Hell no I don't think it's okay. It's totally unfair that people should be able to leverage their sexuality to such an extent and gain power/wealth/fame through it when it would be otherwise undeserved. For women its a relatively inborn characteristic as well and difficult to improve. It's very unfair to those females who aren't born with it and to the majority of men who will never be able to leverage their sexuality in a similar manner for personal gain. In athletics, people are gaining fame/popularity/sponsorships/money on things they were largely born with that are sometimes unrelated to their actual athletic skills (depends on the sport). But alas, while I hate it, I don't think its from some systematic socially engineered conspiracy. It's from immutable laws of human biology and its here to stay, and let's not lie to ourselves about who's winning from the arrangement and who's losing.
Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will.
Well, to return to the athletics discussion, if objectification bothers an athlete they should probably not agree to maxim photoshoots.
you do know this so called "advantage" is a 100% male created and controled thing right?
and its not really your place to tell women that an oportunity to leverage their sexuallity is more valuable than not being judged based on your looks constantly. additionally your not in a possition to state that the majority of women 18-30 are attractive and you also dont seem to realize this is less than half the female population. you say "Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice" but it is not their choice to be judged constantly on their physical apearance. most people dont make their sexuality a commodity, but they are still objectified.
immutable laws of human biology? what are you a rottweiler? i hope you're on a leash caveman!
Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will.
so that makes it okay to objectify all women against their will? its her responsibitliy as an attractive female to deal with stupid men?
I said: "You cant say its okay to sexualize and objectify half the population of the planet". You said "Okay? Hell no I don't think it's okay. It's totally unfair that people should be able to leverage their sexuality to such an extent and gain power/wealth/fame through it when it would be otherwise undeserved." which insinuates that you find sexualizing and objectifying women to be an advantage to women.
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
Hey... Many athletes are sexy people, and that's nothing to be ashamed of.
If women's sports are "sexualized" then they should be happy, because that's a step toward equality. In ancient Greek art, Olympians are depicted as being completely naked. A strong, healthy physique and well-defined musculature is attractive to many people.
I can think of many male athletes who have been "sexualized":
David Beckham Roger Federer Christiano Ronaldo Kobe Bryant
The OP is being very biased in male athlete selection. Brock Lesnar (would probably be intimidating to more people than he is attractive to)... Kimbo Slice (looks like someone out of a bum-fights DVD)... Wayne Rooney (scrappy, bull-doggish appearance)... I can think of some female athletes very easily who wouldn't be "sexualized" if they begged:
Yes, it is sexualized. Because it needs to be, or it wouldn't be economically feasible. Sex sells, poor sports performance does not. And sorry ladies, for the most part you just aren't that good.
On June 08 2013 01:49 gedatsu wrote: Yes, it is sexualized. Because it needs to be, or it wouldn't be economically feasible. Sex sells, poor sports performance does not. And sorry ladies, for the most part you just aren't that good.
It really is that simple.
I challenge you to lift what the woman in the picture above can.
I dont really see how this can be debated very effectively when we can all see that in the majority of cases, this is just apparent.
How about this view: Maybe we can assume that most people that watch sports are men. Okay and people want to watch the best, most physical and talented players play any given sport. As a general rule, men's sports happen to be played at a higher level than women's. Therefore, why would most watchers want to view sports at possibly a lower level? So in order to make women's sports more popular, how can you get the majority of the audience to watch? Capitalize on the attractiveness of the women to bring in male (and maybe female) viewers.
They do go overboard sometimes with over-sexualization, i think this is just the way its always gonna be if they want women's sports to get viewers
EDIT: As many other people just mentioned more succinctly above me
Sex sells. It's used in both men and women's sports advertising. One reason you see it as such for women is because you're a heterosexual man (or homosexual woman). It's all about target audience. Men's swimming is one primary counter example.
I just watch sports because I like sports. Male tennis, female tennis, it's all the same to me. I do have to agree that Sharapova is a goddess, though.
On June 08 2013 01:49 gedatsu wrote: Yes, it is sexualized. Because it needs to be, or it wouldn't be economically feasible. Sex sells, poor sports performance does not. And sorry ladies, for the most part you just aren't that good.
It really is that simple.
I challenge you to lift what the woman in the picture above can.
For the most part I'm not that good either. That is why I don't get to do it on tv, and why there aren't million-dollar companies offering me money to put their logo on my clothes.
On June 08 2013 00:39 Drowsy wrote: Of course, but it's not as though male athletes are sexualized in a similar, though admittedly lesser, capacity. This does nothing to support the notion of a systematic patriarchal discriminatory society though. If anything, it demonstrates the much higher price we, in human societies, place on female sexuality vs male sexuality. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap, men are the disposable sex.
Wilt Chamberlain.
wat? you just said males are sexualized in a lesser capacity and we place a higher price on female sexuality, but you don't think this has the potential to put men (the "judges" of physical appearance) in a relatively higher possition? or effect average women negatively?
I read that like: "we judge your looks harder and sexualize you more based on your sex, but its not sexist cause i find your sexuality valuable." wat?
A given women above an attractiveness threshold in any public arena will have far more capacity to exploit her sexuality for popularity, personal, and financial gain than a given man of the same attractiveness. Yes, this sounds like a huge advantage to me. That's not to say it's not sexist, just sexism in the direction opposite to the one the jezebelers would like to believe.
so you chalk up being objectified as a good thing for all women becuase attractive women are objectified in a good way? what if attrative women dont want to be objectified while they are hosting a board meeting or something? nvm like 80% of the average population that does suffer the negative effects of this judgement litterally everyday.
You cant say its okay to sexualize and objectify half the population of the planet becuase some women benifit from it im sorry thats just toooooo wrong.
How much harder is it for an ugly woman than an ugly man by your own logic? which group would you say is larger?
Do you honestly believe attractive women enjoy the majority of the attention they get in those public places? EDIT:+ Show Spoiler +
On June 08 2013 00:58 saddaromma wrote: its simple. boys watch sports, girls don't. therefore, hot chicks are popular, and hot guys are not.
omg get back in your time machine please
bolded: The majority of women are pretty damn hot from age 18-30 and will have some opportunity to sell their sexuality. When we're talking physically active elite athletes nearly you can bump that up to nearly all of them. The capacity to commodify one's sexuality among all females still far outstrips all males. Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice; nobody is putting a gun to their head and asking them to pose for maxim. Having one's sexuality commodified doesn't just happen automatically, there has to be some participation. underlined: Okay? Hell no I don't think it's okay. It's totally unfair that people should be able to leverage their sexuality to such an extent and gain power/wealth/fame through it when it would be otherwise undeserved. For women its a relatively inborn characteristic as well and difficult to improve. It's very unfair to those females who aren't born with it and to the majority of men who will never be able to leverage their sexuality in a similar manner for personal gain. In athletics, people are gaining fame/popularity/sponsorships/money on things they were largely born with that are sometimes unrelated to their actual athletic skills (depends on the sport). But alas, while I hate it, I don't think its from some systematic socially engineered conspiracy. It's from immutable laws of human biology and its here to stay, and let's not lie to ourselves about who's winning from the arrangement and who's losing.
Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will.
Well, to return to the athletics discussion, if objectification bothers an athlete they should probably not agree to maxim photoshoots.
you do know this so called "advantage" is a 100% male created and controled thing right?
and its not really your place to tell women that an oportunity to leverage their sexuallity is more valuable than not being judged based on your looks constantly. additionally your not in a possition to state that the majority of women 18-30 are attractive and you also dont seem to realize this is less than half the female population. you say "Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice" but it is not their choice to be judged constantly on their physical apearance. most people dont make their sexuality a commodity, but they are still objectified.
immutable laws of human biology? what are you a rottweiler? i hope you're on a leash caveman!
Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will.
so that makes it okay to objectify all women against their will? its her responsibitliy as an attractive female to deal with stupid men?
I said: "You cant say its okay to sexualize and objectify half the population of the planet". You said "Okay? Hell no I don't think it's okay. It's totally unfair that people should be able to leverage their sexuality to such an extent and gain power/wealth/fame through it when it would be otherwise undeserved." which insinuates that you find sexualizing and objectifying women to be an advantage to women.
do i understand correctly?
Damn right. Believe it or not, while lots of people lose from being judged by their appearance, there are also people who benefit enormously, observe the Kardashians. People are indeed judged by their looks, but it's not as though it's like "oh, well she's ugly so let's kick her out of the WNBA./board room/ice cream truck". I guess I would concede to you that being physically unattractive in the public sphere/as a professional athlete, is far less of a liability for a male than a female. This is more than compensated by the fact that being of average/above average attractiveness is far more of an advantage for a female than a male.
Furthermore, while you berated me and called me a dog, this does not change the fact that sexuality is expressed largely animalistically and primally and is far less of a flexible conscious process. Observe tumescence monitor studies in males and females if you need convincing. Things like birth control and recreational sex are relatively new to human history; a great deal of human sexuality still operates on the assumption of survival of the species. In that framework, female sexuality commands a higher price and societal value because the female reproductive resource, eggs, is measurable and infinitesimally smaller in quantity than the male reproductive resource, which is virtually infinite. As a final result, society at large places a far greater value on female sexuality than male, which is the answer to the question posed by the original poster. "Why are female sports more sexualized than male sports?"
All attractive athletes are sexualize. If you watch female sports and get turned on...it doesn't mean the sport is sexualize. It means you're straight man or a lesbian.
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
On June 08 2013 01:46 dUTtrOACh wrote: Hey... Many athletes are sexy people, and that's nothing to be ashamed of.
If women's sports are "sexualized" then they should be happy, because that's a step toward equality. In ancient Greek art, Olympians are depicted as being completely naked. A strong, healthy physique and well-defined musculature is attractive to many people.
I can think of many male athletes who have been "sexualized":
David Beckham Roger Federer Christiano Ronaldo Kobe Bryant
The OP is being very biased in male athlete selection. Brock Lesnar (would probably be intimidating to more people than he is attractive to)... Kimbo Slice (looks like someone out of a bum-fights DVD)... Wayne Rooney (scrappy, bull-doggish appearance)... I can think of some female athletes very easily who wouldn't be "sexualized" if they begged:
Zhou Lulu... She probably has one of the most fluid and consistent jerks in the whole sport. All the chinese lifters are great jerkers but she and Liao Hui are on a different level.
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.
Zhou Lulu... She probably has one of the most fluid and consistent jerks in the whole sport. All the chinese lifters are great jerkers but she and Liao Hui are on a different level.
I'm not really into weightlifting in general but I couldn't look away watching this woman crush through 200+ kg dead-lifts.
It is really quite simple, women's sport is sexualized and so is men's sport. Sports is just a market where there are more men viewers and sexualized marketing tends to be more effective towards men, and female atheles certainly get more opportunities to exploit sexuality than male athletes due to that.
Also in current sociaty men are generally more open about expressing the desire for sexualized women, be it in sports, movies or music and women tend to be more private about it, this again allows for females in many different carriers to be more sexualized.
The question of the OP is a bit dull I feel, due to it being clear that sports regardless of gender use sex as part of the appeal; at least as I see it.
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 can sexualize just about anything! TL is looking particularly sexy today as well hmmmm...
BUT! yes in order to get more viewers / popularity thus money some if not most female sports capitalize on "sex sells" everyone does it and i find it easy on the eyes so you just might have to deal with it, or spend a lot of money so female beach volleyball can be played in burkas!
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.)
Athletes have (usually) well defined/muscled bodies, and (usually) wear "revealing" clothing (as little as possible, as it can give some kind of advantage I guess). Both genders (usually) find this attractive. The only difference I see is that males are allowed (i.e. it's socially accepted) to display their attraction more open- /aggressively. Which is why the medial portrayal of female athletes that are considered "sexy" is a bit more blatant.
I find discussions like these hugely hypocritical in the face of the enormous influence attractiveness (Sex) has on our perceptions and behavior. We are hard (hah) wired to like Sex. We are conditioned to find certain outstanding specimen attractive. The porn industry is huuuuuge. But when somewhere someone (usually a man) displays that he likes them butts/boobies- "omagad what a perv let's have an outrage!"
edit: lmao are (female) weightlifters really called jerkers?
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.
Perhaps, but athletic prowess puts them in the spotlight in the first place. Beauty by itself isn't power, or the world would be ruled by stunning women (something which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing).
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.)
If you are saying the same amount of people watch womans tennis as mens then the answer is no. Mens tennis (finals) has over double the television ratings of womens tennis (finals) in the last 10 years
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.
I don't know why I bother typing out long explanations. This is ultimately what happens.
We've entered some pseudo-religious narrative which frames this very simple concept as deeply oppressive toward women and this is caused by a nefarious, sinister, social engineering spanning thousands of years planned by elite, powerful, white men for the express purpose of oppression and subjugation of half the population.
It's proving surprisingly difficult to argue against this narrative without subjecting oneself to ad-hominem flogging.
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.)
If you are saying the same amount of people watch womans tennis as mens then the answer is no. Mens tennis (finals) has over double the television ratings of womens tennis (finals) in the last 10 years
Read what I wrote.
If they're not, then they shouldn't be. The last 30 years is kind of irrelevant historical data for the sake of awarding money. Looking at just the last 5 years would be more appropriate. Both men's and women's were in the shitter for a while but overall men's still has more draw and should therefore have more money. There may be other behind-the-scenes things like specific sponsors paying for something (the way Riot and Wargaming pay people to run tournaments for their games) but the overall point is that it's about profitability, not performance. Performance enhances profitability, but so do many other factors.
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.
I don't know why I bother typing out long explanations. This is ultimately what happens.
We've entered some pseudo-religious narrative which frames this very simple concept as deeply oppressive toward women and this is caused by a nefarious, sinister, social engineering spanning thousands of years planned by elite, powerful, white men for the express purpose of oppression and subjugation of half the population.
It's proving surprisingly difficult to argue against this narrative without subjecting oneself to ad-hominem flogging.
It's often a mistake to attribute motive, but that doesn't mean the problems don't exist. It's possible to take bad paths unintentionally, and it's especially problematic when people pretend the problems don't exist. I think those people are often just being defensive about the motive implication. But that's for different topics, I don't think it's so relevant to this one.
On June 08 2013 02:01 Drowsy wrote: [...] This is more than compensated by the fact that being of average/above average attractiveness is far more of an advantage for a female than a male. [...]
Please try to look that up. I'm pretty sure that's not true. Men benefit more from above average attractiveness than women. At least that's the way I remember it from sociological studies about what attractiveness changes in how an observer perceives things.
On June 08 2013 02:01 Drowsy wrote: [...] This is more than compensated by the fact that being of average/above average attractiveness is far more of an advantage for a female than a male. [...]
Please try to look that up. I'm pretty sure that's not true. Men benefit more from above average attractiveness than women. At least that's the way I remember it from sociological studies about what attractiveness changes in how an observer perceives things.
Find me an extremely attractive male celebrity who is relatively un-talented and rose to fame solely because of his sexuality. , There's plenty of people who could subjectively called less talented but good looking, but certainly there's no male Kardashian equivalent.
Among those whose job is to sell their sexuality in the most literal sense, sex workers and adult performers, who gets paid more/has more opportunity? Males or Females? Don't most gay male sex workers make more than straight ones?
I'm personally going to be immediately skeptical of any studies published under a sociology heading because sociology very often (though not always) has an affiliation with a certain destructive and academically dishonest ideology which has grasped the affluent western world. I could certainly be swayed by something published in a reputable journal of social psychology. But of course the money talks, look at pornography salaries.
On June 08 2013 02:01 Drowsy wrote: [...] This is more than compensated by the fact that being of average/above average attractiveness is far more of an advantage for a female than a male. [...]
Please try to look that up. I'm pretty sure that's not true. Men benefit more from above average attractiveness than women. At least that's the way I remember it from sociological studies about what attractiveness changes in how an observer perceives things.
Find me an extremely attractive male celebrity who is relatively un-talented and rose to fame solely because of his sexuality. ,
On June 08 2013 00:39 Drowsy wrote: Of course, but it's not as though male athletes are sexualized in a similar, though admittedly lesser, capacity. This does nothing to support the notion of a systematic patriarchal discriminatory society though. If anything, it demonstrates the much higher price we, in human societies, place on female sexuality vs male sexuality. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap, men are the disposable sex.
Wilt Chamberlain.
wat? you just said males are sexualized in a lesser capacity and we place a higher price on female sexuality, but you don't think this has the potential to put men (the "judges" of physical appearance) in a relatively higher possition? or effect average women negatively?
I read that like: "we judge your looks harder and sexualize you more based on your sex, but its not sexist cause i find your sexuality valuable." wat?
A given women above an attractiveness threshold in any public arena will have far more capacity to exploit her sexuality for popularity, personal, and financial gain than a given man of the same attractiveness. Yes, this sounds like a huge advantage to me. That's not to say it's not sexist, just sexism in the direction opposite to the one the jezebelers would like to believe.
so you chalk up being objectified as a good thing for all women becuase attractive women are objectified in a good way? what if attrative women dont want to be objectified while they are hosting a board meeting or something? nvm like 80% of the average population that does suffer the negative effects of this judgement litterally everyday.
You cant say its okay to sexualize and objectify half the population of the planet becuase some women benifit from it im sorry thats just toooooo wrong.
How much harder is it for an ugly woman than an ugly man by your own logic? which group would you say is larger?
Do you honestly believe attractive women enjoy the majority of the attention they get in those public places? EDIT:+ Show Spoiler +
On June 08 2013 00:58 saddaromma wrote: its simple. boys watch sports, girls don't. therefore, hot chicks are popular, and hot guys are not.
omg get back in your time machine please
bolded: The majority of women are pretty damn hot from age 18-30 and will have some opportunity to sell their sexuality. When we're talking physically active elite athletes nearly you can bump that up to nearly all of them. The capacity to commodify one's sexuality among all females still far outstrips all males. Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice; nobody is putting a gun to their head and asking them to pose for maxim. Having one's sexuality commodified doesn't just happen automatically, there has to be some participation. underlined: Okay? Hell no I don't think it's okay. It's totally unfair that people should be able to leverage their sexuality to such an extent and gain power/wealth/fame through it when it would be otherwise undeserved. For women its a relatively inborn characteristic as well and difficult to improve. It's very unfair to those females who aren't born with it and to the majority of men who will never be able to leverage their sexuality in a similar manner for personal gain. In athletics, people are gaining fame/popularity/sponsorships/money on things they were largely born with that are sometimes unrelated to their actual athletic skills (depends on the sport). But alas, while I hate it, I don't think its from some systematic socially engineered conspiracy. It's from immutable laws of human biology and its here to stay, and let's not lie to ourselves about who's winning from the arrangement and who's losing.
Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will.
Well, to return to the athletics discussion, if objectification bothers an athlete they should probably not agree to maxim photoshoots.
you do know this so called "advantage" is a 100% male created and controled thing right?
and its not really your place to tell women that an oportunity to leverage their sexuallity is more valuable than not being judged based on your looks constantly. additionally your not in a possition to state that the majority of women 18-30 are attractive and you also dont seem to realize this is less than half the female population. you say "Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice" but it is not their choice to be judged constantly on their physical apearance. most people dont make their sexuality a commodity, but they are still objectified.
immutable laws of human biology? what are you a rottweiler? i hope you're on a leash caveman!
Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will.
so that makes it okay to objectify all women against their will? its her responsibitliy as an attractive female to deal with stupid men?
I said: "You cant say its okay to sexualize and objectify half the population of the planet". You said "Okay? Hell no I don't think it's okay. It's totally unfair that people should be able to leverage their sexuality to such an extent and gain power/wealth/fame through it when it would be otherwise undeserved." which insinuates that you find sexualizing and objectifying women to be an advantage to women.
do i understand correctly?
Damn right. Believe it or not, while lots of people lose from being judged by their appearance, there are also people who benefit enormously, observe the Kardashians. People are indeed judged by their looks, but it's not as though it's like "oh, well she's ugly so let's kick her out of the WNBA./board room/ice cream truck". I guess I would concede to you that being physically unattractive in the public sphere/as a professional athlete, is far less of a liability for a male than a female. This is more than compensated by the fact that being of average/above average attractiveness is far more of an advantage for a female than a male.
Furthermore, while you berated me and called me a dog, this does not change the fact that sexuality is expressed largely animalistically and primally and is far less of a flexible conscious process. Observe tumescence monitor studies in males and females if you need convincing. Things like birth control and recreational sex are relatively new to human history; a great deal of human sexuality still operates on the assumption of survival of the species. In that framework, female sexuality commands a higher price and societal value because the female reproductive resource, eggs, is measurable and infinitesimally smaller in quantity than the male reproductive resource, which is virtually infinite. As a final result, society at large places a far greater value on female sexuality than male, which is the answer to the question posed by the original poster. "Why are female sports more sexualized than male sports?"
so you didn't read whatI wrote?
"and its not really your place to tell women that an oportunity to leverage their sexuallity is more valuable than not being judged based on your looks constantly." Your oppinion on the kardashions is not relivant to half the population of the planet.
" I guess I would concede to you that being physically unattractive in the public sphere/as a professional athlete, is far less of a liability for a male than a female" its far less a liability for a male than a female in the public sphere of the planet! where do you think its not?
and if you're just admitting to succumbing to hereditary prejudices and animal instincts instead of using your head than i really dont need to keep arguing with you.
Certainly, women in sports are sexualised more than men.
Women can't compete with males in terms of actual sports performance so they need something to make them relevant - a unique selling point, as it were. One of their "USPs" is sexuality.
On June 08 2013 00:39 Drowsy wrote: Of course, but it's not as though male athletes are sexualized in a similar, though admittedly lesser, capacity. This does nothing to support the notion of a systematic patriarchal discriminatory society though. If anything, it demonstrates the much higher price we, in human societies, place on female sexuality vs male sexuality. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap, men are the disposable sex.
Wilt Chamberlain.
wat? you just said males are sexualized in a lesser capacity and we place a higher price on female sexuality, but you don't think this has the potential to put men (the "judges" of physical appearance) in a relatively higher possition? or effect average women negatively?
I read that like: "we judge your looks harder and sexualize you more based on your sex, but its not sexist cause i find your sexuality valuable." wat?
A given women above an attractiveness threshold in any public arena will have far more capacity to exploit her sexuality for popularity, personal, and financial gain than a given man of the same attractiveness. Yes, this sounds like a huge advantage to me. That's not to say it's not sexist, just sexism in the direction opposite to the one the jezebelers would like to believe.
so you chalk up being objectified as a good thing for all women becuase attractive women are objectified in a good way? what if attrative women dont want to be objectified while they are hosting a board meeting or something? nvm like 80% of the average population that does suffer the negative effects of this judgement litterally everyday.
You cant say its okay to sexualize and objectify half the population of the planet becuase some women benifit from it im sorry thats just toooooo wrong.
How much harder is it for an ugly woman than an ugly man by your own logic? which group would you say is larger?
Do you honestly believe attractive women enjoy the majority of the attention they get in those public places? EDIT:+ Show Spoiler +
On June 08 2013 00:58 saddaromma wrote: its simple. boys watch sports, girls don't. therefore, hot chicks are popular, and hot guys are not.
omg get back in your time machine please
bolded: The majority of women are pretty damn hot from age 18-30 and will have some opportunity to sell their sexuality. When we're talking physically active elite athletes nearly you can bump that up to nearly all of them. The capacity to commodify one's sexuality among all females still far outstrips all males. Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice; nobody is putting a gun to their head and asking them to pose for maxim. Having one's sexuality commodified doesn't just happen automatically, there has to be some participation. underlined: Okay? Hell no I don't think it's okay. It's totally unfair that people should be able to leverage their sexuality to such an extent and gain power/wealth/fame through it when it would be otherwise undeserved. For women its a relatively inborn characteristic as well and difficult to improve. It's very unfair to those females who aren't born with it and to the majority of men who will never be able to leverage their sexuality in a similar manner for personal gain. In athletics, people are gaining fame/popularity/sponsorships/money on things they were largely born with that are sometimes unrelated to their actual athletic skills (depends on the sport). But alas, while I hate it, I don't think its from some systematic socially engineered conspiracy. It's from immutable laws of human biology and its here to stay, and let's not lie to ourselves about who's winning from the arrangement and who's losing.
Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will.
Well, to return to the athletics discussion, if objectification bothers an athlete they should probably not agree to maxim photoshoots.
you do know this so called "advantage" is a 100% male created and controled thing right?
and its not really your place to tell women that an oportunity to leverage their sexuallity is more valuable than not being judged based on your looks constantly. additionally your not in a possition to state that the majority of women 18-30 are attractive and you also dont seem to realize this is less than half the female population. you say "Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice" but it is not their choice to be judged constantly on their physical apearance. most people dont make their sexuality a commodity, but they are still objectified.
immutable laws of human biology? what are you a rottweiler? i hope you're on a leash caveman!
Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will.
so that makes it okay to objectify all women against their will? its her responsibitliy as an attractive female to deal with stupid men?
I said: "You cant say its okay to sexualize and objectify half the population of the planet". You said "Okay? Hell no I don't think it's okay. It's totally unfair that people should be able to leverage their sexuality to such an extent and gain power/wealth/fame through it when it would be otherwise undeserved." which insinuates that you find sexualizing and objectifying women to be an advantage to women.
do i understand correctly?
Damn right. Believe it or not, while lots of people lose from being judged by their appearance, there are also people who benefit enormously, observe the Kardashians. People are indeed judged by their looks, but it's not as though it's like "oh, well she's ugly so let's kick her out of the WNBA./board room/ice cream truck". I guess I would concede to you that being physically unattractive in the public sphere/as a professional athlete, is far less of a liability for a male than a female. This is more than compensated by the fact that being of average/above average attractiveness is far more of an advantage for a female than a male.
Furthermore, while you berated me and called me a dog, this does not change the fact that sexuality is expressed largely animalistically and primally and is far less of a flexible conscious process. Observe tumescence monitor studies in males and females if you need convincing. Things like birth control and recreational sex are relatively new to human history; a great deal of human sexuality still operates on the assumption of survival of the species. In that framework, female sexuality commands a higher price and societal value because the female reproductive resource, eggs, is measurable and infinitesimally smaller in quantity than the male reproductive resource, which is virtually infinite. As a final result, society at large places a far greater value on female sexuality than male, which is the answer to the question posed by the original poster. "Why are female sports more sexualized than male sports?"
so you didn't read whatI wrote?
"and its not really your place to tell women that an oportunity to leverage their sexuallity is more valuable than not being judged based on your looks constantly." Your oppinion on the kardashions is not relivant to half the population of the planet.
" I guess I would concede to you that being physically unattractive in the public sphere/as a professional athlete, is far less of a liability for a male than a female" its far less a liability for a male than a female in the public sphere of the planet! where do you think its not?
and if you're just admitting to succumbing to hereditary prejudices and animal instincts instead of using your head than i really dont need to keep arguing with you.
I'm kind of sick of the personal attacks and the "you this" and "you that" you're extrapolating from me pointing out easily observed societal tendencies. The spelling mistakes, apparent near-illiteracy, and incoherence aren't making this any more pleasant either. So yes, I think we finally agree on something.
On June 08 2013 00:47 ComaDose wrote: [quote] wat? you just said males are sexualized in a lesser capacity and we place a higher price on female sexuality, but you don't think this has the potential to put men (the "judges" of physical appearance) in a relatively higher possition? or effect average women negatively?
I read that like: "we judge your looks harder and sexualize you more based on your sex, but its not sexist cause i find your sexuality valuable." wat?
A given women above an attractiveness threshold in any public arena will have far more capacity to exploit her sexuality for popularity, personal, and financial gain than a given man of the same attractiveness. Yes, this sounds like a huge advantage to me. That's not to say it's not sexist, just sexism in the direction opposite to the one the jezebelers would like to believe.
so you chalk up being objectified as a good thing for all women becuase attractive women are objectified in a good way? what if attrative women dont want to be objectified while they are hosting a board meeting or something? nvm like 80% of the average population that does suffer the negative effects of this judgement litterally everyday.
You cant say its okay to sexualize and objectify half the population of the planet becuase some women benifit from it im sorry thats just toooooo wrong.
How much harder is it for an ugly woman than an ugly man by your own logic? which group would you say is larger?
Do you honestly believe attractive women enjoy the majority of the attention they get in those public places? EDIT:+ Show Spoiler +
On June 08 2013 00:58 saddaromma wrote: its simple. boys watch sports, girls don't. therefore, hot chicks are popular, and hot guys are not.
omg get back in your time machine please
bolded: The majority of women are pretty damn hot from age 18-30 and will have some opportunity to sell their sexuality. When we're talking physically active elite athletes nearly you can bump that up to nearly all of them. The capacity to commodify one's sexuality among all females still far outstrips all males. Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice; nobody is putting a gun to their head and asking them to pose for maxim. Having one's sexuality commodified doesn't just happen automatically, there has to be some participation. underlined: Okay? Hell no I don't think it's okay. It's totally unfair that people should be able to leverage their sexuality to such an extent and gain power/wealth/fame through it when it would be otherwise undeserved. For women its a relatively inborn characteristic as well and difficult to improve. It's very unfair to those females who aren't born with it and to the majority of men who will never be able to leverage their sexuality in a similar manner for personal gain. In athletics, people are gaining fame/popularity/sponsorships/money on things they were largely born with that are sometimes unrelated to their actual athletic skills (depends on the sport). But alas, while I hate it, I don't think its from some systematic socially engineered conspiracy. It's from immutable laws of human biology and its here to stay, and let's not lie to ourselves about who's winning from the arrangement and who's losing.
Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will.
Well, to return to the athletics discussion, if objectification bothers an athlete they should probably not agree to maxim photoshoots.
you do know this so called "advantage" is a 100% male created and controled thing right?
and its not really your place to tell women that an oportunity to leverage their sexuallity is more valuable than not being judged based on your looks constantly. additionally your not in a possition to state that the majority of women 18-30 are attractive and you also dont seem to realize this is less than half the female population. you say "Whether or not they'd like to take advantage of this opportunity is their choice" but it is not their choice to be judged constantly on their physical apearance. most people dont make their sexuality a commodity, but they are still objectified.
immutable laws of human biology? what are you a rottweiler? i hope you're on a leash caveman!
Any woman who is running the board room definitely already knows how to cultivate a professional atmosphere in which she is objectified against her will.
so that makes it okay to objectify all women against their will? its her responsibitliy as an attractive female to deal with stupid men?
I said: "You cant say its okay to sexualize and objectify half the population of the planet". You said "Okay? Hell no I don't think it's okay. It's totally unfair that people should be able to leverage their sexuality to such an extent and gain power/wealth/fame through it when it would be otherwise undeserved." which insinuates that you find sexualizing and objectifying women to be an advantage to women.
do i understand correctly?
Damn right. Believe it or not, while lots of people lose from being judged by their appearance, there are also people who benefit enormously, observe the Kardashians. People are indeed judged by their looks, but it's not as though it's like "oh, well she's ugly so let's kick her out of the WNBA./board room/ice cream truck". I guess I would concede to you that being physically unattractive in the public sphere/as a professional athlete, is far less of a liability for a male than a female. This is more than compensated by the fact that being of average/above average attractiveness is far more of an advantage for a female than a male.
Furthermore, while you berated me and called me a dog, this does not change the fact that sexuality is expressed largely animalistically and primally and is far less of a flexible conscious process. Observe tumescence monitor studies in males and females if you need convincing. Things like birth control and recreational sex are relatively new to human history; a great deal of human sexuality still operates on the assumption of survival of the species. In that framework, female sexuality commands a higher price and societal value because the female reproductive resource, eggs, is measurable and infinitesimally smaller in quantity than the male reproductive resource, which is virtually infinite. As a final result, society at large places a far greater value on female sexuality than male, which is the answer to the question posed by the original poster. "Why are female sports more sexualized than male sports?"
so you didn't read whatI wrote?
"and its not really your place to tell women that an oportunity to leverage their sexuallity is more valuable than not being judged based on your looks constantly." Your oppinion on the kardashions is not relivant to half the population of the planet.
" I guess I would concede to you that being physically unattractive in the public sphere/as a professional athlete, is far less of a liability for a male than a female" its far less a liability for a male than a female in the public sphere of the planet! where do you think its not?
and if you're just admitting to succumbing to hereditary prejudices and animal instincts instead of using your head than i really dont need to keep arguing with you.
I'm kind of sick of the personal attacks and the "you this" and "you that" you're extrapolating from me pointing out easily observed societal tendencies. The spelling mistakes and incoherence aren't making this any more pleasant either. So yes, I think we finally agree on something.
Pointing out that you are using social tendancies, hereditary prejudices, and animal instincts, to argue about modern morals is not a personal attack mate.
I'm only observing these pictures of female sports athletes for the detached, academic purpose of analyzing how much they focus on their sheer skill and endurance.
I don't think women in sports showing sexuality for increased money, fame, and viewership is a complex issue. The incentives are there, the market follows.
Women are a bigger symbol of beauty/attractiveness, no news there. And in the end these women do it for the $$$, they are certainly not the victims there.
On June 08 2013 03:05 rezoacken wrote: Women are a bigger symbol of beauty/attractiveness, no news there. And in the end these women do it for the $$$, 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.
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.
Oh for sure, I'm not discrediting that ? I'm just answering OP, saying there's nothing new and done for the money. If you thought I meant they are in their place because of their physic, you're misreading/misinterpreting. I implied that they just exploit their physic once they're in the spot.
This question is far too complex to discuss in a forum topic, imho. The primary problem is that the OP does not even address it properly.
It presents its primary point in an incredibly biased manner. It throws out some of the ugliest male sporters, and compares them to some of the prettiest female sporters and says "gosh, these guys aren't known for their looks, whereas these girls are. Must be because sport is run by a bunch of sexist macho pigs".
The problem is FAR more complex than this. For one, there are plenty of male sports stars who girls swoon over. Gerard Piqué, Cristiano Ronaldo, David Beckham, Roger Federer, Pieter van den Hoogenband, Michael Schumacher.
There are also plenty of female sports stars who are not generally considered pretty and are still be featured on sports magazine covers for their outstanding performances. For instance, Arantxa Sanchez, Martina Navratilova, both of the Williams sisters, Caster Semenya, Gunda Niemann, Abby Wambach, Marta.
However, that's not to say that there is no sexist bias in sports. Firstly, it is fairly common knowledge that men are more visually stimulated, so if there is a pretty female sports star she is more likely to be objectified than her male counterpart. Whether that is sexist, or simply capitalist is a complex question.
Secondly, female sports are given less attention than male sports. There is significantly less female sports on tv than male sports. That means women sports stars have less opportunity to get recognized for their sports accomplishments. So a pretty sports star who gets attention outside of her sport (modeling, advertising, etc) will get more exposure there than through televised sports. Oppose this to a football player like Cristiano Ronaldo, or a tennis player like Roger Federer, who are universally recognized as some of the absolute best in their sports, and only secondarily as pretty boys.
So... a more appropriate question would be whether female sporters earning money with their good looks is a problem? I honestly don't think so. It also brings additional attention to women's sports, which they really need.
Lets be honest without it not enough people would watch or support the woman version of the sport. Hell womens sports barely get enough attention now. So even though its sexist its a good thing because it gives elite woman atheletes something to shoot for imo. (And the guys ennjoy it)
I'm confused as to what problem the OP is trying to point out. For both men and women, success in sports has nothing to do with looks, so the discussion is about the action of these successful women athletes (that have the potential to look good) and/or the organizations that market them and their sport.
Is the problem here that women's sports are supposedly naturally less popular than men's sport and thus has to resort to having its athletes show some leg? Or is the problem that top athletes are supposedly pressured into looking sexy to make money?
The first problem is solutionless as far as I can tell and the second one sounds unlikely to be true if you consider how much top athletes earn, even female ones (so arguing that they're being exploited is out of the question). In my opinion, female athletes should be allowed to market their image how they see fit, so I don't see the any issue here.
Never mind the existence of ugly female athletes (aka, the majority, judging by the olympics).
On June 07 2013 22:18 Zephirdd wrote: This ia Marta. Best female football player in the world. In my opinion, ugly as fuck.
Answer to your thread: no, female sports are not sexualized. Athletes tend to have prettier bodies, thats it.
And she's nowhere near to Azarenka, Sharapova and others OP mentioned in terms of popularity. Sex sells, period.
Also, OP forgot to mention kournikova, the best case of an athlete who rose to fame for it's looks.
And David Beckham, 40 years old, not even close to his prime (which was not impressive by all means) and still is one of the highest paid athletes in the world.
On June 07 2013 22:18 Zephirdd wrote: This ia Marta. Best female football player in the world. In my opinion, ugly as fuck.
Answer to your thread: no, female sports are not sexualized. Athletes tend to have prettier bodies, thats it.
And she's nowhere near to Azarenka, Sharapova and others OP mentioned in terms of popularity. Sex sells, period.
Also, OP forgot to mention kournikova, the best case of an athlete who rose to fame for it's looks.
And David Beckham, 40 years old, not even close to his prime (which was not impressive by all means) and still is one of the highest paid atheletes in the world (because he sells).
Well, female tennis in general is more popular than female football, so that's a false comparison. Martina Navratilova and the Williams sisters are better comparison material. And I'd argue they are more popular than Sharapova or Azarenka. Regardless, Sharapova and Azarenka probably make more money because they are more marketable. But that's not exclusive to women (as you pointed out with Beckham) or even sports.
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.
On June 07 2013 22:18 Zephirdd wrote: This ia Marta. Best female football player in the world. In my opinion, ugly as fuck.
Answer to your thread: no, female sports are not sexualized. Athletes tend to have prettier bodies, thats it.
And she's nowhere near to Azarenka, Sharapova and others OP mentioned in terms of popularity. Sex sells, period.
Also, OP forgot to mention kournikova, the best case of an athlete who rose to fame for it's looks.
And David Beckham, 40 years old, not even close to his prime (which was not impressive by all means) and still is one of the highest paid atheletes in the world (because he sells).
Well, female tennis in general is more popular than female football, so that's a false comparison. Martina Navratilova and the Williams sisters are better comparison material. And I'd argue they are more popular than Sharapova or Azarenka. Regardless, Sharapova and Azarenka probably make more money because they are more marketable. But that's not exclusive to women (as you pointed out with Beckham) or even sports.
On the issue of soccer vs tennis, it's good to remember that tennis is also a "higher class" sport than soccer, so better-looking people all around.
I watch what I consider to be the most exciting. If a woman could dunk on LBJ, I would watch regardless of what she looks like. To see pretty women you only have to go outside.
On June 08 2013 03:59 unteqair wrote: I watch what I consider to be the most exciting. If a woman could dunk on LBJ, I would watch regardless of what she looks like. To see pretty women you only have to go outside.
And since when is Azarenka attractive?
Bit off topic, but doesn't LBJ usually stand for U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson?
On June 08 2013 03:59 unteqair wrote: I watch what I consider to be the most exciting. If a woman could dunk on LBJ, I would watch regardless of what she looks like. To see pretty women you only have to go outside.
And since when is Azarenka attractive?
Bit off topic, but doesn't LBJ usually stand for U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson?
On June 08 2013 03:59 unteqair wrote: I watch what I consider to be the most exciting. If a woman could dunk on LBJ, I would watch regardless of what she looks like. To see pretty women you only have to go outside.
And since when is Azarenka attractive?
Bit off topic, but doesn't LBJ usually stand for U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson?
On June 08 2013 03:59 unteqair wrote: I watch what I consider to be the most exciting. If a woman could dunk on LBJ, I would watch regardless of what she looks like. To see pretty women you only have to go outside.
And since when is Azarenka attractive?
Bit off topic, but doesn't LBJ usually stand for U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson?
On June 08 2013 03:59 unteqair wrote: I watch what I consider to be the most exciting. If a woman could dunk on LBJ, I would watch regardless of what she looks like. To see pretty women you only have to go outside.
And since when is Azarenka attractive?
Bit off topic, but doesn't LBJ usually stand for U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The 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.
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. EDIT:+ Show Spoiler +
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 :/
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.
Finding someone attractive is not sexualizing them.
Equating their attractiveness with their worth as a human being is what sexualizes them.
For example, most men I know sexualize the Backstreet Boys saying they're only famous because of their fangirl groupies wanting to have sex with them. This creates the correlation that it is the backstreet boy's looks that is earning them success moreso than their efforts and hence is sexualizing them. The men I know who do this aren't actually having the hots for the backstreet boys, they simply demean them by insinuating that their looks are what matters and not their talent.
The argument for this case is that when it comes to men sports, appearance is not much of or at all a factor of popularity, as long as they are great athletes at their sports.
So Beckham... So Ryan Lochte... So Tom Brady... So Rafael Nadal...
Sex sells.
I'm guessing you just notice the women more because you're attracted to them. Also, if you're talking about sports with other guys, or reading article written by guys, there is an obvious attraction-bias there.
Who cares about Sharapova's pasing shots or Jenneke's pacing. We simply want to admire their faces and bodies, mostly. This is not the case with men's sports. We dont watch the La Liga or UEFA, or NBA or whatever else in order to admire how handsome the male athletes are.
Well, I care about Sharapova's passing shots if i'm rooting for her. Obviously someone who doesn't isn't rooting for her, and then isn't really a fan anyways, but probably is still a straight man.
Women might watch La Liga to see how handsome the men are, and i'm betting you might too if you were gay. Have you seen Pique?
You will be hard put to find someone who will tell you that Messi is good looking, although he is, but everyone will immediately tell you how great he is at football.
To be honest, Messi is not that attractive (objectively), although women might find him attractive because of his ability. I also wouldn't tell you Serena Williams is attractive (just not my type), but she's a women and really good. Also, to be fair, Serena gets way more attention than Maria.
One last thing to consider. Beauty is much more significant for women than for men. Power and success play a MUCH larger role in how attractive a woman considers a man than vice versa. When you consider the HUGE investment women make to have children, it makes sense to weigh those factors more heavily when considering a mate (not to get all science-y on you). Where as a man invests almost 0 energy into having offspring, and since beauty if often representative of good genes, and curvy hips of good child-bearing capabilities-- I don't think we can blame ourselves too much for wanting every women out there, and paying particular attention to the really attractive ones.
Ofc something like this had to come out of Sweden. Sexism and racism everywhere!
I couldnt care less about someone like Sharapova. Women´s tennis is boring as fuck and Sharapova moans like a pig everytime she hits the ball. Why do people even watch that?? On top of that I dont find her that attractive. Anna Kournikova was much better looking.
I do watch sports with female athletes but its pretty much restricted to wintersports like Cross Country skiing, Biathlon and Alpine Skiing so for me the stars are Charlotte Kalla, Darya Domracheva and Lindsey Vonn. I find them all attractive to some extend, but I can certaintly appriciate their skills on a pair of ski´s, as well as all the hard work they put into their sport. In fact, if they werent that good I prolly wouldnt find them attractive.
On June 08 2013 05:33 Sephiren wrote: One last thing to consider. Beauty is much more significant for women than for men. Power and success play a MUCH larger role in how attractive a woman considers a man than vice versa. When you consider the HUGE investment women make to have children, it makes sense to weigh those factors more heavily when considering a mate (not to get all science-y on you). Where as a man invests almost 0 energy into having offspring, and since beauty if often representative of good genes, and curvy hips of good child-bearing capabilities-- I don't think we can blame ourselves too much for wanting every women out there, and paying particular attention to the really attractive ones.
Most models and actresses do not fit the "child bearing hips" requirements of being someone who can bear offspring well. Though they do fit the body of almost starving adults in some war torn countries, but with a lot of make up and photoshop. For us to want that we'd have to want larger, less skinny women, who have high estrogen levels--which cuts out a lot of athletes.
Not that I'm disagreeing with your theory, just that the women we normally sexualize do not fit the template of perfect child bearers. And really, if we did evolve to want to focus on child rearing, wouldn't we instead focus on having the lifestyle of high poverty stricken countries with little to no healthcare? Those countries produce more children than any first world nation, if you honestly believe beauty is about instinctually following what breeds more kids, we would celebrate those bodies and those lifestyles wouldn't we?
On June 08 2013 03:59 unteqair wrote: I watch what I consider to be the most exciting. If a woman could dunk on LBJ, I would watch regardless of what she looks like. To see pretty women you only have to go outside.
And since when is Azarenka attractive?
Bit off topic, but doesn't LBJ usually stand for U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson?
In a 5th grade social studies class, yes! Not on a forum of athleticism specifically mentioning LeBron James.
Yes, though, that is usually what it stands for if you are seriously wondering.
The world is still very "male dominant" and of course there are woman that are sexualized. I'm sure the same thing goes for men as well but women more so. I will point out that looks are a huge deal when a player is in the spot light. If you look at other fields like politicians or music singers; it doesn't matter if they are an insane singer or trying to promote change... if they don't look good they will always loose support. It's terrible but it's true.
I saw a very troubling speech at my college about sexism in the music business and jesus christ, basically stated that if you don't sell yourself for your looks and/or sexuality as a woman (even if you have an amazing voice) you will never go anywhere.
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 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.
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.
Finding someone attractive is not sexualizing them.
Equating their attractiveness with their worth as a human being is what sexualizes them.
True. The problem is, you haven't demonstrated that portraying women sexually is "equating their attractiveness with their worth".
On June 08 2013 05:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: For example, most men I know sexualize the Backstreet Boys saying they're only famous because of their fangirl groupies wanting to have sex with them. This creates the correlation that it is the backstreet boy's looks that is earning them success moreso than their efforts and hence is sexualizing them. The men I know who do this aren't actually having the hots for the backstreet boys, they simply demean them by insinuating that their looks are what matters and not their talent.
This is indeed demeaning them. But nothing about this is sexist.
Athletes said in the Olympic village hella people have sex cause even if their face is a 6 their body is an 11. Its natural for athletic women to be sex symbols cause even if the face is ugly their body is at the pinacle of human development.
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.
The 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
The 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 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 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.
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.
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 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!
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 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!!"
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!
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?
Womens sports doesn't actually seem as sexualized as I would expect. If I had never seen a women's sport I would guess that they would totally overplay their hotness, but not at all really.
On June 08 2013 06:41 Vanimar wrote: 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.
The problem lies in the conflict between intention and execution.
Market forces will always follow the path of least resistance in ratio to income earned per amount of effort wasted.
It's easier to sell 2 boobs than an entire narrative.
It's easier to sell a picture than it is to sell their history
It's not that "sex sells" or that "you'll sell more if you make them hotter" but that there currently is nothing in it for investors to not sell sex. It's possible to sell on talent--but that requires a lot to work out in your favor.
However, to some (such as myself) there is moral problem with not trying to seek out the better systems. The most that can be done is to talk about it in the hopes that market forces will eventually be interested in something else.
It worked for african americans and their place in culture, it worked for native americans and their place in culture. There is a LOT more to go for both those racial groups, and there is a lot more that still needs to get started for women.
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 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!!"
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.
Again, why is this a bad thing? Women are inferior athletes compared to men, so why would anyone watch women doing sports? Their looks are pretty much their only selling point.
On June 08 2013 06:49 JimmiC wrote: If they didn't want people to think about there boobs, they wouldn't wear outfits that accentuate them. Same way if a man didn't want women to think about his abs he wouldn't take off his shirt.
In case you didn't know, people don't dress to please you, they dress to please themselves.
On June 08 2013 06:47 JimmiC wrote: Also, women hate to be sexualized thats why they never buy pushup bra's, spanks, mini skirts, yoga pants, makeup and so on. Also why there are no sites like thechive where women take pictures of themselves looking sexy.
I don't know why our current society has decided that women don't like this. They are not different than us, they also want to look there best and want people to be attracted to them it feels good. Just as male athletes are taking off there shirts and so on, Women are revealing what they have worked hard to achive. They want to show it off, and so would I. It feels good to be wanted and even better if they will pay you more because of it.
sigh
nobody sane has a problem with women using resources at hand to look their best and/or fit in with a society that emphasizes that looks are the most legitimate way of expressing yourself, the point is and always is that that emphasis is too strong and too deleterious to women who don't give a shit about superficiality or simply don't fit some hazy standard of societal beauty. this is like the most basic tenet of institutionalized sexism, and when you move on from here you start to look at how women who don't fit (and even women who do fit are still viewed as being somehow aware of that standard and trying to play it up) are treated and marketed to, where everything about their appearance violates some implicit contract where if you want to get things done career-wise, you'd better be an inhuman worker or smokin' hot.
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
Then the best one can do is conceal them, or if one doesn't mind, just make sure to have ugly boobs (that is an extreme, yes).
Being a woman means having boobs, and what people think about is up to each individual, how much a woman leaves up to peoples imagination she has quite a bit of control over.
Being a man means having a cock, and this is the same case as for women, the issue just doesn't happen as often. But take this example:
I wouldn't be surprised if he has had a fair share of moments he wish people wouldn't think of his penis, that being one of them.
Being a person and being visually displayed, e.g. being on TV, means that the possibility is there that people will think anything of you, personally I feel it is up to the displayed individual to be the kind of person that doesn't care what people spend their time thinking about.
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
Then the best one can do is conceal them, or if one doesn't mind, just make sure to have ugly boobs (that is an extreme, yes).
Being a woman means having boobs, and what people think about is up to each individual, how much a woman leaves up to peoples imagination she has quite a bit of control over.
Being a man means having a cock, and this is the same case as for women, the issue just doesn't happen as often. But take this example:
I wouldn't be surprised if he has had a fair share of moments he wish people wouldn't think of his penis, that being one of them.
Being a person and being visually displayed, e.g. being on TV, means that the possibility is there that people will think anything of you, personally I feel it is up to the displayed individual to be the kind of person that doesn't care what people spend their time thinking about.
yeah but then people write articles about your body instead of your sport. :/
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.
over half the population of the planet can relate better to female athletes than male atheletes tho.
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...
On June 08 2013 06:49 JimmiC wrote: If they didn't want people to think about there boobs, they wouldn't wear outfits that accentuate them. Same way if a man didn't want women to think about his abs he wouldn't take off his shirt.
In case you didn't know, people don't dress to please you, they dress to please themselves.
Was about to mention this myself
having heard quite a few guys say "if she doesn't want me to look, she wouldn't wear it", fully knowing that the majority of girls I know dress like they do since it is comfortable, not to show off.
Just like I don't wear tight shirts to "try and show off my body" but because I like clothing that doesn't restrict my movement much like a lot of baggier clothes do, most girls I know at least wear clothes they are comfortable in.
Simply put, thinking people dress for you as opposed to wearing something they themselves are comfortable in is a rather ignorant and perhaps selfcentered view in my eyes.
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?
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:
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: [quote] 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!!"
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.
On June 08 2013 06:49 JimmiC wrote: If they didn't want people to think about there boobs, they wouldn't wear outfits that accentuate them. Same way if a man didn't want women to think about his abs he wouldn't take off his shirt.
In case you didn't know, people don't dress to please you, they dress to please themselves.
Was about to mention this myself
having heard quite a few guys say "if she doesn't want me to look, she wouldn't wear it", fully knowing that the majority of girls I know dress like they do since it is comfortable, not to show off.
Just like I don't wear tight shirts to "try and show off my body" but because I like clothing that doesn't restrict my movement much like a lot of baggier clothes do, most girls I know at least wear clothes they are comfortable in.
Simply put, thinking people dress for you as opposed to wearing something they themselves are comfortable in is a rather ignorant and perhaps selfcentered view in my eyes.
It's her freedom to wear whatever she wants, but it's also my freedom to look at her boobs or ass....
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.
okay, so you cite a situation where a female athlete launches a career almost solely on the strength of her ass in a short skirt dancing around...and you ask me what my point is? do I really have to point out how emblematic that is of my entire argument?
"pure athletism" is bullshit, women's leagues exist for a reason and though I won't go deep into specific sports because frankly I pay no attention to them specifically, I'm pretty sure there are multiple athletic careers where women can thrive.
"pro sports are a entertainment business"
1) yeah, you don't find it problematic that corporations think so little of you that they wave flesh in your face and you lap it up?
2) yeah, you don't find it problematic that athletics often comes second to entrancing the lowest common denominator?
again, I'm not a sports guy whatsoever, but I don't think I would be able to ignore all that systematic contempt and cynicism.
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.
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:
On June 08 2013 05:25 ComaDose wrote:
On June 08 2013 05:07 sunprince wrote: [quote]
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: [quote]
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!!"
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?)
On June 08 2013 06:49 JimmiC wrote: If they didn't want people to think about there boobs, they wouldn't wear outfits that accentuate them. Same way if a man didn't want women to think about his abs he wouldn't take off his shirt.
In case you didn't know, people don't dress to please you, they dress to please themselves.
Was about to mention this myself
having heard quite a few guys say "if she doesn't want me to look, she wouldn't wear it", fully knowing that the majority of girls I know dress like they do since it is comfortable, not to show off.
Just like I don't wear tight shirts to "try and show off my body" but because I like clothing that doesn't restrict my movement much like a lot of baggier clothes do, most girls I know at least wear clothes they are comfortable in.
Simply put, thinking people dress for you as opposed to wearing something they themselves are comfortable in is a rather ignorant and perhaps selfcentered view in my eyes.
It's her freedom to wear whatever she wants, but it's also my freedom to look at her boobs or ass....
Which I also addressed in the post prior to the one you quoted.
In the quoted post I was pointing out that just because a girl has some cleavage doesn't mean she wants people to look at her boobs, many times it is simply clothing they are comfortable in.
Just like there are women who don't wear bras, not because they want people to see their nipples poking through their shirt, but because there are those who find bras very uncomfortable to wear.
On June 08 2013 06:49 JimmiC wrote: If they didn't want people to think about there boobs, they wouldn't wear outfits that accentuate them. Same way if a man didn't want women to think about his abs he wouldn't take off his shirt. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case you didn't know, people don't dress to please you, they dress to please themselves"
Did you write that with a straight face? Wow talk about pretentious, naive, iggnorant.
If people dressed to please themselves everyone would where the most comfortable cheapest thing.
People dress the way they do to impress others. Whether it be friends, opposite sex, who ever.
You don't wear a teamliquid shirt to please youself you wear it to indicate to others that you support team liquid. Any brand, logo, style, is all for others. You don't need it, you know what you are, who you support and so on.
If I wore a TL shirt it would be because I like TL
I would not wear a TL shirt in some perverse agenda to convince random people in the street to log on to TL
When I put on my Nike Shoes, I am not trying to convince everyone to wear Nike shoes.
When I wear a jersey, I'm not trying to convince everyone to start rooting for my team.
What I wear, I wear because I like it.
What you wear, you wear because you like it.
When a woman wears something she likes, and you happen to be attracted to it, she isn't asking you to fuck her.
When a man wears something you like, and you happened to be attracted to him, he isn't asking you to fuck him.
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.
On June 08 2013 06:49 JimmiC wrote: If they didn't want people to think about there boobs, they wouldn't wear outfits that accentuate them. Same way if a man didn't want women to think about his abs he wouldn't take off his shirt.
In case you didn't know, people don't dress to please you, they dress to please themselves.
Was about to mention this myself
having heard quite a few guys say "if she doesn't want me to look, she wouldn't wear it", fully knowing that the majority of girls I know dress like they do since it is comfortable, not to show off.
Just like I don't wear tight shirts to "try and show off my body" but because I like clothing that doesn't restrict my movement much like a lot of baggier clothes do, most girls I know at least wear clothes they are comfortable in.
Simply put, thinking people dress for you as opposed to wearing something they themselves are comfortable in is a rather ignorant and perhaps selfcentered view in my eyes.
It's her freedom to wear whatever she wants, but it's also my freedom to look at her boobs or ass....
Which I also addressed in the post prior to the one you quoted.
In the quoted post I was pointing out that just because a girl has some cleavage doesn't mean she wants people to look at her boobs, many times it is simply clothing they are comfortable in.
Just like there are women who don't wear bras, not because they want people to see their nipples poking through their shirt, but because there are those who find bras very uncomfortable to wear.
I don't care whether she wants me to look or not, it's my freedom to look whenever I want.
And I think it's quite obvious most girls dress sexy because they like the attention, not because it's comfortable, or why do you think so many girls like high heels so much?
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:
On June 08 2013 05:25 ComaDose wrote: [quote] 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:[quote] 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!!"
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:
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 dont understand why someone would watch women's sports for the tits and ass. just watch porn.
On June 08 2013 06:49 JimmiC wrote: If they didn't want people to think about there boobs, they wouldn't wear outfits that accentuate them. Same way if a man didn't want women to think about his abs he wouldn't take off his shirt. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case you didn't know, people don't dress to please you, they dress to please themselves"
Did you write that with a straight face? Wow talk about pretentious, naive, iggnorant.
If people dressed to please themselves everyone would where the most comfortable cheapest thing.
People dress the way they do to impress others. Whether it be friends, opposite sex, who ever.
You don't wear a teamliquid shirt to please youself you wear it to indicate to others that you support team liquid. Any brand, logo, style, is all for others. You don't need it, you know what you are, who you support and so on.
No, people dress the way they do to be comfortable around others, this often includes wearing clothes that accentuates your attractive features, as feeling attractive is very comfortable for many.
At least in my social environments people primarly dress according to comfort, exceptions are job interviews or clubbing were people tend to dress to impress, but everyday clothing is chosen based on comfort in my social environment at least.
Women have more rights then Men in todays society. And for some reason traditionally female traits ahve been cannonized were traditionally male traits have been demonized. e fact that I point this out does not make me evil it makes me aware.
nope
I sincerely think you could not explicate this statement into something comprehensible if you tried
It is posters like this that I wish I could block them from TL...
I think it's reality you dislike not me. I'm not saying "this is how it should be, or shouldn't be" I'm saying this is how it is.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it real.
Women have more rights then Men in todays society. And for some reason traditionally female traits ahve been cannonized were traditionally male traits have been demonized. The fact that I point this out does not make me evil it makes me aware.
Um... you do know that if people are complaining about something existing it is because they *see* it existing in front of them and disagree with it. I did not even think that you are suggesting that things should or shouldn't be something.
But I also don't find it surprising that you like that women are treated the way they are and for you to also believe women have more rights than men. I find that people who see women as these people who dress for men, who have boobs for men, who are being sexy for men, that those same people (usually men) also talk about how women have all the rights.
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...
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.
On June 08 2013 06:49 JimmiC wrote: If they didn't want people to think about there boobs, they wouldn't wear outfits that accentuate them. Same way if a man didn't want women to think about his abs he wouldn't take off his shirt.
In case you didn't know, people don't dress to please you, they dress to please themselves.
Was about to mention this myself
having heard quite a few guys say "if she doesn't want me to look, she wouldn't wear it", fully knowing that the majority of girls I know dress like they do since it is comfortable, not to show off.
Just like I don't wear tight shirts to "try and show off my body" but because I like clothing that doesn't restrict my movement much like a lot of baggier clothes do, most girls I know at least wear clothes they are comfortable in.
Simply put, thinking people dress for you as opposed to wearing something they themselves are comfortable in is a rather ignorant and perhaps selfcentered view in my eyes.
It's her freedom to wear whatever she wants, but it's also my freedom to look at her boobs or ass....
Which I also addressed in the post prior to the one you quoted.
In the quoted post I was pointing out that just because a girl has some cleavage doesn't mean she wants people to look at her boobs, many times it is simply clothing they are comfortable in.
Just like there are women who don't wear bras, not because they want people to see their nipples poking through their shirt, but because there are those who find bras very uncomfortable to wear.
I don't care whether she wants me to look or not, it's my freedom to look whenever I want.
And I think it's quite obvious most girls dress sexy because they like the attention, not because it's comfortable, or why do you think so many girls like high heels so much?
Because, it turns out, women like feeling good about themselves. When women at the time all started wearing heels, men stopped wearing high heels and started to make fun of it. Hence why people would laugh if a man walked around in high heels today--because if he did he would look like a woman and its a hilarious thing to them for a man to ever want to be similar to a woman.
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...
think of it as supporting the NA scene if it helps you. I lean towards the highest standard of competition in SC2 myself, but then in bronze league/the NA scene/whatever metaphor you like, the players aren't so hard up for interest or quite so drenched in corporate and consumer apathy that they're convinced that taking off their clothes will drum some viewers up.
though, you never know until you try I guess. EG.lingerie [RC]
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.
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.
On June 08 2013 07:07 NTTemplar wrote:
On June 08 2013 07:02 theodorus12 wrote:
On June 08 2013 07:00 NTTemplar wrote:
On June 08 2013 06:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On June 08 2013 06:49 JimmiC wrote: If they didn't want people to think about there boobs, they wouldn't wear outfits that accentuate them. Same way if a man didn't want women to think about his abs he wouldn't take off his shirt.
In case you didn't know, people don't dress to please you, they dress to please themselves.
Was about to mention this myself
having heard quite a few guys say "if she doesn't want me to look, she wouldn't wear it", fully knowing that the majority of girls I know dress like they do since it is comfortable, not to show off.
Just like I don't wear tight shirts to "try and show off my body" but because I like clothing that doesn't restrict my movement much like a lot of baggier clothes do, most girls I know at least wear clothes they are comfortable in.
Simply put, thinking people dress for you as opposed to wearing something they themselves are comfortable in is a rather ignorant and perhaps selfcentered view in my eyes.
It's her freedom to wear whatever she wants, but it's also my freedom to look at her boobs or ass....
Which I also addressed in the post prior to the one you quoted.
In the quoted post I was pointing out that just because a girl has some cleavage doesn't mean she wants people to look at her boobs, many times it is simply clothing they are comfortable in.
Just like there are women who don't wear bras, not because they want people to see their nipples poking through their shirt, but because there are those who find bras very uncomfortable to wear.
I don't care whether she wants me to look or not, it's my freedom to look whenever I want.
And I think it's quite obvious most girls dress sexy because they like the attention, not because it's comfortable, or why do you think so many girls like high heels so much?
Because, it turns out, women like feeling good about themselves. When women at the time all started wearing heels, men stopped wearing high heels and started to make fun of it. Hence why people would laugh if a man walked around in high heels today--because if he did he would look like a woman and its a hilarious thing to them for a man to ever want to be similar to a woman.
high heels make more sense when used by cavalry. interesting.
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...
think of it as supporting the NA scene if it helps you. I lean towards the highest standard of competition in SC2 myself, but then in bronze league/the NA scene/whatever metaphor you like, the players aren't so hard up for interest or quite so drenched in corporate and consumer apathy that they're convinced that taking off their clothes will drum some viewers up.
though, you never know until you try I guess. EG.lingerie [RC]
Being that Day9 got the biggest when he started streaming funday monday and noobie tuesday and got even more recognition when he decided to analyze none-GSL matches. It's obvious that watching "bronze league" play is a very financially successful model.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 07:24 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 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 07:24 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 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 07:24 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..
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 22:31 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.
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 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).
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:
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.
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.
While they might don't like it, I seriously just don't care and see nothing wrong with it, it's just so obvious how most abuse their looks.... But don't we have any real problems left? I mean we must be living in a perfect world to have time to argue about something as irrelevant as this topic....
Society is way more than ok atm.. most likely even a bit too "ok". But this is gonna change pretty soon I guess.
On June 07 2013 22:18 Zephirdd wrote: This ia Marta. Best female football player in the world. In my opinion, ugly as fuck.
Answer to your thread: no, female sports are not sexualized. Athletes tend to have prettier bodies, thats it.
If you don't think there is market in sexualizing your industry (male sports do this as well) then you're simply wrong. The question shouldn't be whether or not sports are sexualized, because they are, but whether or not it is right to do so morally.
On June 08 2013 08:02 theodorus12 wrote: While they might don't like it, I seriously just don't care and see nothing wrong with it, it's just so obvious how most abuse their looks.... But don't we have any real problems left? I mean we must be living in a perfect world to have time to argue about something as irrelevant as this topic....
Society is way more than ok atm.. most likely even a bit too "ok". But this is gonna change pretty soon I guess.
ill bet you 40,000 ESPORTS dollars you're a strait white male?
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,
in a philosophical sense, this is certainly true; engineers become objects of production in a fairly marxist fashion, athletes become objects of the human body in a similar fashion to modeling. it might even be true that there's more relation to cynically showing off flesh in professional athletics than in any other medium that isn't, well, pornography.
however, here's the difference: engineers and athletes work to accomplish things. models and the body images that some athletes are wrongfully reduced to are aided by genetics, maybe a solid workout regimen and nothing else, because there is no escaping a similar philosophical and aesthetic ideal that pervades society.
which mode of advancement is more wholesome for a progressive society to focus on, the genes and the looks or the hard work and the intellect? feel free to substitute "gender" for genes or looks.
On June 08 2013 08:02 theodorus12 wrote: While they might don't like it, I seriously just don't care and see nothing wrong with it, it's just so obvious how most abuse their looks.... But don't we have any real problems left? I mean we must be living in a perfect world to have time to argue about something as irrelevant as this topic....
Society is way more than ok atm.. most likely even a bit too "ok". But this is gonna change pretty soon I guess.
ill bet you 40,000 ESPORTS dollars you're a strait white male?
So what, are you gonna tell him to 'check his privilege'?
OP, this is a good topic for discussion, but I believe a lot is lost in the manner the first post is written. So, If you think I understand your post correctly, please edit it or add this to tidy things up a bit:
KEY ISSUES: 1. Sports is generally about performance and skills; 2. When it is mediated through mass media, specifically television, due to the media's visual nature, physical attractiveness (face) of the athletes become an important consideration; 3. This practice - emphasis on attractiveness - is more prevalent in women sports more than in men. A. Physical unattractiveness does not hinder the watchability of a male athlete as long as he excels at his sport (Ribery) but physical unattractiveness (face, or the hesitation towards muscle-bound women like in weighlifting, WNBA, etc.) in women is a crucial factor in deciding an athlete's and the sports popularity. B. On the converse side, attractive female athletes may and do enjoy immense popularity despite only C. Media and sports executives encourage and aggressively enforce this phenomenon further be "regulating" the sports to highlight the femininity and sexuality of women, as in dress code.
POINTS OF DISCUSSION: 1. The discussion is not about whether male or female athletes have beautiful faces and bodies; 2. Is this solely because of the demography of the audience/viewer who are predominantly male, thus necessitating in the highlighting of the sexuality of women. Conversely, theoretically, if there were more women audience, would it be logical to conclude that men sports would be significantly sexualized as well? 3. Is this a good thing (sexualization for the sake of watchability)? Is there a women sports which is watch primarily because of the athletes skills, and how does it differ from the general practice of the "sports-entertainment" phenomenon. How do we remove or minimize the objectification of women sports?
On June 08 2013 08:02 theodorus12 wrote: While they might don't like it, I seriously just don't care and see nothing wrong with it, it's just so obvious how most abuse their looks.... But don't we have any real problems left? I mean we must be living in a perfect world to have time to argue about something as irrelevant as this topic....
Society is way more than ok atm.. most likely even a bit too "ok". But this is gonna change pretty soon I guess.
ill bet you 40,000 ESPORTS dollars you're a strait white male?
I'm actually black. Now what? hurr check ur privilege? Or what are you trying to tell me?
On June 08 2013 08:02 theodorus12 wrote: While they might don't like it, I seriously just don't care and see nothing wrong with it, it's just so obvious how most abuse their looks.... But don't we have any real problems left? I mean we must be living in a perfect world to have time to argue about something as irrelevant as this topic....
Society is way more than ok atm.. most likely even a bit too "ok". But this is gonna change pretty soon I guess.
ill bet you 40,000 ESPORTS dollars you're a strait white male?
I'm actually black. Now what? hurr check ur privilege? Or what are you trying to tell me?
i didn't know anyone else would be arrogant enough to claim an issue affecting over half the population wasn't important :/
On June 08 2013 08:02 theodorus12 wrote: While they might don't like it, I seriously just don't care and see nothing wrong with it, it's just so obvious how most abuse their looks.... But don't we have any real problems left? I mean we must be living in a perfect world to have time to argue about something as irrelevant as this topic....
Society is way more than ok atm.. most likely even a bit too "ok". But this is gonna change pretty soon I guess.
ill bet you 40,000 ESPORTS dollars you're a strait white male?
I'm actually black. Now what? hurr check ur privilege? Or what are you trying to tell me?
i didn't know anyone else would be arrogant enough to claim an issue affecting over half the population wasn't important :/
Nice prejudices there......
It's not an issue to most women, if you like it or not, most women WANT to be sexy, they like male attention. Just read or watch any women magazine, TV show etc.
There's only a small circle of hyper feminists who think this laughable "issue" is even worth mentioning.
On June 08 2013 08:11 AUFKLARUNG wrote: OP, this is a good topic for discussion, but I believe a lot is lost in the manner the first post is written. So, If you think I understand your post correctly, please edit it or add this to tidy things up a bit:
KEY ISSUES: 1. Sports is generally about performance and skills; 2. When it is mediated through mass media, specifically television, due to the media's visual nature, physical attractiveness (face) of the athletes become an important consideration; 3. This practice - emphasis on attractiveness - is more prevalent in women sports more than in men. A. Physical unattractiveness does not hinder the watchability of a male athlete as long as he excels at his sport (Ribery) but physical unattractiveness (face, or the hesitation towards muscle-bound women like in weighlifting, WNBA, etc.) in women is a crucial factor in deciding an athlete's and the sports popularity. B. On the converse side, attractive female athletes may and do enjoy immense popularity despite only C. Media and sports executives encourage and aggressively enforce this phenomenon further be "regulating" the sports to highlight the femininity and sexuality of women, as in dress code.
POINTS OF DISCUSSION: 1. The discussion is not about whether male or female athletes have beautiful faces and bodies; 2. Is this solely because of the demography of the audience/viewer who are predominantly male, thus necessitating in the highlighting of the sexuality of women. Conversely, theoretically, if there were more women audience, would it be logical to conclude that men sports would be significantly sexualized as well? 3. Is this a good thing (sexualization for the sake of watchability)? Is there a women sports which is watch primarily because of the athletes skills, and how does it differ from the general practice of the "sports-entertainment" phenomenon. How do we remove or minimize the objectification of women sports?
On June 08 2013 08:02 theodorus12 wrote: While they might don't like it, I seriously just don't care and see nothing wrong with it, it's just so obvious how most abuse their looks.... But don't we have any real problems left? I mean we must be living in a perfect world to have time to argue about something as irrelevant as this topic....
Society is way more than ok atm.. most likely even a bit too "ok". But this is gonna change pretty soon I guess.
ill bet you 40,000 ESPORTS dollars you're a strait white male?
I'm actually black. Now what? hurr check ur privilege? Or what are you trying to tell me?
i didn't know anyone else would be arrogant enough to claim an issue affecting over half the population wasn't important :/
It's not an issue to most women, if you like it or not, most women WANT to be sexy, they like male attention. Just read or watch any women magazine, TV show etc.
There's only a small circle of hyper feminists who think this laughable "issue" is even worth mentioning.
obviously sex sells. uh yeah most women are judged on their looks all the time. i'm not sure how you use most women wanting to be sexy to equate to judging women primarily on their looks.
It's funny how most of the people disagreeing with you are using the arguement. That it's not about women. That the sexualization in sports and the world is about $ and it's not sexism its for both genders.
i'm not seeing the humor here
of course it's about both genders, it just happens to be about one gender almost exclusively. I mean, you can have that caveat - that men, usually minority men, are discriminated against - all you like, it doesn't make your statement any less meaningless. that western society in particular is motivated by makin' dat paper is in fact something I have taken into account before acknowledging the considerable difficulties in motivating progressive change.
But some how you keep coming back sexism and poor women. Do you do this because in fact you are sexist and you are over compensating? Or because you think taking up the plight of poor women makes you a better person?
calm down freud, take a long drag from your pipe
Are you just as out raged that beckam gets paid by companies, has his own perfume, when Messi is clearly better? And Beckam is just more handsome? If you are not as outraged by this as you are that more attractive females make more money, then hate to break it to you buddy but you are the Sexist.
i don't know either of those people
clearly though, you mean to implicate me in some sort of double standard. sexism of all types is wrong, but the topic of this thread happens to be centered around women's sport. I don't know what your expectation here is.
And if you don't think most women want to be sexy, I would suggest you pick up any womens magazine and read the articles. Since you are not good and making jumps of logic I'll give you another hint, all the weightloss stuff, its not about being healthier, its about looking better. And shockingly if you pick up a men magazine, all the getting buff tips and articles arn't about lowering blood pressure they too are about looking better.
not good?
so...women like to look good because of women's magazines and vice versa for men? I never knew cosmo and maxim were so culturally important!
I have this creeping idea that you don't have a whole lot of respect for self-betterment when women are concerned, but have you considered that looking better correlates very stronger with being healthier, which is a fairly self-serving maneuver in terms of health and self-esteem? women can look good and not be trying to look sexy, there's a sizable difference and your usage of that word pretty much gives away your whole position.
On June 08 2013 08:02 theodorus12 wrote: While they might don't like it, I seriously just don't care and see nothing wrong with it, it's just so obvious how most abuse their looks.... But don't we have any real problems left? I mean we must be living in a perfect world to have time to argue about something as irrelevant as this topic....
Society is way more than ok atm.. most likely even a bit too "ok". But this is gonna change pretty soon I guess.
ill bet you 40,000 ESPORTS dollars you're a strait white male?
I'm actually black. Now what? hurr check ur privilege? Or what are you trying to tell me?
i didn't know anyone else would be arrogant enough to claim an issue affecting over half the population wasn't important :/
It's not an issue to most women, if you like it or not, most women WANT to be sexy, they like male attention. Just read or watch any women magazine, TV show etc.
There's only a small circle of hyper feminists who think this laughable "issue" is even worth mentioning.
obviously sex sells. uh yeah most women are judged on their looks all the time. i'm not sure how you use most women wanting to be sexy to equate to judging women primarily on their looks.
It's a non issue because everyone gets judged based on their looks. Only the turbo feminists think this is a women only thing.
On June 08 2013 08:02 theodorus12 wrote: While they might don't like it, I seriously just don't care and see nothing wrong with it, it's just so obvious how most abuse their looks.... But don't we have any real problems left? I mean we must be living in a perfect world to have time to argue about something as irrelevant as this topic....
Society is way more than ok atm.. most likely even a bit too "ok". But this is gonna change pretty soon I guess.
ill bet you 40,000 ESPORTS dollars you're a strait white male?
I'm actually black. Now what? hurr check ur privilege? Or what are you trying to tell me?
i didn't know anyone else would be arrogant enough to claim an issue affecting over half the population wasn't important :/
It's not an issue to most women, if you like it or not, most women WANT to be sexy, they like male attention. Just read or watch any women magazine, TV show etc.
There's only a small circle of hyper feminists who think this laughable "issue" is even worth mentioning.
obviously sex sells. uh yeah most women are judged on their looks all the time. i'm not sure how you use most women wanting to be sexy to equate to judging women primarily on their looks.
It's a non issue because everyone gets judged based on their looks. Only the turbo feminists think this is a women only thing.
This whole thread is as pointless as it gets.
i disagree. i believe that women get judged on their looks much more than men. and that it is an issue.
On June 08 2013 08:02 theodorus12 wrote: While they might don't like it, I seriously just don't care and see nothing wrong with it, it's just so obvious how most abuse their looks.... But don't we have any real problems left? I mean we must be living in a perfect world to have time to argue about something as irrelevant as this topic....
Society is way more than ok atm.. most likely even a bit too "ok". But this is gonna change pretty soon I guess.
ill bet you 40,000 ESPORTS dollars you're a strait white male?
I'm actually black. Now what? hurr check ur privilege? Or what are you trying to tell me?
i didn't know anyone else would be arrogant enough to claim an issue affecting over half the population wasn't important :/
It's not an issue to most women, if you like it or not, most women WANT to be sexy, they like male attention. Just read or watch any women magazine, TV show etc.
There's only a small circle of hyper feminists who think this laughable "issue" is even worth mentioning.
obviously sex sells. uh yeah most women are judged on their looks all the time. i'm not sure how you use most women wanting to be sexy to equate to judging women primarily on their looks.
It's a non issue because everyone gets judged based on their looks. Only the turbo feminists think this is a women only thing.
This whole thread is as pointless as it gets.
i disagree. i believe that women get judged on their looks much more than men. and that it is an issue.
Well that's your opinion. But even if it were true, women are also much better at abusing their looks than men.
On June 08 2013 08:02 theodorus12 wrote: While they might don't like it, I seriously just don't care and see nothing wrong with it, it's just so obvious how most abuse their looks.... But don't we have any real problems left? I mean we must be living in a perfect world to have time to argue about something as irrelevant as this topic....
Society is way more than ok atm.. most likely even a bit too "ok". But this is gonna change pretty soon I guess.
ill bet you 40,000 ESPORTS dollars you're a strait white male?
I'm actually black. Now what? hurr check ur privilege? Or what are you trying to tell me?
i didn't know anyone else would be arrogant enough to claim an issue affecting over half the population wasn't important :/
It's not an issue to most women, if you like it or not, most women WANT to be sexy, they like male attention. Just read or watch any women magazine, TV show etc.
There's only a small circle of hyper feminists who think this laughable "issue" is even worth mentioning.
obviously sex sells. uh yeah most women are judged on their looks all the time. i'm not sure how you use most women wanting to be sexy to equate to judging women primarily on their looks.
It's a non issue because everyone gets judged based on their looks. Only the turbo feminists think this is a women only thing.
This whole thread is as pointless as it gets.
i disagree. i believe that women get judged on their looks much more than men. and that it is an issue.
c'est la vie? its sort of natural in our society(s).. gl changing that.
On June 08 2013 08:02 theodorus12 wrote: While they might don't like it, I seriously just don't care and see nothing wrong with it, it's just so obvious how most abuse their looks.... But don't we have any real problems left? I mean we must be living in a perfect world to have time to argue about something as irrelevant as this topic....
Society is way more than ok atm.. most likely even a bit too "ok". But this is gonna change pretty soon I guess.
ill bet you 40,000 ESPORTS dollars you're a strait white male?
I'm actually black. Now what? hurr check ur privilege? Or what are you trying to tell me?
i didn't know anyone else would be arrogant enough to claim an issue affecting over half the population wasn't important :/
It's not an issue to most women, if you like it or not, most women WANT to be sexy, they like male attention. Just read or watch any women magazine, TV show etc.
There's only a small circle of hyper feminists who think this laughable "issue" is even worth mentioning.
obviously sex sells. uh yeah most women are judged on their looks all the time. i'm not sure how you use most women wanting to be sexy to equate to judging women primarily on their looks.
It's a non issue because everyone gets judged based on their looks. Only the turbo feminists think this is a women only thing.
This whole thread is as pointless as it gets.
i disagree. i believe that women get judged on their looks much more than men. and that it is an issue.
Well that's your opinion. But even if it were true, women are also much better at abusing their looks than men.
probably because how women look matters much more to a society that creates such an impeccable ideal of beauty - it's almost like the possibility, the room and space, for women to succeed based almost solely on looks is the perfect proof that society objectifies them overmuch. you unbelievable moron.
On June 08 2013 08:02 theodorus12 wrote: While they might don't like it, I seriously just don't care and see nothing wrong with it, it's just so obvious how most abuse their looks.... But don't we have any real problems left? I mean we must be living in a perfect world to have time to argue about something as irrelevant as this topic....
Society is way more than ok atm.. most likely even a bit too "ok". But this is gonna change pretty soon I guess.
ill bet you 40,000 ESPORTS dollars you're a strait white male?
I'm actually black. Now what? hurr check ur privilege? Or what are you trying to tell me?
i didn't know anyone else would be arrogant enough to claim an issue affecting over half the population wasn't important :/
It's not an issue to most women, if you like it or not, most women WANT to be sexy, they like male attention. Just read or watch any women magazine, TV show etc.
There's only a small circle of hyper feminists who think this laughable "issue" is even worth mentioning.
obviously sex sells. uh yeah most women are judged on their looks all the time. i'm not sure how you use most women wanting to be sexy to equate to judging women primarily on their looks.
It's a non issue because everyone gets judged based on their looks. Only the turbo feminists think this is a women only thing.
This whole thread is as pointless as it gets.
i disagree. i believe that women get judged on their looks much more than men. and that it is an issue.
Well that's your opinion. But even if it were true, women are also much better at abusing their looks than men.
really have no idea how you can't know that this is true. and it being true causes women to 'abuse' their looks, because society dictates that its their only (or most valuable) asset.
On June 07 2013 22:18 Zephirdd wrote: This ia Marta. Best female football player in the world. In my opinion, ugly as fuck.
Answer to your thread: no, female sports are not sexualized. Athletes tend to have prettier bodies, thats it.
You consider someone that looks like that ugly as fuck? Wow...
But uh, all the same - yeah I feel as though women's sport is a little oversexualized. It's hard not to be - athletic women are generally in great shape, which is what most men like to look at. But in all honesty, sports in general has an overabundance of sexualization.
On June 08 2013 08:02 theodorus12 wrote: While they might don't like it, I seriously just don't care and see nothing wrong with it, it's just so obvious how most abuse their looks.... But don't we have any real problems left? I mean we must be living in a perfect world to have time to argue about something as irrelevant as this topic....
Society is way more than ok atm.. most likely even a bit too "ok". But this is gonna change pretty soon I guess.
ill bet you 40,000 ESPORTS dollars you're a strait white male?
I'm actually black. Now what? hurr check ur privilege? Or what are you trying to tell me?
i didn't know anyone else would be arrogant enough to claim an issue affecting over half the population wasn't important :/
It's not an issue to most women, if you like it or not, most women WANT to be sexy, they like male attention. Just read or watch any women magazine, TV show etc.
There's only a small circle of hyper feminists who think this laughable "issue" is even worth mentioning.
obviously sex sells. uh yeah most women are judged on their looks all the time. i'm not sure how you use most women wanting to be sexy to equate to judging women primarily on their looks.
It's a non issue because everyone gets judged based on their looks. Only the turbo feminists think this is a women only thing.
This whole thread is as pointless as it gets.
i disagree. i believe that women get judged on their looks much more than men. and that it is an issue.
Well that's your opinion. But even if it were true, women are also much better at abusing their looks than men.
probably because how women look matters much more to a society that creates such an impeccable ideal of beauty for them, you moron
Nice ad hominem. Having to resort to insults doesn't make you look too smart haha.
On June 08 2013 08:02 theodorus12 wrote: While they might don't like it, I seriously just don't care and see nothing wrong with it, it's just so obvious how most abuse their looks.... But don't we have any real problems left? I mean we must be living in a perfect world to have time to argue about something as irrelevant as this topic....
Society is way more than ok atm.. most likely even a bit too "ok". But this is gonna change pretty soon I guess.
ill bet you 40,000 ESPORTS dollars you're a strait white male?
I'm actually black. Now what? hurr check ur privilege? Or what are you trying to tell me?
i didn't know anyone else would be arrogant enough to claim an issue affecting over half the population wasn't important :/
It's not an issue to most women, if you like it or not, most women WANT to be sexy, they like male attention. Just read or watch any women magazine, TV show etc.
There's only a small circle of hyper feminists who think this laughable "issue" is even worth mentioning.
obviously sex sells. uh yeah most women are judged on their looks all the time. i'm not sure how you use most women wanting to be sexy to equate to judging women primarily on their looks.
It's a non issue because everyone gets judged based on their looks. Only the turbo feminists think this is a women only thing.
This whole thread is as pointless as it gets.
i disagree. i believe that women get judged on their looks much more than men. and that it is an issue.
Well that's your opinion. But even if it were true, women are also much better at abusing their looks than men.
really have no idea how you can't know that this is true. and it being true causes women to 'abuse' their looks, because society dictates that its their only (or most valuable) asset.
It's not dictated by society. Women can choose to downplay their looks and focus on their achievements (and you'll notice that most powerful women do exactly that). It's just that most people prefer the easy route.
On June 08 2013 08:06 ComaDose wrote: [quote] ill bet you 40,000 ESPORTS dollars you're a strait white male?
I'm actually black. Now what? hurr check ur privilege? Or what are you trying to tell me?
i didn't know anyone else would be arrogant enough to claim an issue affecting over half the population wasn't important :/
It's not an issue to most women, if you like it or not, most women WANT to be sexy, they like male attention. Just read or watch any women magazine, TV show etc.
There's only a small circle of hyper feminists who think this laughable "issue" is even worth mentioning.
obviously sex sells. uh yeah most women are judged on their looks all the time. i'm not sure how you use most women wanting to be sexy to equate to judging women primarily on their looks.
It's a non issue because everyone gets judged based on their looks. Only the turbo feminists think this is a women only thing.
This whole thread is as pointless as it gets.
i disagree. i believe that women get judged on their looks much more than men. and that it is an issue.
Well that's your opinion. But even if it were true, women are also much better at abusing their looks than men.
really have no idea how you can't know that this is true. and it being true causes women to 'abuse' their looks, because society dictates that its their only (or most valuable) asset.
It's not dictated by society. Women can choose to downplay their looks and focus on their achievements (and you'll notice that most powerful women do exactly that). It's just that most people prefer the easy route.
the easy route that you however do see exists, then? I'm more than willing to seize small victories. I'll do it in the name of all the powerful women in the world as a proportion against "powerful" men, i.e. probably less than 1%.
theodorus, this thread is pointless, stop posting in it.
I'm actually black. Now what? hurr check ur privilege? Or what are you trying to tell me?
i didn't know anyone else would be arrogant enough to claim an issue affecting over half the population wasn't important :/
It's not an issue to most women, if you like it or not, most women WANT to be sexy, they like male attention. Just read or watch any women magazine, TV show etc.
There's only a small circle of hyper feminists who think this laughable "issue" is even worth mentioning.
obviously sex sells. uh yeah most women are judged on their looks all the time. i'm not sure how you use most women wanting to be sexy to equate to judging women primarily on their looks.
It's a non issue because everyone gets judged based on their looks. Only the turbo feminists think this is a women only thing.
This whole thread is as pointless as it gets.
i disagree. i believe that women get judged on their looks much more than men. and that it is an issue.
Well that's your opinion. But even if it were true, women are also much better at abusing their looks than men.
really have no idea how you can't know that this is true. and it being true causes women to 'abuse' their looks, because society dictates that its their only (or most valuable) asset.
It's not dictated by society. Women can choose to downplay their looks and focus on their achievements (and you'll notice that most powerful women do exactly that). It's just that most people prefer the easy route.
the easy route that you however do see exists, then? I'm more than willing to seize small victories. I'll do it in the name of all the powerful women in the world as a proportion of "powerful" men, i.e. probably less than 1%.
theodorus, this thread is pointless, stop posting in it.
"Stop saying things I don't like to hear"
You really don't present your "side" very well, do you?
However seeing as it's almost 2 am and this thread is indeed pointless I actually will stop posting, so have fun in your bubble.
On June 07 2013 22:18 Zephirdd wrote: This ia Marta. Best female football player in the world. In my opinion, ugly as fuck.
Answer to your thread: no, female sports are not sexualized. Athletes tend to have prettier bodies, thats it.
You consider someone that looks like that ugly as fuck? Wow...
But uh, all the same - yeah I feel as though women's sport is a little oversexualized. It's hard not to be - athletic women are generally in great shape, which is what most men like to look at. But in all honesty, sports in general has an overabundance of sexualization.
Well, to be fair she kinda does look like a man.
Anyways, imo it's stupid to start on whining about womens sports being sexualized, much like it is stupid to start whining about mens sports being sexualized. They are, and they always will be so, because even though you think they don't, women judge men ALOT by appearances only, so it's not just men, even though we do that alot too.
All of this is just pure speculation, much like my post, without much base on truth, however all points made here (except for maybe a few) have a grain of truth to them.
Alright, here it goes. The argument that this is an issue that affects men and women equally is absurd, for a number of reasons, some of which you just listed. Women face the images presented to them of women, not all athletes, in media. That the presentation of these images has a dramatic material and psychological impact is easy to see if you just consider the number of women vs men with eating disorders. Female athletes are thrown into this madness of a constructed female beauty that is everything but athletic. While male athletes fit rather well into the stereotypically attractive male - buff or wiry or what have you - female athletes almost never do. While female singers, models, etc. are expected to be thin or busty, athletes who bulk up, or those who have wiry bodies are considered unattractive. The sexualization of women's sports is most evident when media, governing bodies, and athletes themselves put beauty standards above performance.
For some examples, consider the IOC and its approach to Beach Volleyball and Boxing. The IOC asked women to wear skirts during the Women's boxing competition at the London Olympics. Boxing in skirts? Excuse me? There's a serious fracking problem when people are asked forced to wear skirts to beat up on someone else. The similar argument for beach volleyball - that women who play the sport should wear bikini's - is equally absurd.
It doesn't matter whether or not women today want to be seen as "sexy" or "hot" or whatever else. It doesn't matter whether or not you think they're attractive, or whether they want to be seen as attractive. What matters is that all the future female athletes are being told that women are just less good, and the only way people are going to watch or care about women's sports is if they're also "sexy." That in and of itself is a damned shame.
On June 08 2013 08:11 AUFKLARUNG wrote: OP, this is a good topic for discussion, but I believe a lot is lost in the manner the first post is written. So, If you think I understand your post correctly, please edit it or add this to tidy things up a bit:
KEY ISSUES: 1. Sports is generally about performance and skills; 2. When it is mediated through mass media, specifically television, due to the media's visual nature, physical attractiveness (face) of the athletes become an important consideration; 3. This practice - emphasis on attractiveness - is more prevalent in women sports more than in men. A. Physical unattractiveness does not hinder the watchability of a male athlete as long as he excels at his sport (Ribery) but physical unattractiveness (face, or the hesitation towards muscle-bound women like in weighlifting, WNBA, etc.) in women is a crucial factor in deciding an athlete's and the sports popularity. B. On the converse side, attractive female athletes may and do enjoy immense popularity despite only C. Media and sports executives encourage and aggressively enforce this phenomenon further be "regulating" the sports to highlight the femininity and sexuality of women, as in dress code.
POINTS OF DISCUSSION: 1. The discussion is not about whether male or female athletes have beautiful faces and bodies; 2. Is this solely because of the demography of the audience/viewer who are predominantly male, thus necessitating in the highlighting of the sexuality of women. Conversely, theoretically, if there were more women audience, would it be logical to conclude that men sports would be significantly sexualized as well? 3. Is this a good thing (sexualization for the sake of watchability)? Is there a women sports which is watch primarily because of the athletes skills, and how does it differ from the general practice of the "sports-entertainment" phenomenon. How do we remove or minimize the objectification of women sports?
On June 07 2013 22:10 Sword of Omens wrote: Think of the following athletes: Lebron James, Chris Bosh, Mike Tyson, Manny Paqcaiou, Michael Phelps, Kimbo Slice, Brock Lesner, Novak Djokovic, Ronaldinho, and Rooney. There are a lot others but let us stop here for now. This are people who are presently or at one time in the past have commanded the adulation of the people, who would not hesitate to spend time and money to watch them play.
Now consider the following. Maria Sharapova, Victoria Azarenka, Meisha Tate, Michelle Jenneke, and Danica Patrick. These are incredible and successful athletes themselves, like the male group above. The difference is that the group above are one which by normal standards we would not consider aesthetically pleasing, but the latter group belong to people known for their beauty.
The argument for this case is that when it comes to men sports, appearance is not much of or at all a factor of popularity, as long as they are great athletes at their sports. On the women's side however, popularity is determined not only by excellence, but more so by physical attractiveness. Don't get me wrong, Sharapova, Azarenka, and others are great athletes, at the top of their respective sports at one time or the other, but it can be argued that their popularity is determined mostly on their being beautiful and sexy. They are more prone to submit to the viewers and desire to sexualize female, and to assume the view that they have to be pretty in order to demand attention. Case in point, these athletes may go down as #100 or #5000 in their sports, yet it wont matter. We would still watch Sharapova or Jenneke play tennis or run. I would. Another case in point, at one time, tennis and badminton players were required by the sanctioning bodies to wear skirts in order to appear feminine. It was not a problem in tennis as most are already into skirts. In badminton there was some resistance, claiming sexism. Another case in point, womens basketball and football. The world tunes in to watch FIBA and NBA. But who even watches WNBA or womens basketball and football in general?
Most importantly, even if we watch women athletes, sure bet goes that we watch them to watch and adore them, and not to watch them at play as athletes. Who cares about Sharapova's pasing shots or Jenneke's pacing. We simply want to admire their faces and bodies, mostly. This is not the case with men's sports. We dont watch the La Liga or UEFA, or NBA or whatever else in order to admire how handsome the male athletes are. You will be hard put to find someone who will tell you that Messi is good looking, although he is, but everyone will immediately tell you how great he is at football.
I know this is a complex issue, one that involves the viewers demographics, the economics of television production, and the cross-cultural attitude on gender roles in general, but what do you think about women in sports being sexualized?
I think you just showed that you sexualize women athletes. That doesn't mean that everybody else does though.
To claim that women sports isn't interesting, because men can do it better is just stupid. That's like saying that Usain Bolt's raw speed is not impressive, because a Cheetah can outrun him without trying.
I think female individual sports are equally entertaining, because I honestly believe that female athletic performances can be impressive in the same way as male athletic performances, but you need to look at their performance in different contexts. A man running 100m in 10:50 is not very impressive. A woman doing it though, is very impressive, and the reason why is because women have a lesser physical potential, so they need to work harder to reach a certain level, and they will peak at a lower level.
Tennis is one of the few examples where I actually prefer women's competition, and I know I'm not the only one. The modern serve have ruined male tennis imo, because it has slowed down the pacing of the game, and made it too formulaic. I still enjoy Rafael Nadal's play, but most of the other players I find to be too stale, as they rely too much on a strong serve, and don't really have too much to offer beyond that. In female tennis there's still room for players like Agnieszka Radwanska, who doesn't hit very hard, but who makes up for it with her good footwork, tactical sense and tricky and accurate shots. To me she's the most entertaining tennis player right now, male or female.
Sports fans watch sports to either see "their" team or to see people do things they can't do. They want to see someone get dunked on, they want to see someone catch a 90 yard hail mary, they want to see someone faster, stronger, someone with incredible finesse, they want to see someone beat someone else to a pulp, they want to see the best of the best. So they watch male dominated sports, acts of strength and speed by the fastest and strongest. Now the average viewer of this is a straight male and they don't really care what the people competing look like. I know some athletes in these sports are good looking dudes who have to beat women off of them with a stick, and there are dopey looking fucks who are lucky they're gifted with these athletic skills because they'd be just your average Joe otherwise. But their looks don't dictate anything within the arena of sport. Buddies watching the game might crack jokes about how horrific a certain player might look but it doesn't change their skill its just ball busting.
Now call me a dick if you want but if I'm there to watch the best of the best play at the highest level I'm not going to watch women's sports. It's an inferior product in every regard. Why should I watch slower, weaker people play a game worse? This has nothing to do with "hating" women this has everything to do with not wanting to watch something that is patently a worse product. I'll watch the UFC but I don't want to watch some hobo fight. I'll watch the GSL but I don't want to watch someones 9 year old play SC2. I'll watch the NFL but I don't want to see a women's league. I don't want to watch the NBA anyway so I'm certainly not going to watch the WNBA.
You're more than welcome to make a women's league for anything you want but most likely it'll fold because your average straight male doesn't care. You're going to make no money and be forced to fold or you'll have to dial up the sex appeal to stay afloat. Straight men don't want to watch your sport but they do like boobs and ass! Women's Beach Volleyball, best sport ever!
Is there a problem with women being "sexualized" in sports? I guess they can opt to just not let themselves be sexualized. You know, they can say they won't put on a pair of stilettos and a bikini that's too small and do a photo shoot for publicity. They can choose not to wear a bikini in beach volleyball and decide they want to wear burlap sacks instead. But again, no one will watch because it is an inferior product. The sexualization of women in sports is literally the only thing that is going to make them money because skill and performance wont, flat out, sorry. If you want to make some underground league where there are no revealing outfits, no make up, no grunting/moaning, no dolling yourself up and you play for purely pride with your friends you're welcome to go make your own backyard league. But if you want to compete against the big boys sex is going to be a part of it.
People get judged on a million things all the time. Looks happen to be one of those things. That's just the way people work. Everyone judges everyone else around them and they might give different values or weights to different stats. Both sexes are guilty of judging people by looks. I know plenty of female friends who will watch a given sport because they crush on a player. I know plenty of female friends who when someone points out a certain male has zero redeeming qualities as a human being will say "Yeah, but he's still hot!". To be quite honest that's really no different than seeing a female athlete who is inferior to a male athlete in her sport and thinking "God she sucks at XXXXX sport, but at least she's hot!". Sexualization in female sport isn't going to go anywhere so harping about it isn't going to change anything I'm afraid, and like someone else pointed out, I'm pretty sure we haven't solved every problem in the world so how this is even on anyone's radar in any meaningful way is beyond me.
There is a difference between individual sports and team sports.
In individual sports (mostly tennis and golf), the player makes money off of winnings. So in the sport, there is a correlation with skill and earnings. Some may choose to make money on the side by modeling and that is their decision. Lower skilled players often fund the cost through sponsorship. It's hard to ogle women playing tennis while watching on a television when during play the game is shown from a semi-top down view.
In team sports, the players receive a salary. The salary is affected by their ability to draw in crowds to buy tickets/merchandise/refreshments and make money for the team owners. The size of the salary can be affected by several things, skill being one of them. However, overall popularity is a greater contributor. This generally gives players a greater position to negotiate salaries with the team owners. The owners are less motivated by winning as they are by making money (a winning record can have a correlation with earnings, but not always).
Both sports usually have a standard dress code (team sports have a single uniform while individual sports have more leeway) so you can't really say that they are being objectified by the clothes they wear. I have a hard time believing that men in suits behind the scenes are designing team uniforms to be the most visually appealing towards the opposite sex. Most women seem to be okay with it, since you do see them playing for the league. Some may like the extra attention they get, others may hate it but do it for the money, and some may not care.
In theory, players in team sports have a higher motivation to prioritize personal image over skill. But in the end, both team sport players and individual sport players are celebrities, and celebrities make the most money off of their image rather than their skill.
On June 08 2013 08:02 theodorus12 wrote: While they might don't like it, I seriously just don't care and see nothing wrong with it, it's just so obvious how most abuse their looks.... But don't we have any real problems left? I mean we must be living in a perfect world to have time to argue about something as irrelevant as this topic....
Society is way more than ok atm.. most likely even a bit too "ok". But this is gonna change pretty soon I guess.
ill bet you 40,000 ESPORTS dollars you're a strait white male?
I'm actually black. Now what? hurr check ur privilege? Or what are you trying to tell me?
i didn't know anyone else would be arrogant enough to claim an issue affecting over half the population wasn't important :/
It's not an issue to most women, if you like it or not, most women WANT to be sexy, they like male attention. Just read or watch any women magazine, TV show etc.
There's only a small circle of hyper feminists who think this laughable "issue" is even worth mentioning.
obviously sex sells. uh yeah most women are judged on their looks all the time. i'm not sure how you use most women wanting to be sexy to equate to judging women primarily on their looks.
It's a non issue because everyone gets judged based on their looks. Only the turbo feminists think this is a women only thing.
This whole thread is as pointless as it gets.
i disagree. i believe that women get judged on their looks much more than men. and that it is an issue.
But is it a negative issue, in this case? Some subtle level of sexualization is a definite advantage when one is seeking to captivate the eyes and wallets of a typical sports audience. If women's looks counted for less, their sports leagues would have less money, which means less player salaries, and an even lower level of competition.
Sports fans tend to gravitate towards the highest levels of competition (which generally = away from female leagues). The fact that some of the more perverted among them can be incentivized to do otherwise is hardly evidence of oppression. It's evidence of the power of female sexuality over men, if anything.
The very real reality of our species is that women are the ones that attract the mates. It's like how male mallard ducks look amazing, but the females look like crap. So no matter how cry for equality, there is a stark difference in how each sex approaches the other. It's no different than in any other aspect of life; pretty girls get free shit handed to them more than ugly ones. Successful males (lots of money, security for the female) get pretty girls.
No matter how you try to call foul, there are certain aspects about our species that shine through as we all, ultimately, are inescapably human.
On June 08 2013 08:59 JimmiC wrote: Yes the LFL. That's totaly men being sexist pigs. Or is it women making money off there looks just like these guys
Lets face it the LFL is no different then Male dancers. It's just they are playing football because men like to watch football and some one thought hey men like bikinis and football lets combine them. No one is watching that for the athletisim, and no one is pretending to be much like how girls don't go to chipindales for the dancing. And no one is calling the women there sexist pigs or saying the male dancers are being taken advantage of and objectified. Damn all you sexists not getting mad about the poor male dancers and women just watching them and paying them for there bodies!
Whoever thought the LFL was a joke forgot to tell this coach
I'd say the answer to this thread's question is yes, but it's nothing special. Women in general are sexualized. Look at commercials nowadays. I saw a beer commercial with women in tight dresses and showing off cleavage to a decent extent, all in attempt to link hot women with that beer.
Women in sports is just another extension of appealing to consumers.
Lets face it the LFL is no different then Male dancers. It's just they are playing football because men like to watch football and some one thought hey men like bikinis and football lets combine them. No one is watching that for the athletisim, and no one is pretending to be much like how girls don't go to chipindales for the dancing. And no one is calling the women there sexist pigs or saying the male dancers are being taken advantage of and objectified. Damn all you sexists not getting mad about the poor male dancers and women just watching them and paying them for there bodies!
Whoever thought the LFL was a joke forgot to tell this coach
On June 08 2013 08:02 theodorus12 wrote: While they might don't like it, I seriously just don't care and see nothing wrong with it, it's just so obvious how most abuse their looks.... But don't we have any real problems left? I mean we must be living in a perfect world to have time to argue about something as irrelevant as this topic....
Society is way more than ok atm.. most likely even a bit too "ok". But this is gonna change pretty soon I guess.
ill bet you 40,000 ESPORTS dollars you're a strait white male?
I'm actually black. Now what? hurr check ur privilege? Or what are you trying to tell me?
i didn't know anyone else would be arrogant enough to claim an issue affecting over half the population wasn't important :/
It's not an issue to most women, if you like it or not, most women WANT to be sexy, they like male attention. Just read or watch any women magazine, TV show etc.
There's only a small circle of hyper feminists who think this laughable "issue" is even worth mentioning.
obviously sex sells. uh yeah most women are judged on their looks all the time. i'm not sure how you use most women wanting to be sexy to equate to judging women primarily on their looks.
It's a non issue because everyone gets judged based on their looks. Only the turbo feminists think this is a women only thing.
This whole thread is as pointless as it gets.
i disagree. i believe that women get judged on their looks much more than men. and that it is an issue.
But is it a negative issue, in this case? Some subtle level of sexualization is a definite advantage when one is seeking to captivate the eyes and wallets of a typical sports audience. If women's looks counted for less, their sports leagues would have less money, which means less player salaries, and an even lower level of competition.
Sports fans tend to gravitate towards the highest levels of competition (which generally = away from female leagues). The fact that some of the more perverted among them can be incentivized to do otherwise is hardly evidence of oppression. It's evidence of the power of female sexuality over men, if anything.
you mean like a moral issue or a financial issue? and you seem to be talking exclusively about sports which while fitting better with the OP, is not really what I was talking about, so sorry, i can imagine its harder on the average woman than a ripped athlete. but sticking to sports what about ugly athletes and attractive athletes that don't want to be sexualized?
On June 08 2013 09:09 Cloud9157 wrote: I'd say the answer to this thread's question is yes, but it's nothing special. Women in general are sexualized. Look at commercials nowadays. I saw a beer commercial with women in tight dresses and showing off cleavage to a decent extent, all in attempt to link hot women with that beer.
Women in sports is just another extension of appealing to consumers.
I think that's basically it. And from Aukfarlung's statement added to the OP, I think sexualization is a good thing to a limited extent, just like with beer commercials (its a natural part of being a male, and it shouldn't be suppressed so much that you don't see any attractive females).
On June 08 2013 09:00 ninini wrote: To claim that women sports isn't interesting, because men can do it better is just stupid. That's like saying that Usain Bolt's raw speed is not impressive, because a Cheetah can outrun him without trying.
I think female individual sports are equally entertaining, because I honestly believe that female athletic performances can be impressive in the same way as male athletic performances, but you need to look at their performance in different contexts. A man running 100m in 10:50 is not very impressive. A woman doing it though, is very impressive, and the reason why is because women have a lesser physical potential, so they need to work harder to reach a certain level, and they will peak at a lower level.
Tennis is one of the few examples where I actually prefer women's competition, and I know I'm not the only one. The modern serve have ruined male tennis imo, because it has slowed down the pacing of the game, and made it too formulaic. I still enjoy Rafael Nadal's play, but most of the other players I find to be too stale, as they rely too much on a strong serve, and don't really have too much to offer beyond that. In female tennis there's still room for players like Agnieszka Radwanska, who doesn't hit very hard, but who makes up for it with her good footwork, tactical sense and tricky and accurate shots. To me she's the most entertaining tennis player right now, male or female.
I think the main difference between herding cheetahs and watching them run laps around (while exciting) compared to humans, is that we watch humans primarily because they are more relatable; we want to see the human spirit in action. But there's also a secondary motivation, and that is that we want to see exciting games that are filled with action and unbelievable shots.
It just so happens that the more physical prowess you have, the faster, harder, and more exact the shots can be. That's why in tennis, you rarely see games that are as physical, involving unbelievable shot making while a person is running from one end of the court to the other in women's tennis; often the games are a lot simpler from my experience. That's why there is a division between men and women, because the men at the highest level would dominate women fairly easily and everyone admits it, including the women. It clearly implies that the men play at a higher level, which is logically more fun to watch, just like we enjoy watching professional NBA games over little league basketball games, and similarly for any other sport.
Of course you could say that you enjoy these fine qualities in the game that women show; but you have to be aware that you don't speak for everyone! (In case you're thinking more people should appreciate the "finer" qualities)
Serena Williams comes close though, but she's the #1 player in women's tennis...and even then the most "shocking" compliment her opponent Errani could make (after Williams beat her in the semifinals) was that she could probably play well in lower league men's tennis.
The thing is female athletes are generally speaking subpar You could pick a team of basketball players off of a street court in New York and they would beat/compete against most WNBA teams. Since you can't sell the players based on skill (some exceptions of course) you need to sell the audience on something else.
On June 08 2013 08:11 AUFKLARUNG wrote: OP, this is a good topic for discussion, but I believe a lot is lost in the manner the first post is written. So, If you think I understand your post correctly, please edit it or add this to tidy things up a bit:
KEY ISSUES: 1. Sports is generally about performance and skills; 2. When it is mediated through mass media, specifically television, due to the media's visual nature, physical attractiveness (face) of the athletes become an important consideration; 3. This practice - emphasis on attractiveness - is more prevalent in women sports more than in men. A. Physical unattractiveness does not hinder the watchability of a male athlete as long as he excels at his sport (Ribery) but physical unattractiveness (face, or the hesitation towards muscle-bound women like in weighlifting, WNBA, etc.) in women is a crucial factor in deciding an athlete's and the sports popularity. B. On the converse side, attractive female athletes may and do enjoy immense popularity despite only C. Media and sports executives encourage and aggressively enforce this phenomenon further be "regulating" the sports to highlight the femininity and sexuality of women, as in dress code.
POINTS OF DISCUSSION: 1. The discussion is not about whether male or female athletes have beautiful faces and bodies; 2. Is this solely because of the demography of the audience/viewer who are predominantly male, thus necessitating in the highlighting of the sexuality of women. Conversely, theoretically, if there were more women audience, would it be logical to conclude that men sports would be significantly sexualized as well? 3. Is this a good thing (sexualization for the sake of watchability)? Is there a women sports which is watch primarily because of the athletes skills, and how does it differ from the general practice of the "sports-entertainment" phenomenon. How do we remove or minimize the objectification of women sports?
Come on, what the fuck is this bullshit! Why do you feel the need to trash on someone's thread and impose your OPINION. The issue is VERY SIMPLE. Sexual attraction is a basic and fundamental human drive. Sports, just like alcohol, is catered to MEN, which is why women are sexualized in order for the product, whether sports or alcohol, to succeed. EASY. CASE SOLVED. Enough of this philosophical mambo jambo here in TL.
On June 08 2013 08:11 AUFKLARUNG wrote: OP, this is a good topic for discussion, but I believe a lot is lost in the manner the first post is written. So, If you think I understand your post correctly, please edit it or add this to tidy things up a bit:
KEY ISSUES: 1. Sports is generally about performance and skills; 2. When it is mediated through mass media, specifically television, due to the media's visual nature, physical attractiveness (face) of the athletes become an important consideration; 3. This practice - emphasis on attractiveness - is more prevalent in women sports more than in men. A. Physical unattractiveness does not hinder the watchability of a male athlete as long as he excels at his sport (Ribery) but physical unattractiveness (face, or the hesitation towards muscle-bound women like in weighlifting, WNBA, etc.) in women is a crucial factor in deciding an athlete's and the sports popularity. B. On the converse side, attractive female athletes may and do enjoy immense popularity despite only C. Media and sports executives encourage and aggressively enforce this phenomenon further be "regulating" the sports to highlight the femininity and sexuality of women, as in dress code.
POINTS OF DISCUSSION: 1. The discussion is not about whether male or female athletes have beautiful faces and bodies; 2. Is this solely because of the demography of the audience/viewer who are predominantly male, thus necessitating in the highlighting of the sexuality of women. Conversely, theoretically, if there were more women audience, would it be logical to conclude that men sports would be significantly sexualized as well? 3. Is this a good thing (sexualization for the sake of watchability)? Is there a women sports which is watch primarily because of the athletes skills, and how does it differ from the general practice of the "sports-entertainment" phenomenon. How do we remove or minimize the objectification of women sports?
Come on, what the fuck is this bullshit! Why do you feel the need to trash on someone's thread and impose your OPINION. The issue is VERY SIMPLE. Sexual attraction is a basic and fundamental human drive. Sports, just like alcohol, is catered to MEN, which is why women are sexualized in order for the product, whether sports or alcohol, to succeed. EASY. CASE SOLVED. Enough of this philosophical mambo jambo here in TL.
Sexualization is not the act of being attracted to another person, it is ranking that person's attractiveness as the barometer of their worth.
There are people who like Beiber for his music. There are those that like him for his looks. Sexualizing Beiber is stating that his success is based solely on his looks and not his music.
So, wanting to fuck Beiber is not sexualizing him--it's being attracted to him. Saying Beiber is a hack and the only reason he's famous is because he's pretty is sexualizing him--since you are his equating his worth as a person based on how fuckable he is.
The same is true for athletes.
Tom Brady is loved by his fans, because of all the Super Bowls he wins. Tom Brady is hated by his detractors usually being called a "pretty boy" implicating that if he wasn't good looking he wouldn't be famous.
He is being sexualized by his detractors, because they are equating his aesthetics with his quality as a human being.
People also want to fuck Tom Brady--but wanting to fuck him does not sexualized him.
Lindsay Vonn is an Olympic medalist. I saw her talked about on the news during the Olympics. Then nothing--I had to seek out sports magazines and sports news to hear anything about her. Now she's fucking Tiger Woods; I hear about her all the time now. Why? Because news of her as a sexual being is more interesting to westerners than news of her as an athlete.
This is not the media's fault. The media already tried to sell Lindsay as an athlete. Didn't work very well. So they sell her as Tiger Wood's dick sheath and inform us of what she dresses and such and such parties. Note, her sexiness is not what is being sold, what's being sold is that she's Tiger Wood's girlfriend. Another woman in the long bedpost of notches that tiger has. She's not being sexualized because she's hot, she's sexualized because her limelight is predicated on her bein someone's fuckbuddy, not on her accomplishments.
I don't get the point of discussing this. Women are sexy to men. It's natural that they're talked about that, as long as they're moderately attractive and fit, which most of the athletes you list are.
On June 08 2013 22:49 Bleak wrote: Meh. Sex sells.
I don't get the point of discussing this. Women are sexy to men. It's natural that they're talked about that, as long as they're moderately attractive and fit, which most of the athletes you list are.
The discussion is not on whether people are good looking or not. The discussions are on the moral implications of placing a woman's worth on her looks instead of her accomplishments.
Because sex sells and women are sexier than men and for some reason even woman are attracted to woman and thus you have everyone drooling over beautiful woman.
Even my exgf's and other girls are attracted to girls, they wouldn't like have sex, but they do find other girls attractive. I don't know if this is supposed to be normal, maybe its the food and stuff screwing up our hormones and stuff, but yeah.
So yeah, beautiful woman in sports tend to be more liked, to have more followers and be more successful in terms of money if they are attractive.
Women are just sexualized in every aspect of modern culture, sport is no exception. IDK why the first response got warned, because yea, this is a pretty simple issue. It's like asking "is the sky blue?" (I know it technically isn't, it's just an expression..) Yes, women's sports are sexualized.
I think we, as probably largely straight guys, think that women are more sexualized in sports because we are more attracted to them. I think both genders are sexualized in sports and I couldn't care less.
On June 07 2013 22:18 Zephirdd wrote: This ia Marta. Best female football player in the world. In my opinion, ugly as fuck.
Answer to your thread: no, female sports are not sexualized. Athletes tend to have prettier bodies, thats it.
You consider someone that looks like that ugly as fuck? Wow...
But uh, all the same - yeah I feel as though women's sport is a little oversexualized. It's hard not to be - athletic women are generally in great shape, which is what most men like to look at. But in all honesty, sports in general has an overabundance of sexualization.
yeah i would say she is below average in the looks department.
but yes females are sexualized in sports, they sexualized in every area of of our lives.
if we were only interested in the 'best physical ability' blah blah blah, female sports wouldn't even exist.
On June 07 2013 22:19 Kuni wrote: For the most part, women sports is not as fast / hard / strong / high etc. as male sports and why would you want to watch something weaker, when you can watch the real limit humans can reach in a sport in terms of speed, strength, power, height etc.?
This is what I was thinking. After watching NBA, watching WNBA just feels like a highschool game. Sorry to be cynical, but I think if you try and take out sex appeal from womens sports then there would be very little viewers or money. It's just not interesting to watch except if you're a young girl playing sports or something.
On June 07 2013 22:19 Kuni wrote: For the most part, women sports is not as fast / hard / strong / high etc. as male sports and why would you want to watch something weaker, when you can watch the real limit humans can reach in a sport in terms of speed, strength, power, height etc.?
This is what I was thinking. After watching NBA, watching WNBA just feels like a highschool game. Sorry to be cynical, but I think if you try and take out sex appeal from womens sports then there would be very little viewers or money. It's just not interesting to watch except if you're a young girl playing sports or something.
nothing cynical about it, women have a lot less testoserone than guys, on average they're worse in the visuospatial department as well, women can't compete with men given equal training, etc...it's not even close.
i don't think there's anything wrong with it, sports is a good thing to learn for women and men alike, promotes a lot of good qualities and health of course. nothing wrong with women who want to excel at sports, if there is a market for it only makes sense to allow them to succeed too.
Why don't you post all the attractive male sports figures and all the unattractive female sports figures. Women may be sexualized more but the ones you brought up model in their spare time anyways so they're bound to be more sexualized, since they you know, make money looking attractive.
On June 09 2013 01:10 JimmiC wrote: "On June 08 2013 22:49 Bleak wrote: Meh. Sex sells.
I don't get the point of discussing this. Women are sexy to men. It's natural that they're talked about that, as long as they're moderately attractive and fit, which most of the athletes you list are.
The discussion is not on whether people are good looking or not. The discussions are on the moral implications of placing a woman's worth on her looks instead of her accomplishments."
Actually the discussion was not "on the moral implications of placing..."
It was on are women's sports overly sexualized? Do people only watch them because of this? Is this a bad thing for womens sports?
You are just adding your own preconceived notions to the discussion and having a judge fest on people you don't know. And reading way more into there comments then they write again based on your stereotypes and bias's.
Apparently you think all men, especially people who post here are are sexist women haters.
And all women are innocent flowers who need protecting and would hate anyone to think of them to be sexy.
The crazy thing is you are completely wrong on both accounts. And in fact you are the biggest sexist here. So Mr. "Im so holy, your all bad" I suggest you take a look into the mirror and figure out your own issues. Because you are projecting a lot of anger on people who aren't writing anything negative but rather descriptive. You are adding the rest yourself.
Most my examples of sexualization have been of men sexualizing men. So I don't know why you think that translates to me assuming men hate women unless you think comparing an athlete to Ricky Martin is anti-women.
The example I bring up the most is women wanting to fuck Justin Beiber, so I don't know where you think I'm trying to paint women as innocent flowers.
In my examples, women are the horny fans while men are judging men for being sexy. The reason is because sexualization is not about wanting to fuck someone--it's equating their looks with their value as a human being.
On June 08 2013 10:22 HiTeK532 wrote: The thing is female athletes are generally speaking subpar You could pick a team of basketball players off of a street court in New York and they would beat/compete against most WNBA teams. Since you can't sell the players based on skill (some exceptions of course) you need to sell the audience on something else.
This. The highest level of competition sells itself on level of competition. Anything below that needs a gimmick, or must accept a much smaller audience.
Our Players Are Your Nationality is one such gimmick, commonly seen in SC2. Our Players Have Vaginas is another.
Um... If you notice, my definition of sexualization matches the EU parliament.
Notice what your post says--with the person's worth being measured in terms of the level of sexual attractiveness.
For example, Kornikova being popular despite never winning grand slam titles is an example of our sexualization of athletes.
Because when we give someone worth based on their looks instead of their achievements--we sexualized them.
And when did I say that men judge men more than women judge women? If you read, I find men sexualize boy bands more than women sexualize boy bands. Because women mostly want to fuck them, men are usually the ones who state that a boy band is only popular because women want to fuck them. Because, according to your EU parlament, sexualization is the person's worth being measured in terms of the level of sexual attractiveness.
Wanting to fuck someone is not measuring their worth--it's wanting to fuck them, by definition.
Going to be just brutally honest here. In general no one would watch female sports if they weren't reasonably attractive. The competition level is just flatly lower and there is zero reason outside physical appearance to do so. The exception to this however should be eSports. There is literally zero reason females cannot compete at the highest levels as males have zero inherit advantage. We need more unattractive chicks playing eSports who are just crazy damn good to drive this point home.
On June 10 2013 01:49 Dekoth wrote: Going to be just brutally honest here. In general no one would watch female sports if they weren't reasonably attractive. The competition level is just flatly lower and there is zero reason outside physical appearance to do so. The exception to this however should be eSports. There is literally zero reason females cannot compete at the highest levels as males have zero inherit advantage. We need more unattractive chicks playing eSports who are just crazy damn good to drive this point home.
I don't know that people watch sports solely because of performance attraction. I think it's funny - during the Olympics, people watch men run fixed distances and they somehow think it's entertaining (or something?). Go watch horse races if you like fast. Or watch F1 maybe. We're slow and weak.
On June 10 2013 01:49 Dekoth wrote: Going to be just brutally honest here. In general no one would watch female sports if they weren't reasonably attractive. The competition level is just flatly lower and there is zero reason outside physical appearance to do so. The exception to this however should be eSports. There is literally zero reason females cannot compete at the highest levels as males have zero inherit advantage. We need more unattractive chicks playing eSports who are just crazy damn good to drive this point home.
I don't know that people watch sports solely because of performance attraction. I think it's funny - during the Olympics, people watch men run fixed distances and they somehow think it's entertaining (or something?). Go watch horse races if you like fast. Or watch F1 maybe. We're slow and weak.
Women's sports, not mens. Men's sports are watched largely to see the peak in physical ability in that particular sport.
On June 10 2013 01:49 Dekoth wrote: Going to be just brutally honest here. In general no one would watch female sports if they weren't reasonably attractive. The competition level is just flatly lower and there is zero reason outside physical appearance to do so. The exception to this however should be eSports. There is literally zero reason females cannot compete at the highest levels as males have zero inherit advantage. We need more unattractive chicks playing eSports who are just crazy damn good to drive this point home.
I don't know that people watch sports solely because of performance attraction. I think it's funny - during the Olympics, people watch men run fixed distances and they somehow think it's entertaining (or something?). Go watch horse races if you like fast. Or watch F1 maybe. We're slow and weak.
Women's sports, not mens. Men's sports are watched largely to see the peak in physical ability in that particular sport.
this
women's sports have to be sexualized to be watchable
a sport purist, someone who watches only for the best skills, would not watch women's sports because they are inferior to their male counterparts
therefore, for people to watch women's sports there needs to be another reason
Well, there's Serena Williams, who's a hideous monster. But she's an american, and a good women's tennis player who wins often. So it's not always 100% sexualisation, although it's still often the main reason. Armchair feminists might have a problem with it, but it's certainly not because of their middling level of competition that most people watch women's sports.
On June 10 2013 01:49 Dekoth wrote: Going to be just brutally honest here. In general no one would watch female sports if they weren't reasonably attractive. The competition level is just flatly lower and there is zero reason outside physical appearance to do so. The exception to this however should be eSports. There is literally zero reason females cannot compete at the highest levels as males have zero inherit advantage. We need more unattractive chicks playing eSports who are just crazy damn good to drive this point home.
I don't know that people watch sports solely because of performance attraction. I think it's funny - during the Olympics, people watch men run fixed distances and they somehow think it's entertaining (or something?). Go watch horse races if you like fast. Or watch F1 maybe. We're slow and weak.
Women's sports, not mens. Men's sports are watched largely to see the peak in physical ability in that particular sport.
this
women's sports have to be sexualized to be watchable
a sport purist, someone who watches only for the best skills, would not watch women's sports because they are inferior to their male counterparts
therefore, for people to watch women's sports there needs to be another reason
was going to post same exact thing....
people watch sports to see athletic excellence and people pushing the physical limits of the human body...
Men are significantly better in EVERY sport, that both women and men compete in. It's essentially JV vs Varsity sports...
Which gets more views?
The only other way to get viewers is to draw people in with a combination of looks/skill which is why people like Danika r important for female sports.
On June 10 2013 01:49 Dekoth wrote: Going to be just brutally honest here. In general no one would watch female sports if they weren't reasonably attractive. The competition level is just flatly lower and there is zero reason outside physical appearance to do so. The exception to this however should be eSports. There is literally zero reason females cannot compete at the highest levels as males have zero inherit advantage. We need more unattractive chicks playing eSports who are just crazy damn good to drive this point home.
I don't know that people watch sports solely because of performance attraction. I think it's funny - during the Olympics, people watch men run fixed distances and they somehow think it's entertaining (or something?). Go watch horse races if you like fast. Or watch F1 maybe. We're slow and weak.
Women's sports, not mens. Men's sports are watched largely to see the peak in physical ability in that particular sport.
No no I understand that but I extrapolated... I'm saying human physical ability is kind of lame.
On one hand you have runners - male runners are faster than female, but why would I care? A bunch of animals are faster and have more endurance than men. Maybe it's a bit arrogant of me but we have no reason to watch running competitions or marathons, it's boring and unimpressive. The only good reason we have to watch anything, IMO, is intelligence which cannot be reproduced by computers or animals. Strategy, cooperation, etc. can be interesting.
You can watch female sports because the gamestyle and strategy changes dramatically and is adapted to their physical capabilities. I assume it's the same for Tennis for instance, but if you watch female hockey (or ringuette), there's a "special" type of finesse which is absent from male play.
I guess that to summarize, I would say that physically, humans suck - so people should appreciate the intelligence that's required rather than the physical performance of the athletes. Pure performance sports are incredibly boring.
On June 09 2013 04:57 JimmiC wrote: Actually according to European Parliament Sexualization means
whereas sexualisation consists of an instrumental approach to a person by perceiving that person as an object for sexual use disregarding the person's dignity and personality traits, with the person's worth being measured in terms of the level of sexual attractiveness; sexualisation also involves the imposition of the sexuality of adult persons on girls, who are emotionally, psychologically and physically unprepared for this at their particular stage of development; sexualisation[note 1] not being the normal, healthy, biological development of the sexuality of a person, conditioned by the individual process of development and taking place at the appropriate time for each particular individual
So basically it's talking about youth.
If you are using you statements its simply personal and would be whether each person does that or doesn't and what they value
If you are using to sport then I would say it doesn't happen at the highest level of sport. The best players play regardless of there looks. Tennis has been used a bunch as examples and looks does not help them win tournaments and so on. same with the WNBA, there is some attractive players but they are there based on merit.
Where the attractive people make more money is in ad dollars. At that is a adults choice to sell her sexuality or what ever you want to call it to promote the product.
Also if you think that men Judge men harshly on looks more then women judging women you are straight CRAZY. Thats a point not even worth discussing lol
And it happens to both genders we just don't point it out as much. Look up Tyrone Hill and his accomplishments in the NBA. Then look at Rick Fox (who is statistically worse) And had endorsements been on T.V. and so on.
On top of that most female athletes will tell you they don't care why people tune in, as long as they do. They would hope that if they tune in for looks they stay for the skill, but really all they care about is people watch so they can participate in the sport that they love instead of having to do some job, accountant, construction worker, waitress or what ever.
You don't think that GSP wears those tight trunks to gain some female fans and attention? And you don't think he minds that those extra eyes give him extra dollars.
So I just don't get what you are so mad about. All sports are sexualized, for all genders and in all forms of entertainment people are "sexualized".
But by your definition when relating it to sport, if looks was all that was used to determine worth. Kornikova would be a 15 time grand slam champion. However, in reality she never won, so being a hottie didn't up her worth in the sport. Just in pocket book by extra ad dollars.
Thread!
Also the OP, no doubt someone else mentioned it, but you should be less biased in the list of names you posted. You obviously took some ugly men's sporters (and left out people like C. Ronaldo) and some pretty femaile athletes (and left out the majority of the female athlete population).
Also when it comes to aesthetics, i think the male athlete is considered the pinacle of male beauty (by the accepted standard of society) while most female athletes would be too stocky, too broad, too "fit", too "male" for most men's liking (atleast by the accepted standard of society, by which I mean what you see in the adds etc, I'm aware that this is different for everyone and afaik most men dont even like superskinny women)
On June 10 2013 02:43 Asshat wrote: Well, there's Serena Williams, who's a hideous monster. But she's an american, and a good women's tennis player who wins often. So it's not always 100% sexualisation, although it's still often the main reason. Armchair feminists might have a problem with it, but it's certainly not because of their middling level of competition that most people watch women's sports.
On June 10 2013 01:49 Dekoth wrote: Going to be just brutally honest here. In general no one would watch female sports if they weren't reasonably attractive. The competition level is just flatly lower and there is zero reason outside physical appearance to do so. The exception to this however should be eSports. There is literally zero reason females cannot compete at the highest levels as males have zero inherit advantage. We need more unattractive chicks playing eSports who are just crazy damn good to drive this point home.
I don't know that people watch sports solely because of performance attraction. I think it's funny - during the Olympics, people watch men run fixed distances and they somehow think it's entertaining (or something?). Go watch horse races if you like fast. Or watch F1 maybe. We're slow and weak.
Women's sports, not mens. Men's sports are watched largely to see the peak in physical ability in that particular sport.
this
women's sports have to be sexualized to be watchable
a sport purist, someone who watches only for the best skills, would not watch women's sports because they are inferior to their male counterparts
therefore, for people to watch women's sports there needs to be another reason
You clearly don't understand the point of sports. If physical ability defines how impressive a athlete is, then we would watch Cheetah's racing, rather than Usain Bolt, and we would watch Gorillas weightlifting instead of humans.
Sports is entertaining because it shows us what we are capable of. Women are capable of less, and we all know that, which means we are impressed by less. It's stupid to compare the physical accomplishments of men and women, because men get a lot for free. Who cares if the 10th best man can run a track 1 minute faster than the fastest woman. You can't compare apples and oranges. It's not the speed of Usain Bolt that makes him impressive, it's the fact that he runs so much faster than all the other male humans on this planet. I can agree that winning the ladies 100m is not as impressive as winning the male 100m's, but that's not because they're faster, rather it's because there are a lot more male runners than there are female runners. This is why female team sports tends to be cringe-worthy, because women who are serious about an athletic career tends to pick solo sports. If 1 in 10 of the swedish guys have played hockey in a club, the same number for girls is probably around 1 in 1000, if that, so the standards are pretty low.
In a sport like figure skating it's the opposite, there are more female skaters, and in the various national and world competitions there are several female figure skaters who can score higher technical points than all or most of the males, despite the fact that their legs are weaker, and they have worse stamina. Kim Yu Na is actually objectively a better figure skater than the best male south korean skater, basically she would win the national south korean gold even if she participated in the male class, and even if you removed the artistic values, it wouldn't change anything. Skating is not purely physical, and a woman who practices harder or is more talented, can objectively be a better skater than even the elite male skaters, or most of them. There are also more female skaters, which means that the average female figure skater is more talented and more serious about their sport. And like I pointed out before with Tennis, there are female tennis players in WTA who have better technique and reads the game better than most if not all of the men on the ATP. The physical part is only part of what makes sports entertaining to watch.
Also for endurance sports, like cross country skiing there's no real difference in entertainment value, because the ladies have pretty much equal technique to the men, and the pace is not noticeably slower.
This idea that female sports only exists because men wants to have something beautiful to look at is pure bs. Maybe that's what it is for you, because you don't understand sports in general, or because you have some inferiority complex and refuse to admit that women can accomplish anything worth noting.
Erotic appeal isn't the only reason to prefer watching women plays sports over men. But if your priority is skill, it rarely makes sense to watch women's sports over men's.
@ninini: most human males are not physically capable of doing what Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps do, regardless of dedication. By this logic, shouldn't we applaud athletes not for their objective achievements but for how much they achieve relative to their innate advantages?
On a somewhat related note, I'm much more impressed by athletes for whom athleticism is secondary to some primary productive purpose.
On June 10 2013 01:49 Dekoth wrote: Going to be just brutally honest here. In general no one would watch female sports if they weren't reasonably attractive. The competition level is just flatly lower and there is zero reason outside physical appearance to do so. The exception to this however should be eSports. There is literally zero reason females cannot compete at the highest levels as males have zero inherit advantage. We need more unattractive chicks playing eSports who are just crazy damn good to drive this point home.
I don't know that people watch sports solely because of performance attraction. I think it's funny - during the Olympics, people watch men run fixed distances and they somehow think it's entertaining (or something?). Go watch horse races if you like fast. Or watch F1 maybe. We're slow and weak.
Women's sports, not mens. Men's sports are watched largely to see the peak in physical ability in that particular sport.
this
women's sports have to be sexualized to be watchable
a sport purist, someone who watches only for the best skills, would not watch women's sports because they are inferior to their male counterparts
therefore, for people to watch women's sports there needs to be another reason
was going to post same exact thing....
people watch sports to see athletic excellence and people pushing the physical limits of the human body...
Men are significantly better in EVERY sport, that both women and men compete in. It's essentially JV vs Varsity sports...
Which gets more views?
The only other way to get viewers is to draw people in with a combination of looks/skill which is why people like Danika r important for female sports.
Pushing physical limits of the human body is not reserved to men... People also get exited seeing athletes push the limits relative to their gender or an other limiting factor (weight and age particularly).
As far as the argument goes, it's completely stupid to say that a "sport purist" only watches for the best (men) skills. There are plenty of example where limits in skills made the spectator's experience more interesting. A few years ago women's tennis at Wimbledon was more interesting than men's because they didn't have the ability to win points outright with their first serve and you could actually see some exchanges.
It's also untrue that men are significantly better in EVERY sport. Equitation, skating, diving, some of the gymnastic discipline have women who beat or would beat their men counterpart.
Don't forget that steroids abuse doesn't work in favor of women's looks. I think there are several female tennis players whose looks were destroyed once they decided to bulk up. (like Dementieva)
On June 10 2013 02:43 Asshat wrote: Well, there's Serena Williams, who's a hideous monster. But she's an american, and a good women's tennis player who wins often. So it's not always 100% sexualisation, although it's still often the main reason. Armchair feminists might have a problem with it, but it's certainly not because of their middling level of competition that most people watch women's sports.
beauty is subjective, but hideous monster is just downright disrespectful. however im sure the poster was exaggerating...
tbh i think many of the people who watch sports, the casual watchers, watch it because of its entertainment value, its something that you can bond over, bread and plays in the roman days, beer and football nowadays. i mean i watch the football league of my own country, and while im pretty interested in the sport (i used to play myself) if i was just interested in seeing the "best" football, i would watch only spanish liga and premier league and the champions league. i think this goes for many people who watch sports, they root for their home team, or their home country and while they respect and enjoy watching high level play, a true fan would stick with his team/player even if they suck.
I think I read that Sharapova is 188cm with 59kg, but Serena Williams is 175cm with 75kg, and that extra weight is all in power. I guess it's a look some people can find attractive.
Law of marketing dictates that everything that can be sexualized will be sexualized. If you want more people to watch your volleyball game do you give your players skimpy outfits or dress them up in rags? The answer is pretty obvious here.
On June 10 2013 07:14 Hyperbola wrote: Law of marketing dictates that everything that can be sexualized will be sexualized. If you want more people to watch your volleyball game do you give your players skimpy outfits or dress them up in rags? The answer is pretty obvious here.
But you can't play really play volleyball wearing a gown. Short skirts, sports bra, and shorts in sports have a practical reason you know
Everything is sexualized. It is the reason why human's exist. The less sexually driven individuals made less children for thousands of years, while the most sexually driven ones made more children and hence we are all offspring of those individuals, AND WE INHERITED THEIR TRAITS. That is why we have the sexual drive, and men surely prefer watching sexually pleasing women in all walks of life, as do women who prefer sexually attractive males. Just look at boy bands. That sexually pleasing females draw more spectators than non-attractive ones shouldn't come as a surprise, it is just the sum of evolution.
Men are far less likely to insult a man based on his good looks or be bitchy towards him then women are which was my point.
uh-huh, because it's not as important for a man to be attractive, because the nasty little sexist kernel that still kicks around just about any society is that most average-looking women have less to contribute than a man of commensurate physical attractiveness. most people are aware of this on some level, which certainly includes most-if-not-all women, which is where the concept of women being bitchier to their own gender comes from. society impresses upon young girls that looks matter overmuch, young girl feels insecurity, young girl displaces insecurity onto other girls who displace onto other girls and then we have an epidemic of anorexic/bulimia nervosa, all started and reinforced multiple times a day by society.
As for the boy band thing I have no idea what your point is. I think you just write "fuck them" and think that makes you bad ass or something. You say men sexualize them because they say women want them? So were women sexulizing kornikova when they said only reason she makes money is because of her looks and advertisers only pay her cause men want her? Please explain the difference, and this time take some time to think about it so you don't just come off as a self righteous pretentious douche who likes to read him self type. Thank you. If I had the time I would put together all your posts on this topic and point out every time u logically contradict yourself.
this is a stupid strawman to begin with, so I'm just going to point out that if women end up sexualizing kournikova in that way, it's a direct reaction to the more mainstream male hetero sexualization that got her onto the screen/into magazines in the first place. this discussion of boy bands or whatever the fuck is a pretty typical dodge into one of the very, very few arenas where saying males are equally discriminated against (not that males are never discriminated against, but that it is not done equally. please learn this difference) even has the premises to be taken seriously for a moment.
edit: do you think boy bands are the product of women marketing to women, or cynical men marketing to women? who has the power here?
On June 10 2013 14:43 HowardRoark wrote: Everything is sexualized. It is the reason why human's exist. The less sexually driven individuals made less children for thousands of years, while the most sexually driven ones made more children and hence we are all offspring of those individuals. That is why we have the sexual drive, and men surely prefer watching sexually pleasing women in all walks of life, as do women who prefer sexually attractive males. Just look at boy bands. That sexually pleasing females draw more spectators than non-attractive ones shouldn't come as a surprise, it is just the sum of evolution.
1) ...is it the reason why humans exist, or a consequence of humans existing? chicken and egg problem here, let alone the problematic usage of "everything".
2) the bolded suffers from either a really, really confusing timeline and understanding of evolution or poor writing. are you seriously contending the sexual drive stems from actions that...stem from a sexual drive?
3) yeah, boy bands keep coming up and I continue to not be impressed by the rare sighting of an aspect of society that actually sexualizes males to any observable, notable extent.
4) it's not surprising, it's just that, you know, society should probably aspire to be better than those cavemen you're bringing up. I would say that the implications of your outlook are worrying, but you really aren't saying much here to extrapolate anything from, mr. fountainhead.
Um... If you notice, my definition of sexualization matches the EU parliament.
Notice what your post says--with the person's worth being measured in terms of the level of sexual attractiveness.
For example, Kornikova being popular despite never winning grand slam titles is an example of our sexualization of athletes.
Because when we give someone worth based on their looks instead of their achievements--we sexualized them.
And when did I say that men judge men more than women judge women? If you read, I find men sexualize boy bands more than women sexualize boy bands. Because women mostly want to fuck them, men are usually the ones who state that a boy band is only popular because women want to fuck them. Because, according to your EU parlament, sexualization is the person's worth being measured in terms of the level of sexual attractiveness.
Wanting to fuck someone is not measuring their worth--it's wanting to fuck them, by definition.
Kornikova making so much money is not the sexualization of sport. because she is over 18 and knows what she is doing by the EU definition you say you read and were in agreement with. Secondly she got no advantages in the sport she got them in ADVERTISING dollars. Which she very well could have gotten by simply modeling. And I don't think you read the full definition. Or as usual you just twist it to fit your preconceived beliefs. I am glad I will never meet you in real life because it would be so frustrating to talk to some one so self righteous without an ounce of logic. I would also assume from the way you write that you consider yourself very intelligent and smarter then most everyone you meet. Some day I think you will come to find out because you only listen to your self, this is not true.
You said men call tom Brady pretty and insult him based on his looks. And in doing so with the rest of your comments around you insinuated that this doesn't happen with women and is common in men. Men are far less likely to insult a man based on his good looks or be bitchy towards him then women are which was my point.
As for the boy band thing I have no idea what your point is. I think you just write "fuck them" and think that makes you bad ass or something. You say men sexualize them because they say women want them? So were women sexulizing kornikova when they said only reason she makes money is because of her looks and advertisers only pay her cause men want her? Please explain the difference, and this time take some time to think about it so you don't just come off as a self righteous pretentious douche who likes to read him self type. Thank you. If I had the time I would put together all your posts on this topic and point out every time u logically contradict yourself.
Kornikova being sexy is not what sexualization is. Kornikova being in an ad is Kornikova being in an ad--by definition. Kornikova being loved for her ads more than for her results is sexualization--because her aesthetic is deemed of higher value than her accomplishments. Her being in an ad means nothing. Anyone can be in an ad. I've seen old people, young people, ugly people, pretty people. All demographics are in ads. Being in as doesn't make someone sexualized, valuing her for her looks instead of her accomplishments sexualizes her.
Women also sexualize. You, since sexualization is not the act of being attracted to others but the emphasizing of their looks over their accomplishments, you don't have to be a male sexualize someone. Men sexualize other men. Women sexualize other women. Men sexualize women and women sexualize men.
Once we emphasize a person's looks over their accomplishments, we sexualize them. It is the emphasizing of their looks that sexualizes them, not our attraction to them. A farmer fucking a sheep does not sexualize the sheep, because wanting to fuck something does not sexualize it.
Being sexy in an ad is not sexualization, because an ad is an as by definition. Being inherently beautiful is not sexualization, because how you look is simply how you look--by definition.
It is only when you determine someone's worth by their looks that sexualization occurs. Kornikova being loved despite lack of grand slams suggests sexualization. Tom Brady winning multiple Super Bowls and being loved does not suggest sexualization. Both athletes are considered good looking. Both have lots of people that want to fuck them. But while Brady has multiple championships that can suggest people love his success, Kornikova being popular despite lack of success shows that she is given more value for her looks than her accomplishments.
It doesn't matter how they look. It doesn't matter if they are in ads or not.
Is their looks given more importance than their accomplishments? Then they are sexualized.
On June 07 2013 22:17 Crownlol wrote: This argument is incredibly weak. Some portion of marketing goes to sexualization - for example, women's tennis and volleyball players doing Clariol or Maybelline commercials- but on the whole no it is not.
Sex sells. It absolutely does. Picking the best-looking people in any given sport to use as figureheads for advertising has happened for dozens of years. Ricky Fowler has dozens of advertising deals only because he's a young, handsome guy- not because he's terribly good at golf. David Beckham is even MORE sexualized than any of the women you mentioned.
Additionally, the reason we watch the French Open and not the WNBA is that the level of competition is higher in women's tennis than in women's basketball. Women's pro basketball has a shockingly low level of competition- a good men's highschool team could probably beat most women's pro teams. However, top women tennis players are very, very good at tennis (much closer to the men in terms of performance, and the competition with each other is great).
Just wanted to highlight this, sex doesn't sell, it has been disproven several times.
On June 11 2013 00:01 JimmiC wrote: But Tom Brady and Kornikova are not good comparisons since One is a winner and great looking and one is only good looking. Look at the basketball player Rick Fox, he was not great and is very good looking and Kornikova he made lots of money outside of sports based on looks. And Tom Brady did make more money based on looks anyways. There is a Billion examples of non attractive women that are still successful. Martina Navratilova is an example of this. She is one of the best Female Tennis Players of all time, not very attractive. annika sorenstam best Golfer of her era, Not every attractive very successful. When making a comparison you have to compare as close as you can Apples to Apples. You are Saying because this Apple (Tom Brady good looking and winner) is successful and kornikova (good looking and no wins) Both made more moeny then peers blah blah, and then make conclusions based on your false comparision it just doesn't work. A better comparision would be sharapova and brady both were winners. Both made tons of cash because of both. Or the comparsion I early made of NBA players Tyrone Hill and Rick Fox. Look em up big guy.
Lets face it Looks matter in all aspects of society, they always have and always will, as long as mamals find certain traits attractive we will do more for those mamals. Female sport is no more sexualized then male sport. People arn't drafted to teams, make the Olympics, so on based on looks. Will advertizers spend there money on the better looking ones. Yes. But they will also spend there money on the people from the country where they want there product purchased. Are we going to complain about the nationalism of sport because an american who gets a bronze medal makes more advertizing dollars then a Canadian who wins Gold? Come on, lets stop being such a sensitive society and worry about real problems like hunger, rape, murder.
Men being sexualized does not mean women aren't. If you've kept track of my examples most of them have been the sexualization of men. So you trying to tell me that such and such male athlete is also good looking is a very silly response since my examples of sexualized celebrities have been Ricky Martin and Justin Bieber.
Do we sexualize women in sports? If we simply go by your comments on this thread we do. You and many others have said repeatedly that it is pointless to watch women's sports for their talents since men are better and that the only reason to watch them is their looks. That, by definition, is sexualizing them--putting more importance in their looks than their talents.
I don't know how your basket ball player names are supposed to counteract sexualization like its somehow a math problem where me and women are on opposing sides canceling each other out.
The OP asked, are women sexualized in sports. The short answer is yes. Do we also sexualize men? Yes. Do these women get popular through ads? Yes. Does that make null the initial point that women are sexualized? No. Because the existence of one wrong does not counteract the existence of other wrongs.
Do I feel that it is sports as an entity doing it? No. The only people perpetuating it are the consumers. The people who watch sports and buy magazines, watch TV, etc... Sports is part of society, and society sexualizes it's citizens; hence, sports also sexualizes it's participants--women included.
So yes, the answer to the OP is that women are sexualized. Some people like you get upset that its pointed out and start posting on threads like these telling everyone that it doesn't count because men are also sexualized. But telling me that men are sexualized does not counter the fact that women are sexualized and hence is irrelevant to the discussion.
On June 11 2013 00:27 JimmiC wrote: If the OP's only goal was are women sexualized in sport then it is like "is the grass green, or is the Sky blue" Of course they are, all people are in all aspects of life. He was insinuating that it is more in womens sports and that there is somethign wrong with how womens sports is viewed. I am trying to show it happens in both sports and all aspects of life.
Secondly if you go back and read your own posts and my posts I think you will see who is getting upset =-)
Also, the sexualization of women and men, and all mamals has happened since the dawn of time and will continue to happen. My point is in sport specifically as long as the best atheletes are getting to highest level of athletics and not just the pretty ones than it is ok. My other point to early ranting in the thread is most people, men and women, like to feel sexy and have people think they are beautiful. Esspecially people who spend a large part of there life working on there bodys.
No I don't think that no one will watch womens sports just because they are worse. I do think that less will. I love watching sports, I will give hockey as a example. My favorite to watch is the NHL. THe best is the playoffs where they are ttrying the hardest and playing there best. The best at there best is the best. Does this mean I won't watch other levels? No I do. I watch the WHL where under 21's play, I watch womens, I watch the local kids some times. There is a thrill in sports watching the drama unfold with no predetermined outcomes. Its just even more thrilling at the highest level to find out who is absolute best. If you are a sports fan you will probably appreciate what I have said if not then I'm not sure you are posting in a thread where you have such little understanding of the topic.
A.) He is saying that it happens more in Women's Sports than in Men's Sports--not that it happens more in sports overall. Which is given more credence by the fact that many people in this thread have already commented (more than once) that women's sports is less athletic than women's sports and hence needs the "gimmick" of being sexy for people to watch.
B.) My stance has not changed, yours has. My examples have not changed, yours has. I don't know how that would dictate me getting upset when you're the one adapting your argument the more holes it has.
C.) People being sexy and people being admired has nothing to do with sexualization. It's only a problem when their worth is measured on their aesthetics moreso than their results.
For example, I don't watch Tennis. But I know Kornikova's name and I know Sharapova's name. Sharapova has won championships while Kornikova has not. And yet, those are the names that pop up in the media. It is possible that both are being praised for the same reasons (be it skill or beauty) but the fact that Kornikova and Sharapova are as well known as each other is problematic because if you don't have to win grand slams to be as known as the champion--then the champion is less likely to be known for the grand slams at all.
On June 11 2013 00:27 JimmiC wrote: If the OP's only goal was are women sexualized in sport then it is like "is the grass green, or is the Sky blue" Of course they are, all people are in all aspects of life. He was insinuating that it is more in womens sports and that there is somethign wrong with how womens sports is viewed. I am trying to show it happens in both sports and all aspects of life.
Secondly if you go back and read your own posts and my posts I think you will see who is getting upset =-)
Also, the sexualization of women and men, and all mamals has happened since the dawn of time and will continue to happen. My point is in sport specifically as long as the best atheletes are getting to highest level of athletics and not just the pretty ones than it is ok. My other point to early ranting in the thread is most people, men and women, like to feel sexy and have people think they are beautiful. Esspecially people who spend a large part of there life working on there bodys.
No I don't think that no one will watch womens sports just because they are worse. I do think that less will. I love watching sports, I will give hockey as a example. My favorite to watch is the NHL. THe best is the playoffs where they are ttrying the hardest and playing there best. The best at there best is the best. Does this mean I won't watch other levels? No I do. I watch the WHL where under 21's play, I watch womens, I watch the local kids some times. There is a thrill in sports watching the drama unfold with no predetermined outcomes. Its just even more thrilling at the highest level to find out who is absolute best. If you are a sports fan you will probably appreciate what I have said if not then I'm not sure you are posting in a thread where you have such little understanding of the topic.
Indeed, in all sports they are being sexualized. It mostly only happens to successful athletes though, but if they are also hot their popularity seems to boom. I do think it happens in both gender sports, but to a higher degree with women. Anna Kournikova is a good example. She never did anything significant, the top of her career was rank 8 in the world and only for a short time, but she is probably the most famous tennis player ever. In football the hot guys get on frontpages of several female magazines to make girls drool, but there are mostly always better players than those on the front pages. To me though, it seems that both men and women follow the beautiful athletes more, while men seems to mostly follow either good performance or personality. This might be because many female athletes take better care of their looks, so females fans look at them as role models, both as an athlete and a woman.
On June 11 2013 00:27 JimmiC wrote: If the OP's only goal was are women sexualized in sport then it is like "is the grass green, or is the Sky blue" Of course they are, all people are in all aspects of life. He was insinuating that it is more in womens sports and that there is somethign wrong with how womens sports is viewed. I am trying to show it happens in both sports and all aspects of life.
Secondly if you go back and read your own posts and my posts I think you will see who is getting upset =-)
Also, the sexualization of women and men, and all mamals has happened since the dawn of time and will continue to happen. My point is in sport specifically as long as the best atheletes are getting to highest level of athletics and not just the pretty ones than it is ok. My other point to early ranting in the thread is most people, men and women, like to feel sexy and have people think they are beautiful. Esspecially people who spend a large part of there life working on there bodys.
No I don't think that no one will watch womens sports just because they are worse. I do think that less will. I love watching sports, I will give hockey as a example. My favorite to watch is the NHL. THe best is the playoffs where they are ttrying the hardest and playing there best. The best at there best is the best. Does this mean I won't watch other levels? No I do. I watch the WHL where under 21's play, I watch womens, I watch the local kids some times. There is a thrill in sports watching the drama unfold with no predetermined outcomes. Its just even more thrilling at the highest level to find out who is absolute best. If you are a sports fan you will probably appreciate what I have said if not then I'm not sure you are posting in a thread where you have such little understanding of the topic.
Indeed, in all sports they are being sexualized. It mostly only happens to successful athletes though, but if they are also hot their popularity seems to boom. I do think it happens in both gender sports, but to a higher degree with women. Anna Kournikova is a good example. She never did anything significant, the top of her career was rank 8 in the world and only for a short time, but she is probably the most famous tennis player ever. In football the hot guys get on frontpages of several female magazines to make girls drool, but there are mostly always better players than those on the front pages. To me though, it seems that both men and women follow the beautiful athletes more, while men seems to mostly follow either good performance or personality. This might be because many female athletes take better care of their looks, so females fans look at them as role models, both as an athlete and a woman.
The reason women care so much about looks and keep track of celebrities who also look beautiful stems from the fact that we socially inform women that what we care about the female is her sexiness and not her credentials. So, for the same reason I keep track of MMA, ForGG, Demuslim, and Innovation when it comes to becoming a better Terran player, women keep track of models to become better "pretty women" in order to increase their worth in society.
They all do it differently. Some women keep track of apparel, some keep track of accessories, others shoes, etc... When women are raised to be beautiful wives they (just like men do) min-max the shit out of their responsibilities. Sure they aren't trying to out jump Lebron--but they'll definitely try to out fashion Kornikova. Because when a person's worth is linked to their looks, their admirers will either mimic them or wish to consume them. (Speaking in a market based system of course, I don't actually think being pretty makes other people into cannibals)
On June 11 2013 01:59 sambo400 wrote: We are humans, everything is sexualized.
Everything *can* be sexy.
But not everything is sexualized.
For example, if a farmer gets turned on by sheep and fucks them day and night--he has not sexualized the sheep, he simply is fucking them.
If the farmer buys one sheep over another because one is sexy and the other isn't--you can argue that he's sexualizing sheep; because then he's giving one sheep more worth than the other sheep simply because of looks.
I think you all are grossly overestimating the media exposure of female athletes.
"Ordinarily women's sport attracts just 5 per cent of all media coverage and receives 0.5 per cent of all commercial sponsorship." (Sue Tibbals, chief executive of the Women's Sport and Fitness Foundation)
On June 11 2013 02:16 Poffel wrote: I think you all are grossly overestimating the media exposure of female athletes.
"Ordinarily women's sport attracts just 5 per cent of all media coverage and receives 0.5 per cent of all commercial sponsorship." (Sue Tibbals, chief executive of the Women's Sport and Fitness Foundation)
"all media coverage" is a damn big swathe... that includes local news, international news, weather, films, etc...
On June 11 2013 02:16 Poffel wrote: I think you all are grossly overestimating the media exposure of female athletes.
"Ordinarily women's sport attracts just 5 per cent of all media coverage and receives 0.5 per cent of all commercial sponsorship." (Sue Tibbals, chief executive of the Women's Sport and Fitness Foundation)
"all media coverage" is a damn big swathe... that includes local news, international news, weather, films, etc...
Yeah, right, because that's what she meant when she commented on coverage of the 2012 olympics. Did you even read the source I linked, or are you just making stuff up as you go?
On June 11 2013 02:16 Poffel wrote: I think you all are grossly overestimating the media exposure of female athletes.
"Ordinarily women's sport attracts just 5 per cent of all media coverage and receives 0.5 per cent of all commercial sponsorship." (Sue Tibbals, chief executive of the Women's Sport and Fitness Foundation)
"all media coverage" is a damn big swathe... that includes local news, international news, weather, films, etc...
Yeah, right, because that's what she meant when she commented on coverage of the 2012 olympics. Did you even read the source I linked, or are you just making stuff up as you go?
I did read. She said that it's awesome that people are excited about the olympics and are okay talking about women in the general media, and wished it continued past the olympics.
It's so funny that some idiots actually care about such trivial things such as "objectification" using sexual themes or whatever. Why do people care? The person in the photo obviously gets paid a lot of money for it, so I'm sure they are happy with it lol.. It's the ugly, old, and/or fat people out there that are jealous and thinks that everyone else needs to care about their feelings.
Here is a hint: evolve. Stop being an ape. Sex doesnt mean a damn thing if you dont want it to. Genetics my ass. Boring life you say? Well then go ahead, go be entertained by your jealousy and anger lol. Have fun.
Please note: everything is sexualised. This is a completely null discussion unless you have something to say about the negatives/positives of sexualisation in this context. Does it damage viewership numbers? No. Does it damage marketing potential? No. Is it avoidable? No. Would it be a good thing if it was avoidable? Almost certainly not.
On June 11 2013 03:11 bardtown wrote: Please note: everything is sexualised. This is a completely null discussion unless you have something to say about the negatives/positives of sexualisation in this context. Does it damage viewership numbers? No. Does it damage marketing potential? No. Is it avoidable? No. Would it be a good thing if it was avoidable? Almost certainly not.
But it's because of the rich and beautiful people that all us fat lazy americans get such a bad rep! If they used some out of shape, miserable guy for their iconic figures, maybe we can all be happier!
This is what I imagine some people legitimately thinking about objectification and marketing lol.
On June 11 2013 03:21 Robot Buddha wrote: Sad but true, The only way for *some women sports competition to gain mass popularity is by sexualizing its athletes.
Which is what the OP was pointing out. I have yet to see boxer football but bikini basketball is definitely a thing. Part of it is just how we manage bodies in the media. It's okay to show as much T&A as possible but we are not okay with showing men's dicks. Those are private.
The problem isn't the sport, but the people who run it, and the people who consume it.
On June 11 2013 03:09 ishyishy wrote: It's so funny that some idiots actually care about such trivial things such as "objectification" using sexual themes or whatever. Why do people care? The person in the photo obviously gets paid a lot of money for it, so I'm sure they are happy with it lol.. It's the ugly, old, and/or fat people out there that are jealous and thinks that everyone else needs to care about their feelings.
Here is a hint: evolve. Stop being an ape. Sex doesnt mean a damn thing if you dont want it to. Genetics my ass. Boring life you say? Well then go ahead, go be entertained by your jealousy and anger lol. Have fun.
i tried to respond seriously to this post and i just...i just couldn't. how can any reasonable person stereotype any even slightly disenfranchised group as "entertained by their own jealousy"? what does that even mean in the context of this thread, where we've been discussing how women are sexualized...are you then saying that anyone who complains is jealous of women who are? everyone loves being considered as a thing and not a person, it's so obvious!
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.
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?
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.
Do we know and are able to discuss Kornikova despite her never amounting to much? Yes. Is Kornikova worth almost as much as Serena despite not doing anything at all in tennis? Yes.
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.
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.
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.
???????????????????????? 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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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 +
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
It is also happening in the male sports, but not to the same degree at all.
Women are also often used in sports in order to offer "eye-candy" for the viewers. Think cheerleaders (yes, I know there are male cheerleaders as well), the girls that stand by the motorcars before the start, the girl that walks around with the "round sign" in boxing games, the girls that gives kisses to the winner at the podium in various sports...
I hardly ever see a guy doing the things above. But it's an old custom, left from older times where women indeed were objectified.
However, I think most of the women probably enjoy what they are doing, even if it is only being "eye-candy". So it can be discussed back and forth whether this actually is bad.
If one really wants to change how this is, then you probably wont see a change in many years. It is something that have to do with societal norms and practices, as well as, how gender roles are perceived in our society. Not something that is easy to change.
This dumb point I made was a quote from you or thieving saying that only looks matter. A direct quote. So apprently you dont understand that there athletic standing matters cause if did you wouldn't use the word only. Maybe you should look it up. You appear able to use big words, but I think you don't even understand the small ones.
Exile I love hwo you argue against examples with numbers, basically you are saying "I can't proove my point because it's wrong, so instead I'm going to write strawman a bunch, throw in some big words that I hope you don't understand, and maybe you will agree and not realize that I ahve no idea what I'm talking about."
This dumb point I made was a quote from you or thieving saying that only looks matter. A direct quote. So apprently you dont understand that there athletic standing matters cause if did you wouldn't use the word only. Maybe you should look it up. You appear able to use big words, but I think you don't even understand the small ones.
Exile I love hwo you argue against examples with numbers, basically you are saying "I can't proove my point because it's wrong, so instead I'm going to write strawman a bunch, throw in some big words that I hope you don't understand, and maybe you will agree and not realize that I ahve no idea what I'm talking about."
haha, really? boy oh boy am I done with you.
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
It's best to ignore him now until he's calmed down.
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.
It is also happening in the male sports, but not to the same degree at all.
Women are also often used in sports in order to offer "eye-candy" for the viewers. Think cheerleaders (yes, I know there are male cheerleaders as well), the girls that stand by the motorcars before the start, the girl that walks around with the "round sign" in boxing games, the girls that gives kisses to the winner at the podium in various sports...
I hardly ever see a guy doing the things above. But it's an old custom, left from older times where women indeed were objectified.
However, I think most of the women probably enjoy what they are doing, even if it is only being "eye-candy". So it can be discussed back and forth whether this actually is bad.
If one really wants to change how this is, then you probably wont see a change in many years. It is something that have to do with societal norms and practices, as well as, how gender roles are perceived in our society. Not something that is easy to change.
Male cheer captains were actually the norm and was considered as cool as the quarterback. It wasn't until women were included in cheer squads that "cheer leaders" became eye candy. There was a time when cheer leaders were big dudes with a megaphone yelling at the crowd to cheer for the team (hence cheer leader). Women's inclusion into it was what sexualized it.
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.
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).
Yeah, that's the thing. I don't see the wrong in this situation. Typically, moral issues involve some violation of rights, restrictions of freedoms, or unequal treatment. Whereas sports leagues are based on free association and voluntary contracts. Not like there's a rule against players refusing to join overly sexualized female leagues or starting a competing leagues with less sexualization/ profits.
I think maybe the argument stems from the fact that I have a more limited view of rights then is currently trendy. I believe people have the right to form sports leagues, make rules for those leagues and make contracts with people who want to join in some way. I don't, however, believe that a person has the right to mandate that existings leagues bow down and conform with their idea of how athletes should be treated/presented. Nor does anyone have the right to tell a tv audience or group of sports fans what they should and shouldn't value when channel surfing, or attending events.
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.
You're claiming that it's problematic, without anything to substantiate that argument.
It is a fact that some people are considered to be worth what they are (substantially more than the average person) primarily because they are sexually attractive. If a singer is mediocre at singing, yet highly popular and sexually attractive, then it is logically correct to argue that their popularity likely comes from their sexual attractiveness (what you've called "sexualization" in your posts).
What you're basically arguing is that it's not okay to say that because it's politically incorrect or something, even though it's true.
This dumb point I made was a quote from you or thieving saying that only looks matter. A direct quote. So apprently you dont understand that there athletic standing matters cause if did you wouldn't use the word only. Maybe you should look it up. You appear able to use big words, but I think you don't even understand the small ones.
Exile I love hwo you argue against examples with numbers, basically you are saying "I can't proove my point because it's wrong, so instead I'm going to write strawman a bunch, throw in some big words that I hope you don't understand, and maybe you will agree and not realize that I ahve no idea what I'm talking about."
haha, really? boy oh boy am I done with you.
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
It's best to ignore him now until he's calmed down.
Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman.
Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men.
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.
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).
Yeah, that's the thing. I don't see the wrong in this situation. Typically, moral issues involve some violation of rights, restrictions of freedoms, or unequal treatment. Whereas sports leagues are based on free association and voluntary contracts. Not like there's a rule against players refusing to join overly sexualized female leagues or starting a competing leagues with less sexualization/ profits.
I think maybe the argument stems from the fact that I have a more limited view of rights then is currently trendy. I believe people have the right to form sports leagues, make rules for those leagues and make contracts with people who want to join in some way. I don't, however, believe that a person has the right to mandate that existings leagues bow down and conform with their idea of how athletes should be treated/presented. Nor does anyone have the right to tell a tv audience or group of sports fans what they should and shouldn't value when channel surfing, or attending events.
Which is why I kept stating that the problem comes from western culture and not the sport itself. No one is against being pretty much like no one is against having sex. But deifying being pretty does affect youth that are still trying to find themselves. It'd be a much better world that if woman can go to a lingerie league and not have people think that she's only eye candy. The sport doesn't make her the eye candy, its the consumers that buy said product that creates that stigma.
This dumb point I made was a quote from you or thieving saying that only looks matter. A direct quote. So apprently you dont understand that there athletic standing matters cause if did you wouldn't use the word only. Maybe you should look it up. You appear able to use big words, but I think you don't even understand the small ones.
Exile I love hwo you argue against examples with numbers, basically you are saying "I can't proove my point because it's wrong, so instead I'm going to write strawman a bunch, throw in some big words that I hope you don't understand, and maybe you will agree and not realize that I ahve no idea what I'm talking about."
haha, really? boy oh boy am I done with you.
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
It's best to ignore him now until he's calmed down.
Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman.
Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men.
See exile
Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up
This dumb point I made was a quote from you or thieving saying that only looks matter. A direct quote. So apprently you dont understand that there athletic standing matters cause if did you wouldn't use the word only. Maybe you should look it up. You appear able to use big words, but I think you don't even understand the small ones.
Exile I love hwo you argue against examples with numbers, basically you are saying "I can't proove my point because it's wrong, so instead I'm going to write strawman a bunch, throw in some big words that I hope you don't understand, and maybe you will agree and not realize that I ahve no idea what I'm talking about."
haha, really? boy oh boy am I done with you.
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
It's best to ignore him now until he's calmed down.
Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman.
Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men.
See exile
Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up
It's their way, happens all the time.
If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves.
But sure, go ahead and feel superior in your imaginary win-win scenario where you're right if no one disputes your lies, and you're right if they do.
This dumb point I made was a quote from you or thieving saying that only looks matter. A direct quote. So apprently you dont understand that there athletic standing matters cause if did you wouldn't use the word only. Maybe you should look it up. You appear able to use big words, but I think you don't even understand the small ones.
Exile I love hwo you argue against examples with numbers, basically you are saying "I can't proove my point because it's wrong, so instead I'm going to write strawman a bunch, throw in some big words that I hope you don't understand, and maybe you will agree and not realize that I ahve no idea what I'm talking about."
haha, really? boy oh boy am I done with you.
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
It's best to ignore him now until he's calmed down.
Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman.
Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men.
See exile
Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up
It's their way, happens all the time.
If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves.
Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women?
This dumb point I made was a quote from you or thieving saying that only looks matter. A direct quote. So apprently you dont understand that there athletic standing matters cause if did you wouldn't use the word only. Maybe you should look it up. You appear able to use big words, but I think you don't even understand the small ones.
Exile I love hwo you argue against examples with numbers, basically you are saying "I can't proove my point because it's wrong, so instead I'm going to write strawman a bunch, throw in some big words that I hope you don't understand, and maybe you will agree and not realize that I ahve no idea what I'm talking about."
haha, really? boy oh boy am I done with you.
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
It's best to ignore him now until he's calmed down.
Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman.
Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men.
See exile
Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up
It's their way, happens all the time.
If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves.
Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women?
Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas:
A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them.
Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men.
A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect.
B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case.
C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses.
D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy.
It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse.
This dumb point I made was a quote from you or thieving saying that only looks matter. A direct quote. So apprently you dont understand that there athletic standing matters cause if did you wouldn't use the word only. Maybe you should look it up. You appear able to use big words, but I think you don't even understand the small ones.
Exile I love hwo you argue against examples with numbers, basically you are saying "I can't proove my point because it's wrong, so instead I'm going to write strawman a bunch, throw in some big words that I hope you don't understand, and maybe you will agree and not realize that I ahve no idea what I'm talking about."
haha, really? boy oh boy am I done with you.
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
It's best to ignore him now until he's calmed down.
Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman.
Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men.
See exile
Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up
It's their way, happens all the time.
If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves.
Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women?
Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas:
A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them.
Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men.
A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect.
B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case.
C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses.
D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy.
It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse.
I said
Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
And you said I was defaming you.
So unless you believe that men have more rights than women, I'm not defaming you.
My talking about MRA is not my talking about you--it quite literally is me talking about the MRA. The fact that you have on many threads talked about how women more rights than men is a truth about you.
I said that MRA guys get upset when you point out that what they're saying is ___cist in some way.
My example is of you telling me that women have more rights than men, do you or do you not believe that? If you don't believe that women have more rights than men I'm sorry for my defamation. But if you do believe that women have more rights than men why are you upset?
On June 07 2013 22:26 Sword of Omens wrote: Also, there may be male athlete models who are sexualized as well, but this phenomenon is much much more prevalent in women sport
The use of "sport" in this claim is pretty largely irrelevant, which answers the original question pretty succinctly.
Also, there may be males who are sexualized as well, but this phenomenon is much much more prevalent with women
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 +
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.
There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it.
A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is.
The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it.
What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business".
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 +
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.
There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it.
A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is.
The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it.
What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business".
you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism.
why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating.
edits for days on this post, but when you say "someone in question has a problem with it" is the criteria for objection, that implies we're all rational actors with agency. plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc.
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 +
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.
There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it.
A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is.
The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it.
What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business".
you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism.
why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating.
why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude
My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects.
If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place.
Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so.
plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc.
If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal.
Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender?
This dumb point I made was a quote from you or thieving saying that only looks matter. A direct quote. So apprently you dont understand that there athletic standing matters cause if did you wouldn't use the word only. Maybe you should look it up. You appear able to use big words, but I think you don't even understand the small ones.
Exile I love hwo you argue against examples with numbers, basically you are saying "I can't proove my point because it's wrong, so instead I'm going to write strawman a bunch, throw in some big words that I hope you don't understand, and maybe you will agree and not realize that I ahve no idea what I'm talking about."
haha, really? boy oh boy am I done with you.
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
It's best to ignore him now until he's calmed down.
Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman.
Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men.
See exile
Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up
It's their way, happens all the time.
If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves.
Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women?
Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas:
A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them.
Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men.
A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect.
B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case.
C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses.
D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy.
It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse.
Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
And you said I was defaming you.
So unless you believe that men have more rights than women, I'm not defaming you.
My talking about MRA is not my talking about you--it quite literally is me talking about the MRA. The fact that you have on many threads talked about how women more rights than men is a truth about you.
I said that MRA guys get upset when you point out that what they're saying is ___cist in some way.
My example is of you telling me that women have more rights than men, do you or do you not believe that? If you don't believe that women have more rights than men I'm sorry for my defamation. But if you do believe that women have more rights than men why are you upset?
You conveniently left out the rest of your post. Here's the relevant part I was addressing in full:
On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men
Are you simply incapable of debating honestly? By clipping out only a single sentence, you left out the rest of the context that I was obviously replying to.
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 +
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.
There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it.
A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is.
The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it.
What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business".
you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism.
why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating.
why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude
My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects.
If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place.
Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so.
plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc.
If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal.
Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender?
You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo.
I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine.
This dumb point I made was a quote from you or thieving saying that only looks matter. A direct quote. So apprently you dont understand that there athletic standing matters cause if did you wouldn't use the word only. Maybe you should look it up. You appear able to use big words, but I think you don't even understand the small ones.
Exile I love hwo you argue against examples with numbers, basically you are saying "I can't proove my point because it's wrong, so instead I'm going to write strawman a bunch, throw in some big words that I hope you don't understand, and maybe you will agree and not realize that I ahve no idea what I'm talking about."
haha, really? boy oh boy am I done with you.
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
It's best to ignore him now until he's calmed down.
Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman.
Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men.
See exile
Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up
It's their way, happens all the time.
If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves.
Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women?
Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas:
A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them.
Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men.
A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect.
B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case.
C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses.
D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy.
It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse.
I said
Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
And you said I was defaming you.
So unless you believe that men have more rights than women, I'm not defaming you.
My talking about MRA is not my talking about you--it quite literally is me talking about the MRA. The fact that you have on many threads talked about how women more rights than men is a truth about you.
I said that MRA guys get upset when you point out that what they're saying is ___cist in some way.
My example is of you telling me that women have more rights than men, do you or do you not believe that? If you don't believe that women have more rights than men I'm sorry for my defamation. But if you do believe that women have more rights than men why are you upset?
You conveniently left out the rest of your post. Here's the relevant part I was addressing in full:
On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men
Are you simply incapable of debating honestly? By clipping out only a single sentence, you left out the rest of the context that I was obviously replying to.
Yes. I talked about the MRA.
Then I talked about you, as an example.
I did not state that you represented the entirety of the MRA. I simply chose you because I knew you'd show up if anything feminist gets stated in order to tell them they're wrong. You did. What did I accuse you of? Thinking women had more rights than men--which you do.
I did not accuse you of being the entity known as the MRA. Just that people like you always show up in threads about women to tell us that women have all the rights and that feminists are terrorists. Also things you've said by the way
Now, you say you're not someone who believes in MRA stuff. Sorry for me to think that a person who thinks women have more rights than men and who thinks feminists are terrorists is part of the MRA. I guess that's your own personal biases against them which just so happen to accidentally line up with MRA teachings.
On June 11 2013 08:11 r.Evo wrote: [ My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects.
If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place.
Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so.
but...this isn't a thread about anecdotal microeffects (this is a silly term), or wasn't until people erroneously started bringing up specific athletes to prove...whatever jimmic's been doing this whole time. I agree with all of what you're saying here, but the point of this thread is to argue from a macro standpoint, i.e. the overall concept of sexualization in sports, and so it's...kind of irrelevant, unless you can successfully evoke a specific, compelling example. just because the last few pages have been full of horrible specific bickering doesn't change that initial focus.
If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal.
I think sexualization in sports is a tiny blip on a flooded radar compared to most other issues of women's rights. the only reason I'm still here is because of the astounding amount of people who come into this thread and drive-by post that people shouldn't care about this at all because that's just the way society is maaaaaaaaaaan and dudes totally get discriminated against too. regardless, if I was more of an advocate for this subject and cared deeply, your cute little goalpost shifting here is still a fallacy; I'm allowed to pick and choose my interests.
Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender?
it's not my job, but it is something I think about occasionally and this site in particular seems to attract a lot of young men who simply cannot be asked to consider this subject for more than a second, so it's a good place to discuss it. "indoctrination" was a poor term in hindsight, because instead of implying that most people are generally content and complacent and unwilling to question the society that they don't consider to be fucking them over, it implies something more sinister and therefore more juvenile.
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 +
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.
There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it.
A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is.
The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it.
What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business".
you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism.
why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating.
why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude
My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects.
If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place.
Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so.
plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc.
If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal.
Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender?
You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo.
I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine.
So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave."
Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized.
Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive.
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.
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).
Yeah, that's the thing. I don't see the wrong in this situation. Typically, moral issues involve some violation of rights, restrictions of freedoms, or unequal treatment. Whereas sports leagues are based on free association and voluntary contracts. Not like there's a rule against players refusing to join overly sexualized female leagues or starting a competing leagues with less sexualization/ profits.
I think maybe the argument stems from the fact that I have a more limited view of rights then is currently trendy. I believe people have the right to form sports leagues, make rules for those leagues and make contracts with people who want to join in some way. I don't, however, believe that a person has the right to mandate that existings leagues bow down and conform with their idea of how athletes should be treated/presented. Nor does anyone have the right to tell a tv audience or group of sports fans what they should and shouldn't value when channel surfing, or attending events.
Which is why I kept stating that the problem comes from western culture and not the sport itself. No one is against being pretty much like no one is against having sex. But deifying being pretty does affect youth that are still trying to find themselves. It'd be a much better world that if woman can go to a lingerie league and not have people think that she's only eye candy. The sport doesn't make her the eye candy, its the consumers that buy said product that creates that stigma.
While I agree that the better discussion to be had here is about culture, part of the problem with shifting the focus to such an abstract level is that everything becomes about feelings rather than facts. Without the specific actions of an organization or individual to assess, we speak in terms like "society sees X group as..." Or "group Y 'feels' 'oppressed' by society"
Without a specific trend, action or event to discuss, it is impossible to cast moral judgements one way or another. So if objectification in western culture is indeed a problem, perhaps we should focus on specific examples of why that is the case.
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
It's best to ignore him now until he's calmed down.
Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman.
Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men.
See exile
Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up
It's their way, happens all the time.
If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves.
Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women?
Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas:
A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them.
Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men.
A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect.
B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case.
C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses.
D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy.
It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse.
I said
Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
And you said I was defaming you.
So unless you believe that men have more rights than women, I'm not defaming you.
My talking about MRA is not my talking about you--it quite literally is me talking about the MRA. The fact that you have on many threads talked about how women more rights than men is a truth about you.
I said that MRA guys get upset when you point out that what they're saying is ___cist in some way.
My example is of you telling me that women have more rights than men, do you or do you not believe that? If you don't believe that women have more rights than men I'm sorry for my defamation. But if you do believe that women have more rights than men why are you upset?
You conveniently left out the rest of your post. Here's the relevant part I was addressing in full:
On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men
Are you simply incapable of debating honestly? By clipping out only a single sentence, you left out the rest of the context that I was obviously replying to.
Yes. I talked about the MRA.
Then I talked about you, as an example.
I did not state that you represented the entirety of the MRA. I simply chose you because I knew you'd show up if anything feminist gets stated in order to tell them they're wrong. You did. What did I accuse you of? Thinking women had more rights than men--which you do.
I showed up because you mischaracterized me by name. I already explained how in a lengthy post.
Do you really expect anyone to buy it now that you turn around and feign ignorance? Get real, your hostility was obvious.
On June 11 2013 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote: I did not accuse you of being the entity known as the MRA. Just that people like you always show up in threads about women to tell us that women have all the rights and that feminists are terrorists. Also things you've said by the way
I show up in lots of threads to point out blatant falsehoods, untruths, and other forms of bullshit. Anyone familiar with my TL habits is aware of this. It so happens that feminism is one example of an ideology that propagates bullshit, but that's no different from religious extremists or other such groups.
On June 11 2013 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote: Now, you say you're not someone who believes in MRA stuff. Sorry for me to think that a person who thinks women have more rights than men and who thinks feminists are terrorists is part of the MRA. I guess that's your own personal biases against them which just so happen to accidentally line up with MRA teachings.
Again with the mischaracterization; it's almost like your lies are pathological.
The fact that feminism's basic tenets are objective wrong or the fact that feminists have engaged in terrorism are "personal biases" in the same sense that atheism or believing in climate change are "personal biases".
So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave."
Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized.
Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive.
what on earth are you talking about
both of my statements regard people who are too content with their lives, too used to the basic flow of wherever they are in a given society to consider huge societal change as being worth an iota of their time. it isn't just women that feel this way about gender issues, it's how most people feel about issues that could possibly affect them if they aren't deeply involved in some sort of activism. if you're going to call me a misogynist, sigmund, you'd better go a lot harder than this.
On June 11 2013 08:35 sunprince wrote: The fact that feminism's basic tenets are objective wrong or the fact that feminists have engaged in terrorism
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 +
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.
There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it.
A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is.
The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it.
What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business".
you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism.
why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating.
why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude
My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects.
If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place.
Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so.
plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc.
If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal.
Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender?
You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo.
I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine.
So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave."
Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized.
Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive.
Here's where we disagree.
The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active.
This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters.
This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object.
And it is because I honestly feel that women's rights are in a downward spiral, that women are losing rights, that women have less rights now than they did 10 years ago, that right wing politics is currently attacking and winning the fights over women's rights that I cannot with good conscience turn a blind eye when things that perpetuate the ideals and philosophies of those who are cutting away women's rights are done in front of me.
Yes, sports is a tiny tiny tiny field of many many fields where women are being attacked. But I'm sticking to the topic because it's the OP. My argument has always been abstract. When you treat someone more for their looks than their accomplishments, you sexualize them. This is not a female problem, this is a western culture problem. My examples have mainly been men and sheep to illustrate that I have no problem with attraction, I have a problem with the perpetuation of false ideals.
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
It's best to ignore him now until he's calmed down.
Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman.
Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men.
See exile
Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up
It's their way, happens all the time.
If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves.
Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women?
Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas:
A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them.
Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men.
A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect.
B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case.
C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses.
D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy.
It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse.
I said
Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
And you said I was defaming you.
So unless you believe that men have more rights than women, I'm not defaming you.
My talking about MRA is not my talking about you--it quite literally is me talking about the MRA. The fact that you have on many threads talked about how women more rights than men is a truth about you.
I said that MRA guys get upset when you point out that what they're saying is ___cist in some way.
My example is of you telling me that women have more rights than men, do you or do you not believe that? If you don't believe that women have more rights than men I'm sorry for my defamation. But if you do believe that women have more rights than men why are you upset?
You conveniently left out the rest of your post. Here's the relevant part I was addressing in full:
On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men
Are you simply incapable of debating honestly? By clipping out only a single sentence, you left out the rest of the context that I was obviously replying to.
Yes. I talked about the MRA.
Then I talked about you, as an example.
I did not state that you represented the entirety of the MRA. I simply chose you because I knew you'd show up if anything feminist gets stated in order to tell them they're wrong. You did. What did I accuse you of? Thinking women had more rights than men--which you do.
I did not accuse you of being the entity known as the MRA. Just that people like you always show up in threads about women to tell us that women have all the rights and that feminists are terrorists. Also things you've said by the way
Now, you say you're not someone who believes in MRA stuff. Sorry for me to think that a person who thinks women have more rights than men and who thinks feminists are terrorists is part of the MRA. I guess that's your own personal biases against them which just so happen to accidentally line up with MRA teachings.
How exactly are you going to achieve equality (in whatever misguided sense this word is being used these days with regards to gender) for women? You cannot 'empower' women to 'equality', you can only subjugate men who by virtue of their masculinity are naturally dominant (permit my generalisations).
On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
It's best to ignore him now until he's calmed down.
Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman.
Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men.
See exile
Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up
It's their way, happens all the time.
If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves.
Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women?
Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas:
A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them.
Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men.
A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect.
B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case.
C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses.
D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy.
It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse.
I said
Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
And you said I was defaming you.
So unless you believe that men have more rights than women, I'm not defaming you.
My talking about MRA is not my talking about you--it quite literally is me talking about the MRA. The fact that you have on many threads talked about how women more rights than men is a truth about you.
I said that MRA guys get upset when you point out that what they're saying is ___cist in some way.
My example is of you telling me that women have more rights than men, do you or do you not believe that? If you don't believe that women have more rights than men I'm sorry for my defamation. But if you do believe that women have more rights than men why are you upset?
You conveniently left out the rest of your post. Here's the relevant part I was addressing in full:
On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men
Are you simply incapable of debating honestly? By clipping out only a single sentence, you left out the rest of the context that I was obviously replying to.
Yes. I talked about the MRA.
Then I talked about you, as an example.
I did not state that you represented the entirety of the MRA. I simply chose you because I knew you'd show up if anything feminist gets stated in order to tell them they're wrong. You did. What did I accuse you of? Thinking women had more rights than men--which you do.
I did not accuse you of being the entity known as the MRA. Just that people like you always show up in threads about women to tell us that women have all the rights and that feminists are terrorists. Also things you've said by the way
Now, you say you're not someone who believes in MRA stuff. Sorry for me to think that a person who thinks women have more rights than men and who thinks feminists are terrorists is part of the MRA. I guess that's your own personal biases against them which just so happen to accidentally line up with MRA teachings.
How exactly are you going to achieve equality (in whatever misguided sense this word is being used these days with regards to gender) for women? You cannot 'empower' women to 'equality', you can only subjugate men who by virtue of their masculinity are naturally dominant (permit my generalisations).
1) you mean artificially dominant in modern society? no aspect of having male hormones accounts for the huge imbalance of men in positions of power, no concept of masculinity justifies some dominance by fiat.
2) "can only subjugate men"? the entire point of a progressive view of gender is to remove absurd notions of sex being so dominant as to justify imbalances like the ones I've repeated in this thread ad nauseum. I can't tell how seriously you're putting forward this idea, but the idea that men are in any way subjugated by a simple rebalancing towards equality is juvenile in the extreme.
yes, women's sports is sexualized. so is men's sports.
because the future of our species relies upon sexual reproduction mother nature has built humans to have a sexual component in nearly everything they do.
if we were less sexual in our day-to-day lives humans would've been wiped off the face of the earth long, long ago.
any totalitarian system always try to "control" human sexuality in some way.. whether its the church or nazi germany or the soviet union.
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 +
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.
There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it.
A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is.
The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it.
What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business".
you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism.
why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating.
why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude
My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects.
If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place.
Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so.
plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc.
If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal.
Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender?
You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo.
I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine.
So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave."
Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized.
Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive.
Here's where we disagree.
The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active.
This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters.
This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object.
And it is because I honestly feel that women's rights are in a downward spiral, that women are losing rights, that women have less rights now than they did 10 years ago, that right wing politics is currently attacking and winning the fights over women's rights that I cannot with good conscience turn a blind eye when things that perpetuate the ideals and philosophies of those who are cutting away women's rights are done in front of me.
Yes, sports is a tiny tiny tiny field of many many fields where women are being attacked. But I'm sticking to the topic because it's the OP. My argument has always been abstract. When you treat someone more for their looks than their accomplishments, you sexualize them. This is not a female problem, this is a western culture problem. My examples have mainly been men and sheep to illustrate that I have no problem with attraction, I have a problem with the perpetuation of false ideals.
As concerns birth control/foster care system. Refusing to subsidize another persons lifestyle choice is not the same as denying them that choice. If anything it's oppressive to force people to shell out money so that others can have the resources they need to be promiscuous as they please. It's one thing to fight for ones rights, another thing to fight for the right to another persons wallet.
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 +
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.
There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it.
A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is.
The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it.
What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business".
you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism.
why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating.
why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude
My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects.
If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place.
Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so.
plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc.
If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal.
Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender?
You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo.
I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine.
So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave."
Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized.
Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive.
Here's where we disagree.
The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active.
This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters.
This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object.
The spiral you're describing says womens have their rights taken away, which forces them to abide an unfavorable system and are then stupid enough to tell their children that being beautiful is better than being accomplished.
Apparently (judging from the lack of general outrage amongst women) their rights aren't that bad after all. As I mentioned earlier, try taking examples that are more extreme then "majority of sports viewers enjoy looking at nice boobies" and see if women would stand on the streets burning down cars to make noise. It's fine to say that being beautiful and being "princess-like" is a good thing. It's not fine to tell someone else that being accomplished in life is what their goal should be. One is expressing your view on an issue, the other is trying to tell someone else what view they should have on an issue.
There is no earth-wide mindcontrol project that tells women to be sex objects and single mothers. Women can speak up for themselves, so can men. All I see here is males rambling about how exactly they think they have to save women as a gender from just giving their rights away, pretending they're too inferior to men to defend themselves in the process.
On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
It's best to ignore him now until he's calmed down.
Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman.
Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men.
See exile
Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up
It's their way, happens all the time.
If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves.
Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women?
Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas:
A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them.
Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men.
A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect.
B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case.
C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses.
D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy.
It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse.
I said
Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
And you said I was defaming you.
So unless you believe that men have more rights than women, I'm not defaming you.
My talking about MRA is not my talking about you--it quite literally is me talking about the MRA. The fact that you have on many threads talked about how women more rights than men is a truth about you.
I said that MRA guys get upset when you point out that what they're saying is ___cist in some way.
My example is of you telling me that women have more rights than men, do you or do you not believe that? If you don't believe that women have more rights than men I'm sorry for my defamation. But if you do believe that women have more rights than men why are you upset?
You conveniently left out the rest of your post. Here's the relevant part I was addressing in full:
On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men
Are you simply incapable of debating honestly? By clipping out only a single sentence, you left out the rest of the context that I was obviously replying to.
Yes. I talked about the MRA.
Then I talked about you, as an example.
I did not state that you represented the entirety of the MRA. I simply chose you because I knew you'd show up if anything feminist gets stated in order to tell them they're wrong. You did. What did I accuse you of? Thinking women had more rights than men--which you do.
I did not accuse you of being the entity known as the MRA. Just that people like you always show up in threads about women to tell us that women have all the rights and that feminists are terrorists. Also things you've said by the way
Now, you say you're not someone who believes in MRA stuff. Sorry for me to think that a person who thinks women have more rights than men and who thinks feminists are terrorists is part of the MRA. I guess that's your own personal biases against them which just so happen to accidentally line up with MRA teachings.
How exactly are you going to achieve equality (in whatever misguided sense this word is being used these days with regards to gender) for women? You cannot 'empower' women to 'equality', you can only subjugate men who by virtue of their masculinity are naturally dominant (permit my generalisations).
Feminism is focused on stopping and reversing the perpetuation of the practices where the female is equated to the lesser. Their goals are constantly in flux because they are constantly debating with each other just how to execute their goals.
Take, for example, prostitutes. Some feminists feel that a woman should have the ability to pursue any career she chooses--prostitution being one of them. Other feminists feel that anything that has historically been harmful to women needs to be expunged. They don't have a specific answer because the answer is always in flux. And this is true for all other aspects of life as well. The one constant in feminism is the seeking out of gender equality. To protect men and women who are being abused for seeming to have too feminine a trait. Homosexuals attacked for sounding too gay, trans people who get attacked for wearing dresses, women who get paid less than men, men who don't get children's rights because males are assumed to be less motherly than women.
Feminism is the attempt to fight back the enforcement of the "feminine identity" wherein things that seem female are looked down on. Such as wearing dresses, having a high pitched voice, etc... Feminism also wishes to spread out and make more acceptable the masculine identity. Aggressive girls, sexually promiscuous girls, etc... Their goal is that there is no male way of doing things, or female way of doing things. No male personality, or female personality. That everyone be treated equally.
It's not the vilifying of men. It's the acceptance of the feminine.
Feminism is the attempt to fight back the enforcement of the "feminine identity" wherein things that seem female are looked down on. Such as wearing dresses, having a high pitched voice, etc... Feminism also wishes to spread out and make more acceptable the masculine identity. Aggressive girls, sexually promiscuous girls, etc... Their goal is that there is no male way of doing things, or female way of doing things. No male personality, or female personality. That everyone be treated equally.
It's not the vilifying of men. It's the acceptance of the feminine.
Men and women are different. It's that simple. Ever thought about that?
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 +
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.
There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it.
A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is.
The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it.
What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business".
you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism.
why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating.
why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude
My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects.
If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place.
Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so.
plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc.
If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal.
Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender?
You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo.
I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine.
So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave."
Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized.
Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive.
Here's where we disagree.
The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active.
This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters.
This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object.
The spiral you're describing says womens have their rights taken away, which forces them to abide an unfavorable system and are then stupid enough to tell their children that being beautiful is better than being accomplished.
Apparently (judging from the lack of general outrage amongst women) their rights aren't that bad after all. As I mentioned earlier, try taking examples that are more extreme then "majority of sports viewers enjoy looking at nice boobies" and see if women would stand on the streets burning down cars to make noise. It's fine to say that being beautiful and being "princess-like" is a good thing. It's not fine to tell someone else that being accomplished in life is what their goal should be. One is expressing your view on an issue, the other is trying to tell someone else what view they should have on an issue.
There is no earth-wide mindcontrol project that tells women to be sex objects and single mothers. Women can speak up for themselves, so can men. All I see here is males rambling about how exactly they think they have to save women as a gender from just giving their rights away, pretending they're too inferior to men to defend themselves in the process.
The reason you see mostly males in a video game forum has more to do with problems in gaming (and, in a sense, all male dominated) culture. There's a reason most people on TL are dudes--and its not genes, it's the way we treat men and women in society. As much as people would love for it to be true--there is no videogame gene.
There's nothing stupid about wanting to feel normal. And if normal is praising women for looks then there's nothing stupid about wanting that as well. It's normal for people to want to be normal. To not want to rock the boat. Society tells them what is normal. Society tells them how the boat stays steady. They aren't stupid, they're human. The encourage hetero norms for women the same way they encourage hetero norms for men. Neither are stupid for wanting to be normal.
I am simply against that social mindset of treating women as pretty objects much like I'm against the mindset of treating men as the superior.
Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men.
See exile
Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up
It's their way, happens all the time.
If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves.
Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women?
Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas:
A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them.
Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men.
A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect.
B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case.
C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses.
D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy.
It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse.
I said
Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
And you said I was defaming you.
So unless you believe that men have more rights than women, I'm not defaming you.
My talking about MRA is not my talking about you--it quite literally is me talking about the MRA. The fact that you have on many threads talked about how women more rights than men is a truth about you.
I said that MRA guys get upset when you point out that what they're saying is ___cist in some way.
My example is of you telling me that women have more rights than men, do you or do you not believe that? If you don't believe that women have more rights than men I'm sorry for my defamation. But if you do believe that women have more rights than men why are you upset?
You conveniently left out the rest of your post. Here's the relevant part I was addressing in full:
On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men
Are you simply incapable of debating honestly? By clipping out only a single sentence, you left out the rest of the context that I was obviously replying to.
Yes. I talked about the MRA.
Then I talked about you, as an example.
I did not state that you represented the entirety of the MRA. I simply chose you because I knew you'd show up if anything feminist gets stated in order to tell them they're wrong. You did. What did I accuse you of? Thinking women had more rights than men--which you do.
I did not accuse you of being the entity known as the MRA. Just that people like you always show up in threads about women to tell us that women have all the rights and that feminists are terrorists. Also things you've said by the way
Now, you say you're not someone who believes in MRA stuff. Sorry for me to think that a person who thinks women have more rights than men and who thinks feminists are terrorists is part of the MRA. I guess that's your own personal biases against them which just so happen to accidentally line up with MRA teachings.
How exactly are you going to achieve equality (in whatever misguided sense this word is being used these days with regards to gender) for women? You cannot 'empower' women to 'equality', you can only subjugate men who by virtue of their masculinity are naturally dominant (permit my generalisations).
1) you mean artificially dominant in modern society? no aspect of having male hormones accounts for the huge imbalance of men in positions of power, no concept of masculinity justifies some dominance by fiat.
2) "can only subjugate men"? the entire point of a progressive view of gender is to remove absurd notions of sex being so dominant as to justify imbalances like the ones I've repeated in this thread ad nauseum. I can't tell how seriously you're putting forward this idea, but the idea that men are in any way subjugated by a simple rebalancing towards equality is juvenile in the extreme.
1. There's nothing artificial about the dominance of men. It's entirely natural. What is artificial is the modern notion of equality which completely ignores the differences that DO exist between the sexes. Don't confuse what you think is a justified state of affairs with what is natural.
2. Why is that juvenile? Because it's not progressive? To stop the dominance of men which they naturally exhibit you must take away their liberty to exercise said dominance.
Do me a favour and define the equality you think can be achieved. As I understand it the aim is to provide equal opportunities, and yet I think that given equal opportunities, men will still be predominant at the top tiers of government/business due to the masculine 'need' to dominate (or 'disposition towards ambition') and women childbearing, etc.
Feminism is the attempt to fight back the enforcement of the "feminine identity" wherein things that seem female are looked down on. Such as wearing dresses, having a high pitched voice, etc... Feminism also wishes to spread out and make more acceptable the masculine identity. Aggressive girls, sexually promiscuous girls, etc... Their goal is that there is no male way of doing things, or female way of doing things. No male personality, or female personality. That everyone be treated equally.
It's not the vilifying of men. It's the acceptance of the feminine.
Men and women are different. It's that simple. Ever thought about that?
There are men who like dresses
And there are women who want power
Men who have high voices
And women who hate showers
Personalities are personalities and are not determined by a dick or vagina.
Feminism is the attempt to fight back the enforcement of the "feminine identity" wherein things that seem female are looked down on. Such as wearing dresses, having a high pitched voice, etc... Feminism also wishes to spread out and make more acceptable the masculine identity. Aggressive girls, sexually promiscuous girls, etc... Their goal is that there is no male way of doing things, or female way of doing things. No male personality, or female personality. That everyone be treated equally.
It's not the vilifying of men. It's the acceptance of the feminine.
Men and women are different. It's that simple. Ever thought about that?
There are men who like dresses
And there are women who want power
Men who have high voices
And women who hate showers
Personalities are personalities and are not determined by a dick or vagina.
Anecdotes disprove all trends and therefore all general statements are wrong, amirite?
"There are men who are shorter than women. Therefore, men are not taller than women."
Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men.
See exile
Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up
It's their way, happens all the time.
If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves.
Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women?
Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas:
A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them.
Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men.
A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect.
B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case.
C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses.
D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy.
It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse.
I said
Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
And you said I was defaming you.
So unless you believe that men have more rights than women, I'm not defaming you.
My talking about MRA is not my talking about you--it quite literally is me talking about the MRA. The fact that you have on many threads talked about how women more rights than men is a truth about you.
I said that MRA guys get upset when you point out that what they're saying is ___cist in some way.
My example is of you telling me that women have more rights than men, do you or do you not believe that? If you don't believe that women have more rights than men I'm sorry for my defamation. But if you do believe that women have more rights than men why are you upset?
You conveniently left out the rest of your post. Here's the relevant part I was addressing in full:
On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men
Are you simply incapable of debating honestly? By clipping out only a single sentence, you left out the rest of the context that I was obviously replying to.
Yes. I talked about the MRA.
Then I talked about you, as an example.
I did not state that you represented the entirety of the MRA. I simply chose you because I knew you'd show up if anything feminist gets stated in order to tell them they're wrong. You did. What did I accuse you of? Thinking women had more rights than men--which you do.
I did not accuse you of being the entity known as the MRA. Just that people like you always show up in threads about women to tell us that women have all the rights and that feminists are terrorists. Also things you've said by the way
Now, you say you're not someone who believes in MRA stuff. Sorry for me to think that a person who thinks women have more rights than men and who thinks feminists are terrorists is part of the MRA. I guess that's your own personal biases against them which just so happen to accidentally line up with MRA teachings.
How exactly are you going to achieve equality (in whatever misguided sense this word is being used these days with regards to gender) for women? You cannot 'empower' women to 'equality', you can only subjugate men who by virtue of their masculinity are naturally dominant (permit my generalisations).
Feminism is focused on stopping and reversing the perpetuation of the practices where the female is equated to the lesser. Their goals are constantly in flux because they are constantly debating with each other just how to execute their goals.
Take, for example, prostitutes. Some feminists feel that a woman should have the ability to pursue any career she chooses--prostitution being one of them. Other feminists feel that anything that has historically been harmful to women needs to be expunged. They don't have a specific answer because the answer is always in flux. And this is true for all other aspects of life as well. The one constant in feminism is the seeking out of gender equality. To protect men and women who are being abused for seeming to have too feminine a trait. Homosexuals attacked for sounding too gay, trans people who get attacked for wearing dresses, women who get paid less than men, men who don't get children's rights because males are assumed to be less motherly than women.
Feminism is the attempt to fight back the enforcement of the "feminine identity" wherein things that seem female are looked down on. Such as wearing dresses, having a high pitched voice, etc... Feminism also wishes to spread out and make more acceptable the masculine identity. Aggressive girls, sexually promiscuous girls, etc... Their goal is that there is no male way of doing things, or female way of doing things. No male personality, or female personality. That everyone be treated equally.
It's not the vilifying of men. It's the acceptance of the feminine.
Acceptance of the feminine also means admiring them. I think it is biological, women are hardwired to receive pleasure from admiration.
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 +
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.
There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it.
A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is.
The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it.
What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business".
you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism.
why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating.
why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude
My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects.
If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place.
Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so.
plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc.
If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal.
Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender?
You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo.
I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine.
So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave."
Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized.
Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive.
Here's where we disagree.
The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active.
This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters.
This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object.
The spiral you're describing says womens have their rights taken away, which forces them to abide an unfavorable system and are then stupid enough to tell their children that being beautiful is better than being accomplished.
Apparently (judging from the lack of general outrage amongst women) their rights aren't that bad after all. As I mentioned earlier, try taking examples that are more extreme then "majority of sports viewers enjoy looking at nice boobies" and see if women would stand on the streets burning down cars to make noise. It's fine to say that being beautiful and being "princess-like" is a good thing. It's not fine to tell someone else that being accomplished in life is what their goal should be. One is expressing your view on an issue, the other is trying to tell someone else what view they should have on an issue.
it's almost like most people would rather hunker down, hoard the better aspects of their lives and just try to ride it out than actively ruminate on the ways they're getting fucked over. personally, I blame the two-party system and the constant media theatrics that keep people convinced they're up on things that matter.
There is no earth-wide mindcontrol project that tells women to be sex objects and single mothers. Women can speak up for themselves, so can men. All I see here is males rambling about how exactly they think they have to save women as a gender from just giving their rights away, pretending they're too inferior to men to defend themselves in the process.
people keep talking about rights, and tbh this thread hasn't focused much on rights until we started going down the planned parenthood rabbit hole. rights imply that there's something concrete, something legal to focus on here, and the reality is far more insidious and underground than that. incidentally, your pitiful claims about my motivations are just that.
On June 11 2013 09:01 sunprince wrote:
I see that "rofl" is the best argument you can come up with. I'll assume that means you have no argument and therefore concede.
and...you do have a supporting argument? all I'm seeing is a throwaway statement about "feminist terrorism". I have zero problem with your posts until you pull out quotes in that vein, so I match them with equal banality.
On June 11 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
See exile
Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up
It's their way, happens all the time.
If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves.
Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women?
Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas:
A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them.
Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men.
A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect.
B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case.
C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses.
D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy.
It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse.
I said
Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
And you said I was defaming you.
So unless you believe that men have more rights than women, I'm not defaming you.
My talking about MRA is not my talking about you--it quite literally is me talking about the MRA. The fact that you have on many threads talked about how women more rights than men is a truth about you.
I said that MRA guys get upset when you point out that what they're saying is ___cist in some way.
My example is of you telling me that women have more rights than men, do you or do you not believe that? If you don't believe that women have more rights than men I'm sorry for my defamation. But if you do believe that women have more rights than men why are you upset?
You conveniently left out the rest of your post. Here's the relevant part I was addressing in full:
On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men
Are you simply incapable of debating honestly? By clipping out only a single sentence, you left out the rest of the context that I was obviously replying to.
Yes. I talked about the MRA.
Then I talked about you, as an example.
I did not state that you represented the entirety of the MRA. I simply chose you because I knew you'd show up if anything feminist gets stated in order to tell them they're wrong. You did. What did I accuse you of? Thinking women had more rights than men--which you do.
I did not accuse you of being the entity known as the MRA. Just that people like you always show up in threads about women to tell us that women have all the rights and that feminists are terrorists. Also things you've said by the way
Now, you say you're not someone who believes in MRA stuff. Sorry for me to think that a person who thinks women have more rights than men and who thinks feminists are terrorists is part of the MRA. I guess that's your own personal biases against them which just so happen to accidentally line up with MRA teachings.
How exactly are you going to achieve equality (in whatever misguided sense this word is being used these days with regards to gender) for women? You cannot 'empower' women to 'equality', you can only subjugate men who by virtue of their masculinity are naturally dominant (permit my generalisations).
Feminism is focused on stopping and reversing the perpetuation of the practices where the female is equated to the lesser. Their goals are constantly in flux because they are constantly debating with each other just how to execute their goals.
Take, for example, prostitutes. Some feminists feel that a woman should have the ability to pursue any career she chooses--prostitution being one of them. Other feminists feel that anything that has historically been harmful to women needs to be expunged. They don't have a specific answer because the answer is always in flux. And this is true for all other aspects of life as well. The one constant in feminism is the seeking out of gender equality. To protect men and women who are being abused for seeming to have too feminine a trait. Homosexuals attacked for sounding too gay, trans people who get attacked for wearing dresses, women who get paid less than men, men who don't get children's rights because males are assumed to be less motherly than women.
Feminism is the attempt to fight back the enforcement of the "feminine identity" wherein things that seem female are looked down on. Such as wearing dresses, having a high pitched voice, etc... Feminism also wishes to spread out and make more acceptable the masculine identity. Aggressive girls, sexually promiscuous girls, etc... Their goal is that there is no male way of doing things, or female way of doing things. No male personality, or female personality. That everyone be treated equally.
It's not the vilifying of men. It's the acceptance of the feminine.
Acceptance of the feminine also means admiring them. I think it is biological, women are hardwired to receive pleasure from admiration.
There is nothing in feminism against admiring women. Simply on putting their looks ahead of their accomplishments.
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 +
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.
There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it.
A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is.
The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it.
What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business".
you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism.
why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating.
why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude
My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects.
If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place.
Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so.
plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc.
If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal.
Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender?
You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo.
I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine.
So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave."
Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized.
Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive.
Here's where we disagree.
The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active.
This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters.
This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object.
The spiral you're describing says womens have their rights taken away, which forces them to abide an unfavorable system and are then stupid enough to tell their children that being beautiful is better than being accomplished.
Apparently (judging from the lack of general outrage amongst women) their rights aren't that bad after all. As I mentioned earlier, try taking examples that are more extreme then "majority of sports viewers enjoy looking at nice boobies" and see if women would stand on the streets burning down cars to make noise. It's fine to say that being beautiful and being "princess-like" is a good thing. It's not fine to tell someone else that being accomplished in life is what their goal should be. One is expressing your view on an issue, the other is trying to tell someone else what view they should have on an issue.
There is no earth-wide mindcontrol project that tells women to be sex objects and single mothers. Women can speak up for themselves, so can men. All I see here is males rambling about how exactly they think they have to save women as a gender from just giving their rights away, pretending they're too inferior to men to defend themselves in the process.
The reason you see mostly males in a video game forum has more to do with problems in gaming (and, in a sense, all male dominated) culture. There's a reason most people on TL are dudes--and its not genes, it's the way we treat men and women in society. As much as people would love for it to be true--there is no videogame gene.
Do you seriously believe that men and women have completely identical preferences and that most gamers being male is entirely culturally constructed?
That there are no differences in, say, hormones like testosterone, which might lead more men to prefer video games, the vast majority of which are violent and competitive?
On June 11 2013 06:05 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
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 +
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.
There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it.
A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is.
The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it.
What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business".
you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism.
why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating.
why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude
My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects.
If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place.
Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so.
plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc.
If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal.
Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender?
You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo.
I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine.
So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave."
Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized.
Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive.
Here's where we disagree.
The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active.
This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters.
This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object.
The spiral you're describing says womens have their rights taken away, which forces them to abide an unfavorable system and are then stupid enough to tell their children that being beautiful is better than being accomplished.
Apparently (judging from the lack of general outrage amongst women) their rights aren't that bad after all. As I mentioned earlier, try taking examples that are more extreme then "majority of sports viewers enjoy looking at nice boobies" and see if women would stand on the streets burning down cars to make noise. It's fine to say that being beautiful and being "princess-like" is a good thing. It's not fine to tell someone else that being accomplished in life is what their goal should be. One is expressing your view on an issue, the other is trying to tell someone else what view they should have on an issue.
There is no earth-wide mindcontrol project that tells women to be sex objects and single mothers. Women can speak up for themselves, so can men. All I see here is males rambling about how exactly they think they have to save women as a gender from just giving their rights away, pretending they're too inferior to men to defend themselves in the process.
The reason you see mostly males in a video game forum has more to do with problems in gaming (and, in a sense, all male dominated) culture. There's a reason most people on TL are dudes--and its not genes, it's the way we treat men and women in society. As much as people would love for it to be true--there is no videogame gene.
Do you seriously believe that men and women have completely identical preferences and that most gamers being male is entirely culturally constructed?
That there are no differences in, say, hormones like testosterone, which might lead more men to prefer video games, the vast majority of which are violent and competitive?
I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now.
Feminism is the attempt to fight back the enforcement of the "feminine identity" wherein things that seem female are looked down on. Such as wearing dresses, having a high pitched voice, etc... Feminism also wishes to spread out and make more acceptable the masculine identity. Aggressive girls, sexually promiscuous girls, etc... Their goal is that there is no male way of doing things, or female way of doing things. No male personality, or female personality. That everyone be treated equally.
It's not the vilifying of men. It's the acceptance of the feminine.
Men and women are different. It's that simple. Ever thought about that?
There are men who like dresses
And there are women who want power
Men who have high voices
And women who hate showers
Personalities are personalities and are not determined by a dick or vagina.
The majority of men doesn't like to wear dresses.
The majority of women don't want positions of power. (This point is obviously the one you brought up that's debatable.)
The majority of men don't have high voices.
The majority of women don't hate showers. (Do men?)
The preference of a small group of individuals is completely irrelevant when you're trying to look at norms. The statement "it's normal for humans to be heterosexual" doesn't say "gay people don't exist" nor "gay people should be burned because they're different". All it says is "the majority of humans is heterosexual" which in itself is a factual statement. Not more, not less.
Countries like Norway with arguably the most "pro-feminism" society actually have less women working "traditionally male jobs" than societies who are seen as "repressing women". The more equal choices women and men have in terms of how they want to spend their time, the more will the divergence represent trends that stem from personal choice. If these trends now are still significant when it comes to looking at male/female distribution then, well... either there might be mind control at work or maybe, just maybe men and women enjoy doing different tasks more than others.
As an analogue example that's usually easier to understand: The more equally children are treated at a school, the more will the divergence in test results represent the individuals capabilities and the environment they were brought up in. Differences in distributions are not a sign for unequal treatment.
e:
I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction.
Welp, I should just post this link whenever this topic comes up in the first place. http://vimeo.com/19707588 ~ Probably the best summation of sources when you want to look at nature vs nurture. Should be pretty much a mandatory watch for either side that wants to throw out numbers because said documentary actually looks for them from multiple sources and disciplines.
I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now.
Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that.
Honestly stop making stuff up.
sorry, I guess the last 21 pages, full of scientific rigor and studded with links to academic journals, made me think that just lightly giving my opinion on something that is utterly impossible to quantify was acceptable.
I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now.
Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that.
Honestly stop making stuff up.
sorry, I guess the last 21 pages, full of scientific rigor and studded with links to academic journals, made me think that just lightly giving my opinion on something that is utterly impossible to quantify was acceptable.
I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now.
Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that.
Honestly stop making stuff up.
sorry, I guess the last 21 pages, full of scientific rigor and studded with links to academic journals, made me think that just lightly giving my opinion on something that is utterly impossible to quantify was acceptable.
It's actually possible to quantify. Check the above link.
There have been studies on freshly born babies regarding this topic. Literally taken out of the womb and put in front of certain "gender specific" pictures or objects.
I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now.
Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that.
Honestly stop making stuff up.
All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim.
Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black.
The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science.
On June 11 2013 07:53 r.Evo wrote: [quote] There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it.
A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is.
The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it.
What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business".
you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism.
why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating.
why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude
My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects.
If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place.
Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so.
plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc.
If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal.
Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender?
You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo.
I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine.
So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave."
Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized.
Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive.
Here's where we disagree.
The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active.
This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters.
This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object.
The spiral you're describing says womens have their rights taken away, which forces them to abide an unfavorable system and are then stupid enough to tell their children that being beautiful is better than being accomplished.
Apparently (judging from the lack of general outrage amongst women) their rights aren't that bad after all. As I mentioned earlier, try taking examples that are more extreme then "majority of sports viewers enjoy looking at nice boobies" and see if women would stand on the streets burning down cars to make noise. It's fine to say that being beautiful and being "princess-like" is a good thing. It's not fine to tell someone else that being accomplished in life is what their goal should be. One is expressing your view on an issue, the other is trying to tell someone else what view they should have on an issue.
There is no earth-wide mindcontrol project that tells women to be sex objects and single mothers. Women can speak up for themselves, so can men. All I see here is males rambling about how exactly they think they have to save women as a gender from just giving their rights away, pretending they're too inferior to men to defend themselves in the process.
The reason you see mostly males in a video game forum has more to do with problems in gaming (and, in a sense, all male dominated) culture. There's a reason most people on TL are dudes--and its not genes, it's the way we treat men and women in society. As much as people would love for it to be true--there is no videogame gene.
Do you seriously believe that men and women have completely identical preferences and that most gamers being male is entirely culturally constructed?
That there are no differences in, say, hormones like testosterone, which might lead more men to prefer video games, the vast majority of which are violent and competitive?
I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction.
This is baseless speculation, supported by neither empirical evidence nor logic. It's clearly some combination of both, but if you look at the psychological symptoms associated with altering a person's sex hormone balance you can see that it's nowhere near as insignificant as you claim.
On June 11 2013 09:11 TheExile19 wrote:incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now.
I gave a single example to show the absurdity in arguing that the differences between men and women in gaming are entirely cultural.
The main reason for the disparity between men and women in gaming is that the majority of game developers are men (an extension of the fact that most women choose not to go into STEM fields like computer science). As a consequence, the vast majority of video games are made by men and tailored to common male interests such as fast-paced action and combat.
Another reason for the disparity is that gaming was, until very recently, considered a "nerd" or "loser" thing to do. Women, who are much more sensitive to things like social positioning, therefore avoided gaming (and gamers) like the plague. Rarely do women gravitate towards interests primarily enjoyed by losers, and this is part of the reason that women avoided careers in technology even more until very recently, when such careers became mainstream and well-paid instead of a bunch of guys working out of a garage for sweat equity.
I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now.
Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that.
Honestly stop making stuff up.
All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim.
Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black.
The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science.
No doubt the development of those cultures has no basis in the biology of humankind... When you see running themes in cultures across the world since time immemorial, it's actually much simpler to apply the differences between the sexes to biology than to culture, so you've completely misapplied Occam's razor.
On June 11 2013 06:05 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
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 +
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.
There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it.
A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is.
The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it.
What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business".
you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism.
why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating.
why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude
My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects.
If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place.
Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so.
plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc.
If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal.
Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender?
You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo.
I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine.
So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave."
Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized.
Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive.
Here's where we disagree.
The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active.
This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters.
This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object.
The spiral you're describing says womens have their rights taken away, which forces them to abide an unfavorable system and are then stupid enough to tell their children that being beautiful is better than being accomplished.
Apparently (judging from the lack of general outrage amongst women) their rights aren't that bad after all. As I mentioned earlier, try taking examples that are more extreme then "majority of sports viewers enjoy looking at nice boobies" and see if women would stand on the streets burning down cars to make noise. It's fine to say that being beautiful and being "princess-like" is a good thing. It's not fine to tell someone else that being accomplished in life is what their goal should be. One is expressing your view on an issue, the other is trying to tell someone else what view they should have on an issue.
There is no earth-wide mindcontrol project that tells women to be sex objects and single mothers. Women can speak up for themselves, so can men. All I see here is males rambling about how exactly they think they have to save women as a gender from just giving their rights away, pretending they're too inferior to men to defend themselves in the process.
The reason you see mostly males in a video game forum has more to do with problems in gaming (and, in a sense, all male dominated) culture. There's a reason most people on TL are dudes--and its not genes, it's the way we treat men and women in society. As much as people would love for it to be true--there is no videogame gene.
Do you seriously believe that men and women have completely identical preferences and that most gamers being male is entirely culturally constructed?
That there are no differences in, say, hormones like testosterone, which might lead more men to prefer video games, the vast majority of which are violent and competitive?
This survey lends credence to the hypothesis that men might be gamers for the same reason men are more adept with the internet and more daring with technology by way of pointing out that there is a difference between older men and older women when it comes to internet usage. Considering that post-computer youth live under the influence of egalitarian movements like first/second wave feminism, it stands to reason that there, at the very least, was a major cultural construction which made it more likely for men to attach themselves to technology than women.
The very fact that this has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon.
I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now.
Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that.
Honestly stop making stuff up.
All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim.
Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black.
The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science.
No doubt the development of those cultures has no basis in the biology of humankind... When you see running themes in cultures across the world since time immemorial, it's actually much simpler to apply the differences between the sexes to biology than to culture, so you've completely misapplied Occam's razor.
Except there are enough major differences across cultures that biological distinctions don't help us much, especially since our knowledge of different cultures diminishes greatly as we move farther into the past. Furthermore, there are a great many variations that seem like the norm over a long period of time but actually don't represent a uniform thing at all. For example, a cursory look at Western civilization might lead one to believe that homosexuality is something that we have some sort of genetic basis for hating, because the last millennium and a half is filled with various cultures simultaneously reviling it. But if you go back just a little farther, you find a much more relaxed (though not egalitarian, by any means) approach to homosexuality in ancient Greek society.
So no, there aren't really any relevant "running themes" that are truly universal since "time immemorial" aside from general monogamy (or at least serial monogamy) and that men have penises and women vaginas.
On June 11 2013 07:53 r.Evo wrote: [quote] There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it.
A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is.
The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it.
What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business".
you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism.
why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating.
why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude
My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects.
If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place.
Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so.
plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc.
If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal.
Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender?
You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo.
I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine.
So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave."
Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized.
Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive.
Here's where we disagree.
The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active.
This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters.
This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object.
The spiral you're describing says womens have their rights taken away, which forces them to abide an unfavorable system and are then stupid enough to tell their children that being beautiful is better than being accomplished.
Apparently (judging from the lack of general outrage amongst women) their rights aren't that bad after all. As I mentioned earlier, try taking examples that are more extreme then "majority of sports viewers enjoy looking at nice boobies" and see if women would stand on the streets burning down cars to make noise. It's fine to say that being beautiful and being "princess-like" is a good thing. It's not fine to tell someone else that being accomplished in life is what their goal should be. One is expressing your view on an issue, the other is trying to tell someone else what view they should have on an issue.
There is no earth-wide mindcontrol project that tells women to be sex objects and single mothers. Women can speak up for themselves, so can men. All I see here is males rambling about how exactly they think they have to save women as a gender from just giving their rights away, pretending they're too inferior to men to defend themselves in the process.
The reason you see mostly males in a video game forum has more to do with problems in gaming (and, in a sense, all male dominated) culture. There's a reason most people on TL are dudes--and its not genes, it's the way we treat men and women in society. As much as people would love for it to be true--there is no videogame gene.
Do you seriously believe that men and women have completely identical preferences and that most gamers being male is entirely culturally constructed?
That there are no differences in, say, hormones like testosterone, which might lead more men to prefer video games, the vast majority of which are violent and competitive?
This survey lends credence to the hypothesis that men might be gamers for the same reason men are more adept with the internet and more daring with technology by way of pointing out that there is a difference between older men and older women when it comes to internet usage. Considering that post-computer youth live under the influence of egalitarian movements like first/second wave feminism, it stands to reason that there, at the very least, was a major cultural construction which made it more likely for men to attach themselves to technology than women.
The very fact that this has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon.
this is what I was considering responding with, but with far more concrete premises. computing in general was male-dominated from the beginning, only really expanding with the advent of personal computers (to families, but I think we can reasonably assume to a male head of household) and video game consoles (to children and men). designed by, and marketed to and for, men until very recently with the millennial generation, the continued proliferation of technology, and the reaction to an untapped market (well, video games are working at it, anyway).
On June 11 2013 07:53 r.Evo wrote: [quote] There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it.
A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is.
The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it.
What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business".
you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism.
why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating.
why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude
My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects.
If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place.
Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so.
plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc.
If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal.
Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender?
You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo.
I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine.
So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave."
Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized.
Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive.
Here's where we disagree.
The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active.
This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters.
This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object.
The spiral you're describing says womens have their rights taken away, which forces them to abide an unfavorable system and are then stupid enough to tell their children that being beautiful is better than being accomplished.
Apparently (judging from the lack of general outrage amongst women) their rights aren't that bad after all. As I mentioned earlier, try taking examples that are more extreme then "majority of sports viewers enjoy looking at nice boobies" and see if women would stand on the streets burning down cars to make noise. It's fine to say that being beautiful and being "princess-like" is a good thing. It's not fine to tell someone else that being accomplished in life is what their goal should be. One is expressing your view on an issue, the other is trying to tell someone else what view they should have on an issue.
There is no earth-wide mindcontrol project that tells women to be sex objects and single mothers. Women can speak up for themselves, so can men. All I see here is males rambling about how exactly they think they have to save women as a gender from just giving their rights away, pretending they're too inferior to men to defend themselves in the process.
The reason you see mostly males in a video game forum has more to do with problems in gaming (and, in a sense, all male dominated) culture. There's a reason most people on TL are dudes--and its not genes, it's the way we treat men and women in society. As much as people would love for it to be true--there is no videogame gene.
Do you seriously believe that men and women have completely identical preferences and that most gamers being male is entirely culturally constructed?
That there are no differences in, say, hormones like testosterone, which might lead more men to prefer video games, the vast majority of which are violent and competitive?
This survey lends credence to the hypothesis that men might be gamers for the same reason men are more adept with the internet and more daring with technology by way of pointing out that there is a difference between older men and older women when it comes to internet usage.
Or maybe it's the fact that women tend to leave the workforce significantly earlier than men, while men who stay in the workforce are more likely to be forced to adopt new technology...
On June 11 2013 09:31 Shiori wrote: Considering that post-computer youth live under the influence of egalitarian movements like first/second wave feminism, it stands to reason that there, at the very least, was a major cultural construction which made it more likely for men to attach themselves to technology than women.
Suggesting that women are catching up because of feminism is completely wrong, given that feminism was around long, long before the rise of the video games.
On June 11 2013 09:31 Shiori wrote: The very fact that this has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon.
"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now.
Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that.
Honestly stop making stuff up.
All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim.
Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black.
The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science.
No doubt the development of those cultures has no basis in the biology of humankind... When you see running themes in cultures across the world since time immemorial, it's actually much simpler to apply the differences between the sexes to biology than to culture, so you've completely misapplied Occam's razor.
Except there are enough major differences across cultures that biological distinctions don't help us much, especially since our knowledge of different cultures diminishes greatly as we move farther into the past. Furthermore, there are a great many variations that seem like the norm over a long period of time but actually don't represent a uniform thing at all. For example, a cursory look at Western civilization might lead one to believe that homosexuality is something that we have some sort of genetic basis for hating, because the last millennium and a half is filled with various cultures simultaneously reviling it. But if you go back just a little farther, you find a much more relaxed (though not egalitarian, by any means) approach to homosexuality in ancient Greek society.
So no, there aren't really any relevant "running themes" that are truly universal since "time immemorial" aside from general monogamy (or at least serial monogamy) and that men have penises and women vaginas.
A single example (of an exception that proves the rule, no less) doesn't change the fact that there are general identifiable trends. But ultimately, cultural differences are derived from both sex differences and social conditioning.
The simple fact is, there are empirically established sex differences besides the obvious physical ones. The argument that men and women are psychologically identical is preposterous if you look at it from a biological sciences viewpoint, because sexual dimorphism exists in nearly all mammals and extends to non-physical differences as well. Ideologues who argue against this are essentially making the ridiculous claim that humans are unique in that unlike all of our relatives, we're identical in every way except physically.
"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic?
sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons.
not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though. similarly unsure that you could make anyone in this thread say that sexual dimorphism absolutely isn't a thing...just that it's static compared to sociocultural influences.
I believe it all comes down to the pretty girls have more chances to do good. As kids all these attractive females probably had a lot of attention and people watching as they played, Likes are that it in some way pushed them to work harder and play better. Of course more often then not, this may not occur, but for these women, it may have been some kinda factor in helping them work ahrd and become the best.
And just my two sense, how in the world can you call lebron James not ascetically pleasing... he is like the most manly of all men.... BEAST SAUCE.... just not very good about choosing his teams.. but this is off topic, sorry.
I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now.
Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that.
Honestly stop making stuff up.
All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim.
Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black.
The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science.
No doubt the development of those cultures has no basis in the biology of humankind... When you see running themes in cultures across the world since time immemorial, it's actually much simpler to apply the differences between the sexes to biology than to culture, so you've completely misapplied Occam's razor.
Except there are enough major differences across cultures that biological distinctions don't help us much, especially since our knowledge of different cultures diminishes greatly as we move farther into the past. Furthermore, there are a great many variations that seem like the norm over a long period of time but actually don't represent a uniform thing at all. For example, a cursory look at Western civilization might lead one to believe that homosexuality is something that we have some sort of genetic basis for hating, because the last millennium and a half is filled with various cultures simultaneously reviling it. But if you go back just a little farther, you find a much more relaxed (though not egalitarian, by any means) approach to homosexuality in ancient Greek society.
So no, there aren't really any relevant "running themes" that are truly universal since "time immemorial" aside from general monogamy (or at least serial monogamy) and that men have penises and women vaginas.
A single example (of an exception that proves the rule, no less) doesn't change the fact that there are general identifiable trends. But ultimately, cultural differences are derived from both sex differences and social conditioning.
The simple fact is, there are empirically established sex differences besides the obvious physical ones. The argument that men and women are psychologically identical is preposterous if you look at it from a biological sciences viewpoint, because sexual dimorphism exists in nearly all mammals and extends to non-physical differences as well. Ideologues who argue against this are essentially making the ridiculous claim that humans are unique in that unlike all of our relatives, we're identical in every way except physically.
Except at no point did I claim that men and women are psychologically identical. My point is that the argument you are making, namely that some tendency X is a result of sexual dimorphism and differences in brain chemistry, is a positive claim. This means you need to show it to be true. Obviously not all behaviours which differ between men and women are genetically determined, so you need to actually show that a behaviour in question is definitely a result of biology, not culture. You have not done this when it comes to gaming. You have constructed a post-hoc hypothesis that is plausible but by no means certain or even probable (i.e. the notion that disparities between men/women in tech has something to do with perceived loser status later ameliorated and blah blah is a quaint and consistent system, but it's totally unfounded because it's just hypothetical and hasn't been substantiated. But to be clear: I'm not dismissing your points about women and social status, or whatever, but merely that this particular example isn't necessarily due to the system you are proposing).
For example, the fact that women leave the workforce earlier than men could either be a result of a biological inclination to cease activity earlier or due to cultural influences. Evidence suggests it's the latter. Interestingly, this implies by way of ipso facto that your reasoning about men being more acclimatized to technology is indeed the result of a cultural construction, just a step further away than I initially suggested.
"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic?
sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons.
not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though.
Shiori assumes that any rapid changes over a period of a few generations establishes that the phenomenon was cultural (e.g. due to cultural reasons).
The example of women joining the workforce shows that this is poor logic, because the real reason that men were historically the primary breadwinners is because most work was hard physical labor that women could not perform, and because until the advent of birth control women were generally constrained too much by childbirth to be primary breadwinners (and even today, pregnancy is a major factor for women in the workplace).
In other words, the change was due to technology alleviating biological conditions, not because male breadwinners were a cultural phenomena that simply was dispensed with when the prevailing cultural winds shifted.
TL;DR: you can't assume that simply because a phenomena changes quickly that the phenomena is cultural, because the phenomena might be a biological one that simply applies differently.
I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now.
Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that.
Honestly stop making stuff up.
All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim.
Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black.
The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science.
No doubt the development of those cultures has no basis in the biology of humankind... When you see running themes in cultures across the world since time immemorial, it's actually much simpler to apply the differences between the sexes to biology than to culture, so you've completely misapplied Occam's razor.
Except there are enough major differences across cultures that biological distinctions don't help us much, especially since our knowledge of different cultures diminishes greatly as we move farther into the past. Furthermore, there are a great many variations that seem like the norm over a long period of time but actually don't represent a uniform thing at all. For example, a cursory look at Western civilization might lead one to believe that homosexuality is something that we have some sort of genetic basis for hating, because the last millennium and a half is filled with various cultures simultaneously reviling it. But if you go back just a little farther, you find a much more relaxed (though not egalitarian, by any means) approach to homosexuality in ancient Greek society.
So no, there aren't really any relevant "running themes" that are truly universal since "time immemorial" aside from general monogamy (or at least serial monogamy) and that men have penises and women vaginas.
Let me give you a running theme: men predominantly fighting. Let me give you another: women predominantly raising children. Let's now consider something (apparently ridiculously unlikely from your perspective): that men and women are distinct in their biology in order to further their natural roles. No no, men develop muscles, women lactate - but any differentiation in the mind is clearly cultural.
Even in ancient Greece homosexuality was primarily about men dominating boys.
"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic?
sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons.
not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though. similarly unsure that you could make anyone in this thread say that sexual dimorphism absolutely isn't a thing...just that it's static compared to sociocultural influences.
To bring up a couple of examples: -One day old babies tend to choose either a mechanical object or a face based on their testosterone level (...which naturally is higher in male babies. Interestingly, female babies with a high testosterone level at birth will also have more "male interests" later in their life) -Women in less equal societies tend to be more interested in technical subjects than women in more gender equal societies -Evolution has created differences between males and females in our physique, in our voices, our hair - to say it had no effect on our brains and our behaviours is very, very daring.
"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic?
sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons.
not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though.
Shiori assumes that any rapid changes over a period of a few generations establishes that the phenomenon was cultural (e.g. due to cultural reasons).
The example of women joining the workforce shows that this is poor logic, because the real reason that men were historically the primary breadwinners is because most work was hard physical labor that women could not perform, and because until the advent of birth control women were generally constrained too much by childbirth to be primary breadwinners (and even today, pregnancy is a major factor for women in the workplace).
In other words, the change was due to technology alleviating biological conditions, not because male breadwinners were a cultural phenomena that simply was dispensed with when the prevailing cultural winds shifted.
TL;DR: you can't assume that simply because a phenomena changes quickly that the phenomena is cultural, because the phenomena might be a biological one that simply applies differently.
It is unbelievably disingenuous to suggest that there was no cultural component to women joining the workforce. Actually, it's absolutely absurd. While technology alleviating biological conditions was certainly important and relevant to women joining the workforce, so too was the women's rights movement which challenged the widespread belief that women were best suited to work in a particular field or only in the home.
Furthermore, even the idea that children should be raised by women or by one mother is completely a cultural phenomenon, as evidenced by hunter-gatherer tribes which are structured in a completely egalitarian fashion and which had children raised by men as well as multiple women; mothers even lived with their mothers for a period, undermining the very typical conception of the nuclear family that continues to dominate Western culture. Of course, men are generally breadwinners in these sorts of societies, but there are exceptions to this rule.
Ultimately, my point is that you appear far too eager to justify virtually any existent divide between men and women in modern culture by way of biology in order to uphold the utterly absurd conclusion that feminism not only has nothing to accomplish but is actually unfounded by definition.
I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now.
Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that.
Honestly stop making stuff up.
All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim.
Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black.
The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science.
No doubt the development of those cultures has no basis in the biology of humankind... When you see running themes in cultures across the world since time immemorial, it's actually much simpler to apply the differences between the sexes to biology than to culture, so you've completely misapplied Occam's razor.
Except there are enough major differences across cultures that biological distinctions don't help us much, especially since our knowledge of different cultures diminishes greatly as we move farther into the past. Furthermore, there are a great many variations that seem like the norm over a long period of time but actually don't represent a uniform thing at all. For example, a cursory look at Western civilization might lead one to believe that homosexuality is something that we have some sort of genetic basis for hating, because the last millennium and a half is filled with various cultures simultaneously reviling it. But if you go back just a little farther, you find a much more relaxed (though not egalitarian, by any means) approach to homosexuality in ancient Greek society.
So no, there aren't really any relevant "running themes" that are truly universal since "time immemorial" aside from general monogamy (or at least serial monogamy) and that men have penises and women vaginas.
Let me give you a running theme: men predominantly fighting. Let me give you another: women predominantly raising children. Let's now consider something (apparently ridiculously unlikely from your perspective): that men and women are distinct in their biology in order to further their natural roles. No no, men develop muscles, women lactate - but any differentiation in the mind is clearly cultural.
Even in ancient Greece homosexuality was primarily about men dominating boys.
Nowhere have I claimed that there exists to mental differentiation between men and women. I have only claimed that it is far too debated a field to actually presume that any existent behavioural difference is the result of biology.
Pederasty was not about men dominating boys; it was about an older mentor exchanging his expertise for the affections of a young boy, who, like it or not, actually did learn from his lover.
"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic?
sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons.
not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though.
Shiori assumes that any rapid changes over a period of a few generations establishes that the phenomenon was cultural (e.g. due to cultural reasons).
The example of women joining the workforce shows that this is poor logic, because the real reason that men were historically the primary breadwinners is because most work was hard physical labor that women could not perform, and because until the advent of birth control women were generally constrained too much by childbirth to be primary breadwinners (and even today, pregnancy is a major factor for women in the workplace).
In other words, the change was due to technology alleviating biological conditions, not because male breadwinners were a cultural phenomena that simply was dispensed with when the prevailing cultural winds shifted.
TL;DR: you can't assume that simply because a phenomena changes quickly that the phenomena is cultural, because the phenomena might be a biological one that simply applies differently.
It is unbelievably disingenuous to suggest that there was no cultural component to women joining the workforce. Actually, it's absolutely absurd. While technology alleviating biological conditions was certainly important and relevant to women joining the workforce, so too was the women's rights movement which challenged the widespread belief that women were best suited to work in a particular field or only in the home.
In Norway today about 10-15% of engineers are female and about 10-15% of nurses are male. Care to explain that phenomena in one of the most gender-equal countries in the world?
I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now.
Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that.
Honestly stop making stuff up.
All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim.
Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black.
The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science.
No doubt the development of those cultures has no basis in the biology of humankind... When you see running themes in cultures across the world since time immemorial, it's actually much simpler to apply the differences between the sexes to biology than to culture, so you've completely misapplied Occam's razor.
Except there are enough major differences across cultures that biological distinctions don't help us much, especially since our knowledge of different cultures diminishes greatly as we move farther into the past. Furthermore, there are a great many variations that seem like the norm over a long period of time but actually don't represent a uniform thing at all. For example, a cursory look at Western civilization might lead one to believe that homosexuality is something that we have some sort of genetic basis for hating, because the last millennium and a half is filled with various cultures simultaneously reviling it. But if you go back just a little farther, you find a much more relaxed (though not egalitarian, by any means) approach to homosexuality in ancient Greek society.
So no, there aren't really any relevant "running themes" that are truly universal since "time immemorial" aside from general monogamy (or at least serial monogamy) and that men have penises and women vaginas.
A single example (of an exception that proves the rule, no less) doesn't change the fact that there are general identifiable trends. But ultimately, cultural differences are derived from both sex differences and social conditioning.
The simple fact is, there are empirically established sex differences besides the obvious physical ones. The argument that men and women are psychologically identical is preposterous if you look at it from a biological sciences viewpoint, because sexual dimorphism exists in nearly all mammals and extends to non-physical differences as well. Ideologues who argue against this are essentially making the ridiculous claim that humans are unique in that unlike all of our relatives, we're identical in every way except physically.
Except at no point did I claim that men and women are psychologically identical. My point is that the argument you are making, namely that some tendency X is a result of sexual dimorphism and differences in brain chemistry, is a positive claim. This means you need to show it to be true. Obviously not all behaviours which differ between men and women are genetically determined, so you need to actually show that a behaviour in question is definitely a result of biology, not culture. You have not done this when it comes to gaming. You have constructed a post-hoc hypothesis that is plausible but by no means certain or even probable (i.e. the notion that disparities between men/women in tech has something to do with perceived loser status later ameliorated and blah blah is a quaint and consistent system, but it's totally unfounded because it's just hypothetical and hasn't been substantiated. But to be clear: I'm not dismissing your points about women and social status, or whatever, but merely that this particular example isn't necessarily due to the system you are proposing).
The reality is, there is no way to positively show that any sex differences are due entirely to biology or culture. However, empirically establishing a biologically difference is enough to reasonably make inferences that such a biological difference may explain a sex difference.
In the case of gaming, it has been established that men prefer physical violence more than women do, probably due at least in part to the 20x greater amount of testosterone in men. We can also reasonably observe (or possibly find studies, but this is probably non-controversial enough to accept) that most popular video games are violent. Therefore, it is reasonable to claim that men are more likely to play video games since they are more likely to prefer the physical violence prevalent in video games.
On June 11 2013 09:58 Shiori wrote: For example, the fact that women leave the workforce earlier than men could either be a result of a biological inclination to cease activity earlier or due to cultural influences. Evidence suggests it's the latter.
The article you linked argues that the main reason women retire earlier is because they face more caregiving demands. However, you're making the assumption that women are primary caregivers due to cultural influences, without any evidence to support that notion, when it is at least partly due to the fact that women are inclined towards caregiving.
Pretty boys (handome men if you prefer) have the same advantages you are speaking of, not saying this is right or wrong, simply pointing out that this is not a gender issue.
Ya man, and to be honest, i think (NO HOMO) that for the most part that more athletic guys/athletes are the more physically attractive ones. I mean it depends on your type a lot, but a lot of the people playing professional sports are often used as models for stuff, and not just because they are way good at sports. But as to my original post, i did not think it through all of the way, but i think this would relate more strongly to females than males.
"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic?
sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons.
not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though.
Shiori assumes that any rapid changes over a period of a few generations establishes that the phenomenon was cultural (e.g. due to cultural reasons).
The example of women joining the workforce shows that this is poor logic, because the real reason that men were historically the primary breadwinners is because most work was hard physical labor that women could not perform, and because until the advent of birth control women were generally constrained too much by childbirth to be primary breadwinners (and even today, pregnancy is a major factor for women in the workplace).
In other words, the change was due to technology alleviating biological conditions, not because male breadwinners were a cultural phenomena that simply was dispensed with when the prevailing cultural winds shifted.
TL;DR: you can't assume that simply because a phenomena changes quickly that the phenomena is cultural, because the phenomena might be a biological one that simply applies differently.
It is unbelievably disingenuous to suggest that there was no cultural component to women joining the workforce. Actually, it's absolutely absurd. While technology alleviating biological conditions was certainly important and relevant to women joining the workforce, so too was the women's rights movement which challenged the widespread belief that women were best suited to work in a particular field or only in the home.
The argument I was making is that division of labor which explained the historical trend of male breadwinners was a biological phenomenon in the first place. Culture certainly was constructed around it, and needed to change for women to join the workforce, but that doesn't mean that the phenomenon was cultural.
On June 11 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: Furthermore, even the idea that children should be raised by women or by one mother is completely a cultural phenomenon, as evidenced by hunter-gatherer tribes which are structured in a completely egalitarian fashion and which had children raised by men as well as multiple women; mothers even lived with their mothers for a period, undermining the very typical conception of the nuclear family that continues to dominate Western culture. Of course, men are generally breadwinners in these sorts of societies, but there are exceptions to this rule.
Modern hunter-gatherer tribes are egalitarian. This does not imply that most hunter-gatherers historically were egalitarian.
In fact, I would argue that the reason why archaeologists and anthropologists disagree on this notion is because the anthropologists study modern hunter-gatherers, whereas archaeologists look at historical ones.
Why the difference? I would speculate this is because the non-egalitarian ones were the ones that developed civilizations because they figured out that division of labor was an advantageous strategy, given the biological differences between men and women.
On June 11 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: Ultimately, my point is that you appear far too eager to justify virtually any existent divide between men and women in modern culture by way of biology in order to uphold the utterly absurd conclusion that feminism not only has nothing to accomplish but is actually unfounded by definition.
I haven't recently argued that feminism is unfounded, and my posts in this conversation were not aimed at establishing that notion.
My conclusion that feminism is unfounded is due to the fact that it rests on patriarchy theory (an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it), the fact that feminists in practice do not actually pursue gender equality as they claim, and the fact that feminism assumes that all gender differences are entirely culturally constructed.
I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now.
Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that.
Honestly stop making stuff up.
All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim.
Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black.
The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science.
No doubt the development of those cultures has no basis in the biology of humankind... When you see running themes in cultures across the world since time immemorial, it's actually much simpler to apply the differences between the sexes to biology than to culture, so you've completely misapplied Occam's razor.
Except there are enough major differences across cultures that biological distinctions don't help us much, especially since our knowledge of different cultures diminishes greatly as we move farther into the past. Furthermore, there are a great many variations that seem like the norm over a long period of time but actually don't represent a uniform thing at all. For example, a cursory look at Western civilization might lead one to believe that homosexuality is something that we have some sort of genetic basis for hating, because the last millennium and a half is filled with various cultures simultaneously reviling it. But if you go back just a little farther, you find a much more relaxed (though not egalitarian, by any means) approach to homosexuality in ancient Greek society.
So no, there aren't really any relevant "running themes" that are truly universal since "time immemorial" aside from general monogamy (or at least serial monogamy) and that men have penises and women vaginas.
Let me give you a running theme: men predominantly fighting. Let me give you another: women predominantly raising children. Let's now consider something (apparently ridiculously unlikely from your perspective): that men and women are distinct in their biology in order to further their natural roles. No no, men develop muscles, women lactate - but any differentiation in the mind is clearly cultural.
Even in ancient Greece homosexuality was primarily about men dominating boys.
Nowhere have I claimed that there exists to mental differentiation between men and women. I have only claimed that it is far too debated a field to actually presume that any existent behavioural difference is the result of biology.
Pederasty was not about men dominating boys; it was about an older mentor exchanging his expertise for the affections of a young boy, who, like it or not, actually did learn from his lover.
It being a 'debated field' (a worthless term) does not mean there aren't many things as good as established. There are a ridiculous amount of studies on the relation of testosterone to competitiveness. "Males and females across all sexually reproducing species display gender-specific behavior in many areas, including mating, territorial marking, aggression and parental care" - first Google result.
Now let's debate the actual issue, rather than whether men and women are different, which they indubitably are, both mentally and physically. The issue is more like, should biological differences be 'overcome' to create a more 'fair' society. What I would suggest is that repressing masculine/feminine instincts is not beneficial.
I really hate the idea of humans being somehow 'beyond nature'. People who think like this completely miss what society is. The reason people are starving all over the world is because competition is the foundation of life, in our species as much as in the next. We're just animals, and we have sex differences that are not mutable.
Edit: worth noting that I strongly support feminism in the sense of combating oppression of women. I just don't see innate sex differences as oppression in and of themselves. And I don't see women doing 'feminine' things or being seen in a 'feminine' light as a negative in and of itself.
I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now.
Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that.
Honestly stop making stuff up.
All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim.
Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black.
The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science.
No doubt the development of those cultures has no basis in the biology of humankind... When you see running themes in cultures across the world since time immemorial, it's actually much simpler to apply the differences between the sexes to biology than to culture, so you've completely misapplied Occam's razor.
Except there are enough major differences across cultures that biological distinctions don't help us much, especially since our knowledge of different cultures diminishes greatly as we move farther into the past. Furthermore, there are a great many variations that seem like the norm over a long period of time but actually don't represent a uniform thing at all. For example, a cursory look at Western civilization might lead one to believe that homosexuality is something that we have some sort of genetic basis for hating, because the last millennium and a half is filled with various cultures simultaneously reviling it. But if you go back just a little farther, you find a much more relaxed (though not egalitarian, by any means) approach to homosexuality in ancient Greek society.
So no, there aren't really any relevant "running themes" that are truly universal since "time immemorial" aside from general monogamy (or at least serial monogamy) and that men have penises and women vaginas.
A single example (of an exception that proves the rule, no less) doesn't change the fact that there are general identifiable trends. But ultimately, cultural differences are derived from both sex differences and social conditioning.
The simple fact is, there are empirically established sex differences besides the obvious physical ones. The argument that men and women are psychologically identical is preposterous if you look at it from a biological sciences viewpoint, because sexual dimorphism exists in nearly all mammals and extends to non-physical differences as well. Ideologues who argue against this are essentially making the ridiculous claim that humans are unique in that unlike all of our relatives, we're identical in every way except physically.
Except at no point did I claim that men and women are psychologically identical. My point is that the argument you are making, namely that some tendency X is a result of sexual dimorphism and differences in brain chemistry, is a positive claim. This means you need to show it to be true. Obviously not all behaviours which differ between men and women are genetically determined, so you need to actually show that a behaviour in question is definitely a result of biology, not culture. You have not done this when it comes to gaming. You have constructed a post-hoc hypothesis that is plausible but by no means certain or even probable (i.e. the notion that disparities between men/women in tech has something to do with perceived loser status later ameliorated and blah blah is a quaint and consistent system, but it's totally unfounded because it's just hypothetical and hasn't been substantiated. But to be clear: I'm not dismissing your points about women and social status, or whatever, but merely that this particular example isn't necessarily due to the system you are proposing).
The reality is, there is no way to positively show that any sex differences are due entirely to biology or culture. However, empirically establishing a biologically difference is enough to reasonably make inferences that such a biological difference may explain a sex difference.
In the case of gaming, it has been established that men prefer physical violence more than women do, probably due at least in part to the 20x greater amount of testosterone in men. We can also reasonably observe (or possibly find studies, but this is probably non-controversial enough to accept) that most popular video games are violent. Therefore, it is reasonable to claim that men are more likely to play video games since they are more likely to prefer the physical violence prevalent in video games.
Another one of your houses of cards! Well, actually, your own link notes that Kenyan boys and girls are equally likely to use physical violence, which pretty much annihilates whatever point you were trying to make, given that, as far as I'm aware, Kenyan's don't have different testosterone than everyone else. But that's actually beside the point, because using physical violence is not the same as being comfortable playing a game that has physical violence. What's more, you've completely dodged the much more plausible hypothesis that arises out of the fact that you failed to adequately explain women's slow warming up to technology, namely that the reason women are less interested in video games is because they tend to use technology less than men to begin with! It's not like women are super on board with using all sorts of technology across all demographics and just magically don't play any video games! For one thing, tonnes of video games are very obviously marketed to men (shooters, especially).
On June 11 2013 09:58 Shiori wrote: For example, the fact that women leave the workforce earlier than men could either be a result of a biological inclination to cease activity earlier or due to cultural influences. Evidence suggests it's the latter.
The article you linked argues that the main reason women retire earlier is because they face more caregiving demands. However, you're making the assumption that women are primary caregivers due to cultural influences, without any evidence to support that notion, when it is at least partly due to the fact that women are inclined towards caregiving.[/QUOTE] It's cute that you ignore the other two reasons, or the research on the following page which suggests that women are facing age discrimination and that this is a problem. This is such a perfect illustration of what's wrong with your position: you literally discount two other bullet points and research on the following page to draw attention to the only possible cause that might have a biological influence.
Furthermore, there is virtually no agreement nor scientific consensus around women being better/more natural caregivers than men other than convention and the simple fact that women bear children and, therefore, can't really run away from them while men have generally not encountered any career impediments as a result of fathering a child, barring illegitimate or scandalous pregnancies.
"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic?
sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons.
not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though.
Shiori assumes that any rapid changes over a period of a few generations establishes that the phenomenon was cultural (e.g. due to cultural reasons).
The example of women joining the workforce shows that this is poor logic, because the real reason that men were historically the primary breadwinners is because most work was hard physical labor that women could not perform, and because until the advent of birth control women were generally constrained too much by childbirth to be primary breadwinners (and even today, pregnancy is a major factor for women in the workplace).
In other words, the change was due to technology alleviating biological conditions, not because male breadwinners were a cultural phenomena that simply was dispensed with when the prevailing cultural winds shifted.
TL;DR: you can't assume that simply because a phenomena changes quickly that the phenomena is cultural, because the phenomena might be a biological one that simply applies differently.
It is unbelievably disingenuous to suggest that there was no cultural component to women joining the workforce. Actually, it's absolutely absurd. While technology alleviating biological conditions was certainly important and relevant to women joining the workforce, so too was the women's rights movement which challenged the widespread belief that women were best suited to work in a particular field or only in the home.
The argument I was making is that division of labor which explained the historical trend of male breadwinners was a biological phenomenon in the first place. Culture certainly was constructed around it, and needed to change for women to join the workforce, but that doesn't mean that the phenomenon was cultural.
On June 11 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: Furthermore, even the idea that children should be raised by women or by one mother is completely a cultural phenomenon, as evidenced by hunter-gatherer tribes which are structured in a completely egalitarian fashion and which had children raised by men as well as multiple women; mothers even lived with their mothers for a period, undermining the very typical conception of the nuclear family that continues to dominate Western culture. Of course, men are generally breadwinners in these sorts of societies, but there are exceptions to this rule.
Modern hunter-gatherer tribes are egalitarian. This does not imply that most hunter-gatherers historically were egalitarian.
In fact, I would argue that the reason why archaeologists and anthropologists disagree on this notion is because the anthropologists study modern hunter-gatherers, whereas archaeologists look at historical ones.
Why the difference? I would speculate this is because the non-egalitarian ones were the ones that developed civilizations because they figured out that division of labor was an advantageous strategy, given the biological differences between men and women.
On June 11 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: Ultimately, my point is that you appear far too eager to justify virtually any existent divide between men and women in modern culture by way of biology in order to uphold the utterly absurd conclusion that feminism not only has nothing to accomplish but is actually unfounded by definition.
I haven't recently argued that feminism is unfounded, and my posts in this conversation were not aimed at establishing that notion.
My conclusion that feminism is unfounded is due to the fact that it rests on patriarchy theory (an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it), the fact that feminists in practice do not actually pursue gender equality as they claim, and the fact that feminism assumes that all gender differences are entirely culturally constructed.
From the Wiki article on sexism: "According to Peter Sterns, women in pre-agricultural societies held equal positions with men; it was only after the adoption of agriculture and sedentary cultures that men began to institutionalize the concept that women were inferior to men.[7]"
So I'm afraid your insistence that the modernity of hunter-gatherer tribes has anything to do with the equal influence of men/women just doesn't fly. By the way, division of labour != primacy of males when it comes to decision making.
Your definition of feminism is actually just wrong. Not only are not all feminists complete deconstructionists, but a feminist is nothing more and nothing less than "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women" according to the OED.
I've encountered feminists who go overboard with the intersectionality and post-structuralism, but to say that this is a necessary component of feminism is demonstrably false.
EDIT: "patriarchy theory" isn't any singular thing. It's incontrovertible that patriarchal societies have not only existed in history but have been the dominant force, at least in the West, so I'm not sure why it's so puzzling to you that vestiges of patriarchal institutions could still have influence. Not that I think everything is because of the patriarchy, or whatever, because that's lunacy, but to call the very idea that there might still be constructs that derive from patriarchal ones a conspiracy theory is pretty silly.
"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic?
sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons.
not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though.
Shiori assumes that any rapid changes over a period of a few generations establishes that the phenomenon was cultural (e.g. due to cultural reasons).
The example of women joining the workforce shows that this is poor logic, because the real reason that men were historically the primary breadwinners is because most work was hard physical labor that women could not perform, and because until the advent of birth control women were generally constrained too much by childbirth to be primary breadwinners (and even today, pregnancy is a major factor for women in the workplace).
In other words, the change was due to technology alleviating biological conditions, not because male breadwinners were a cultural phenomena that simply was dispensed with when the prevailing cultural winds shifted.
TL;DR: you can't assume that simply because a phenomena changes quickly that the phenomena is cultural, because the phenomena might be a biological one that simply applies differently.
It is unbelievably disingenuous to suggest that there was no cultural component to women joining the workforce. Actually, it's absolutely absurd. While technology alleviating biological conditions was certainly important and relevant to women joining the workforce, so too was the women's rights movement which challenged the widespread belief that women were best suited to work in a particular field or only in the home.
The argument I was making is that division of labor which explained the historical trend of male breadwinners was a biological phenomenon in the first place. Culture certainly was constructed around it, and needed to change for women to join the workforce, but that doesn't mean that the phenomenon was cultural.
On June 11 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: Furthermore, even the idea that children should be raised by women or by one mother is completely a cultural phenomenon, as evidenced by hunter-gatherer tribes which are structured in a completely egalitarian fashion and which had children raised by men as well as multiple women; mothers even lived with their mothers for a period, undermining the very typical conception of the nuclear family that continues to dominate Western culture. Of course, men are generally breadwinners in these sorts of societies, but there are exceptions to this rule.
Modern hunter-gatherer tribes are egalitarian. This does not imply that most hunter-gatherers historically were egalitarian.
In fact, I would argue that the reason why archaeologists and anthropologists disagree on this notion is because the anthropologists study modern hunter-gatherers, whereas archaeologists look at historical ones.
Why the difference? I would speculate this is because the non-egalitarian ones were the ones that developed civilizations because they figured out that division of labor was an advantageous strategy, given the biological differences between men and women.
On June 11 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: Ultimately, my point is that you appear far too eager to justify virtually any existent divide between men and women in modern culture by way of biology in order to uphold the utterly absurd conclusion that feminism not only has nothing to accomplish but is actually unfounded by definition.
I haven't recently argued that feminism is unfounded, and my posts in this conversation were not aimed at establishing that notion.
My conclusion that feminism is unfounded is due to the fact that it rests on patriarchy theory (an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it), the fact that feminists in practice do not actually pursue gender equality as they claim, and the fact that feminism assumes that all gender differences are entirely culturally constructed.
From the Wiki article on sexism: "According to Peter Sterns, women in pre-agricultural societies held equal positions with men; it was only after the adoption of agriculture and sedentary cultures that men began to institutionalize the concept that women were inferior to men.[7]"
So I'm afraid your insistence that the modernity of hunter-gatherer tribes has anything to do with the equal influence of men/women just doesn't fly. By the way, division of labour != primacy of males when it comes to decision making.
Your definition of feminism is actually just wrong. Not only are not all feminists complete deconstructionists, but a feminist is nothing more and nothing less than "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women" according to the OED.
I've encountered feminists who go overboard with the intersectionality and post-structuralism, but to say that this is a necessary component of feminism is demonstrably false.
What exactly does egalitarian mean here? That they were equally involved in hunting and childcare? That there were an equal number of female chieftains to male chieftains? That men didn't exert physical domination of women when they wanted to?
"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic?
sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons.
not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though.
Shiori assumes that any rapid changes over a period of a few generations establishes that the phenomenon was cultural (e.g. due to cultural reasons).
The example of women joining the workforce shows that this is poor logic, because the real reason that men were historically the primary breadwinners is because most work was hard physical labor that women could not perform, and because until the advent of birth control women were generally constrained too much by childbirth to be primary breadwinners (and even today, pregnancy is a major factor for women in the workplace).
In other words, the change was due to technology alleviating biological conditions, not because male breadwinners were a cultural phenomena that simply was dispensed with when the prevailing cultural winds shifted.
TL;DR: you can't assume that simply because a phenomena changes quickly that the phenomena is cultural, because the phenomena might be a biological one that simply applies differently.
It is unbelievably disingenuous to suggest that there was no cultural component to women joining the workforce. Actually, it's absolutely absurd. While technology alleviating biological conditions was certainly important and relevant to women joining the workforce, so too was the women's rights movement which challenged the widespread belief that women were best suited to work in a particular field or only in the home.
The argument I was making is that division of labor which explained the historical trend of male breadwinners was a biological phenomenon in the first place. Culture certainly was constructed around it, and needed to change for women to join the workforce, but that doesn't mean that the phenomenon was cultural.
On June 11 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: Furthermore, even the idea that children should be raised by women or by one mother is completely a cultural phenomenon, as evidenced by hunter-gatherer tribes which are structured in a completely egalitarian fashion and which had children raised by men as well as multiple women; mothers even lived with their mothers for a period, undermining the very typical conception of the nuclear family that continues to dominate Western culture. Of course, men are generally breadwinners in these sorts of societies, but there are exceptions to this rule.
Modern hunter-gatherer tribes are egalitarian. This does not imply that most hunter-gatherers historically were egalitarian.
In fact, I would argue that the reason why archaeologists and anthropologists disagree on this notion is because the anthropologists study modern hunter-gatherers, whereas archaeologists look at historical ones.
Why the difference? I would speculate this is because the non-egalitarian ones were the ones that developed civilizations because they figured out that division of labor was an advantageous strategy, given the biological differences between men and women.
On June 11 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: Ultimately, my point is that you appear far too eager to justify virtually any existent divide between men and women in modern culture by way of biology in order to uphold the utterly absurd conclusion that feminism not only has nothing to accomplish but is actually unfounded by definition.
I haven't recently argued that feminism is unfounded, and my posts in this conversation were not aimed at establishing that notion.
My conclusion that feminism is unfounded is due to the fact that it rests on patriarchy theory (an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it), the fact that feminists in practice do not actually pursue gender equality as they claim, and the fact that feminism assumes that all gender differences are entirely culturally constructed.
From the Wiki article on sexism: "According to Peter Sterns, women in pre-agricultural societies held equal positions with men; it was only after the adoption of agriculture and sedentary cultures that men began to institutionalize the concept that women were inferior to men.[7]"
So I'm afraid your insistence that the modernity of hunter-gatherer tribes has anything to do with the equal influence of men/women just doesn't fly. By the way, division of labour != primacy of males when it comes to decision making.
Your definition of feminism is actually just wrong. Not only are not all feminists complete deconstructionists, but a feminist is nothing more and nothing less than "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women" according to the OED.
I've encountered feminists who go overboard with the intersectionality and post-structuralism, but to say that this is a necessary component of feminism is demonstrably false.
What exactly does egalitarian mean here? That they were equally involved in hunting and childcare? That there were an equal number of female chieftains to male chieftains? That men didn't exert physical domination of women when they wanted to?
It means that there was no institutionalized gender with power over another i.e. everyone had equal rights and privileges and influence with respect to governance.
"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic?
sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons.
not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though.
Shiori assumes that any rapid changes over a period of a few generations establishes that the phenomenon was cultural (e.g. due to cultural reasons).
The example of women joining the workforce shows that this is poor logic, because the real reason that men were historically the primary breadwinners is because most work was hard physical labor that women could not perform, and because until the advent of birth control women were generally constrained too much by childbirth to be primary breadwinners (and even today, pregnancy is a major factor for women in the workplace).
In other words, the change was due to technology alleviating biological conditions, not because male breadwinners were a cultural phenomena that simply was dispensed with when the prevailing cultural winds shifted.
TL;DR: you can't assume that simply because a phenomena changes quickly that the phenomena is cultural, because the phenomena might be a biological one that simply applies differently.
It is unbelievably disingenuous to suggest that there was no cultural component to women joining the workforce. Actually, it's absolutely absurd. While technology alleviating biological conditions was certainly important and relevant to women joining the workforce, so too was the women's rights movement which challenged the widespread belief that women were best suited to work in a particular field or only in the home.
The argument I was making is that division of labor which explained the historical trend of male breadwinners was a biological phenomenon in the first place. Culture certainly was constructed around it, and needed to change for women to join the workforce, but that doesn't mean that the phenomenon was cultural.
On June 11 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: Furthermore, even the idea that children should be raised by women or by one mother is completely a cultural phenomenon, as evidenced by hunter-gatherer tribes which are structured in a completely egalitarian fashion and which had children raised by men as well as multiple women; mothers even lived with their mothers for a period, undermining the very typical conception of the nuclear family that continues to dominate Western culture. Of course, men are generally breadwinners in these sorts of societies, but there are exceptions to this rule.
Modern hunter-gatherer tribes are egalitarian. This does not imply that most hunter-gatherers historically were egalitarian.
In fact, I would argue that the reason why archaeologists and anthropologists disagree on this notion is because the anthropologists study modern hunter-gatherers, whereas archaeologists look at historical ones.
Why the difference? I would speculate this is because the non-egalitarian ones were the ones that developed civilizations because they figured out that division of labor was an advantageous strategy, given the biological differences between men and women.
On June 11 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: Ultimately, my point is that you appear far too eager to justify virtually any existent divide between men and women in modern culture by way of biology in order to uphold the utterly absurd conclusion that feminism not only has nothing to accomplish but is actually unfounded by definition.
I haven't recently argued that feminism is unfounded, and my posts in this conversation were not aimed at establishing that notion.
My conclusion that feminism is unfounded is due to the fact that it rests on patriarchy theory (an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it), the fact that feminists in practice do not actually pursue gender equality as they claim, and the fact that feminism assumes that all gender differences are entirely culturally constructed.
From the Wiki article on sexism: "According to Peter Sterns, women in pre-agricultural societies held equal positions with men; it was only after the adoption of agriculture and sedentary cultures that men began to institutionalize the concept that women were inferior to men.[7]"
So I'm afraid your insistence that the modernity of hunter-gatherer tribes has anything to do with the equal influence of men/women just doesn't fly. By the way, division of labour != primacy of males when it comes to decision making.
Your definition of feminism is actually just wrong. Not only are not all feminists complete deconstructionists, but a feminist is nothing more and nothing less than "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women" according to the OED.
I've encountered feminists who go overboard with the intersectionality and post-structuralism, but to say that this is a necessary component of feminism is demonstrably false.
What exactly does egalitarian mean here? That they were equally involved in hunting and childcare? That there were an equal number of female chieftains to male chieftains? That men didn't exert physical domination of women when they wanted to?
It means that there was no institutionalized gender with power over another i.e. everyone had equal rights and privileges and influence with respect to governance.
Maybe down to a complete lack of institutionalisation... If it applies to governance then it means chieftains were equally female/male. At least from what I've seen of African and South American tribes as well as read about European contact with new world states, that was not the case at all.
Your definition of feminism is actually just wrong. Not only are not all feminists complete deconstructionists, but a feminist is nothing more and nothing less than "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women" according to the OED.
I've encountered feminists who go overboard with the intersectionality and post-structuralism, but to say that this is a necessary component of feminism is demonstrably false.
I agree, that it is not necessary, it would be my opinion, that most women who fall under OED definition would not go around calling them selves feminists do to the extemists like you mentioned in the second case. It appears the people now touting the term feminists the loudest are the most extreme. Most of the people I ahve met who fall under that definition attempt to use a different term to describe themselves as to not be associated with the extremists. And I believe that most people, now a days in the developed world, my self included would fall under that definition. I think the differences come in to how the equality is measured. Is it still equal if both men and women have the same opportunity for a job but only 15% of the workers are men (example used was norway and nurseing). I believe so, others would disagree.
I also beleive that under that definition a feminist would agree that women in todays societies have advantages over men essepcialy in birth and child rearing laws, and theoretically should also fight to have those rights equalized. The feminists in your second point would not.
I essentially agree, although the matter of birth and child rearing laws favouring women is rather complicated and has a shitload of implications, so I think one needs to be careful when tinkering with it.
There will always be people who don't take women's sports or the like seriously because they are..women.
However, I recognize a good athlete when I see one. For example, the new female UFC fights. Those women are really, really good at what they do. Sure, some of them look great, but I know a good fighter when I see one and that's what matters and that's why I watch UFC, whether women's or men's, is the high-quality fights that is determined by skill. If the pretty girl loses, oh well, she was the crappier fighter. ez.
I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now.
Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that.
Honestly stop making stuff up.
All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim.
Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black.
The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science.
No doubt the development of those cultures has no basis in the biology of humankind... When you see running themes in cultures across the world since time immemorial, it's actually much simpler to apply the differences between the sexes to biology than to culture, so you've completely misapplied Occam's razor.
Except there are enough major differences across cultures that biological distinctions don't help us much, especially since our knowledge of different cultures diminishes greatly as we move farther into the past. Furthermore, there are a great many variations that seem like the norm over a long period of time but actually don't represent a uniform thing at all. For example, a cursory look at Western civilization might lead one to believe that homosexuality is something that we have some sort of genetic basis for hating, because the last millennium and a half is filled with various cultures simultaneously reviling it. But if you go back just a little farther, you find a much more relaxed (though not egalitarian, by any means) approach to homosexuality in ancient Greek society.
So no, there aren't really any relevant "running themes" that are truly universal since "time immemorial" aside from general monogamy (or at least serial monogamy) and that men have penises and women vaginas.
A single example (of an exception that proves the rule, no less) doesn't change the fact that there are general identifiable trends. But ultimately, cultural differences are derived from both sex differences and social conditioning.
The simple fact is, there are empirically established sex differences besides the obvious physical ones. The argument that men and women are psychologically identical is preposterous if you look at it from a biological sciences viewpoint, because sexual dimorphism exists in nearly all mammals and extends to non-physical differences as well. Ideologues who argue against this are essentially making the ridiculous claim that humans are unique in that unlike all of our relatives, we're identical in every way except physically.
Except at no point did I claim that men and women are psychologically identical. My point is that the argument you are making, namely that some tendency X is a result of sexual dimorphism and differences in brain chemistry, is a positive claim. This means you need to show it to be true. Obviously not all behaviours which differ between men and women are genetically determined, so you need to actually show that a behaviour in question is definitely a result of biology, not culture. You have not done this when it comes to gaming. You have constructed a post-hoc hypothesis that is plausible but by no means certain or even probable (i.e. the notion that disparities between men/women in tech has something to do with perceived loser status later ameliorated and blah blah is a quaint and consistent system, but it's totally unfounded because it's just hypothetical and hasn't been substantiated. But to be clear: I'm not dismissing your points about women and social status, or whatever, but merely that this particular example isn't necessarily due to the system you are proposing).
The reality is, there is no way to positively show that any sex differences are due entirely to biology or culture. However, empirically establishing a biologically difference is enough to reasonably make inferences that such a biological difference may explain a sex difference.
In the case of gaming, it has been established that men prefer physical violence more than women do, probably due at least in part to the 20x greater amount of testosterone in men. We can also reasonably observe (or possibly find studies, but this is probably non-controversial enough to accept) that most popular video games are violent. Therefore, it is reasonable to claim that men are more likely to play video games since they are more likely to prefer the physical violence prevalent in video games.
Another one of your houses of cards! Well, actually, your own link notes that Kenyan boys and girls are equally likely to use physical violence, which pretty much annihilates whatever point you were trying to make, given that, as far as I'm aware, Kenyan's don't have different testosterone than everyone else.
Once again, you seem to miss the concept of the "exception which proves the rule". Cultural conditioning can affect preferences for physical aggression, but the fact that males prefer it in most society, and the fact that we know what testosterone does and the disparity in testosterone, makes it obvious what the reasonable conclusion is.
On June 11 2013 10:36 Shiori wrote: But that's actually beside the point, because using physical violence is not the same as being comfortable playing a game that has physical violence. What's more, you've completely dodged the much more plausible hypothesis that arises out of the fact that you failed to adequately explain women's slow warming up to technology, namely that the reason women are less interested in video games is because they tend to use technology less than men to begin with! It's not like women are super on board with using all sorts of technology across all demographics and just magically don't play any video games! For one thing, tonnes of video games are very obviously marketed to men (shooters, especially).
That was my whole point. Near the very beginning of this discussion (though in a post to Exile, I believe), I argued that primary reason for the discrepancy between men and women in gaming is because most video games are made by men (since most women don't go into game development in particular or STEM subjects in general) and therefore suit men's preferences (including the preference for physical violence).
On June 11 2013 09:58 Shiori wrote: For example, the fact that women leave the workforce earlier than men could either be a result of a biological inclination to cease activity earlier or due to cultural influences. Evidence suggests it's the latter.
The article you linked argues that the main reason women retire earlier is because they face more caregiving demands. However, you're making the assumption that women are primary caregivers due to cultural influences, without any evidence to support that notion, when it is at least partly due to the fact that women are inclined towards caregiving.
It's cute that you ignore the other two reasons,
I addressed the actual article which you linked, which focused on the third bullet point and argued that this was the major factor. I was also addressing you, and you did not previously address the other two bullet points either. But I can address them now if you like:
The first bullet point seems wrong. Women live longer than men, suggesting that women are in better health. When referring to the American Time Use Survey that your article draws from, the only thing that bullet point appears to be based on is only one surveyed data point: women report spending more time on health-related self-care. This does not mean that women are in worse health, it simply means they spend more time taking care of their health than men.
The second bullet point is spurious. Being laid off does not equate to involuntary retirement. If you had the desire or incentive to find a new job, you are capable of doing so. All that point shows is that women are less likely to try to look for another job if they are approaching retirement age and are laid off.
That entire study is based on perceptions of age discrimination, rather than any sort of empirical fact. Considering it comes from the AARP, which lobbies on behalf of the elderly, that makes the data especially unreliable.
On June 11 2013 10:36 Shiori wrote: Furthermore, there is virtually no agreement nor scientific consensus around women being better/more natural caregivers than men other than convention and the simple fact that women bear children and, therefore, can't really run away from them while men have generally not encountered any career impediments as a result of fathering a child, barring illegitimate or scandalous pregnancies.
The argument is not that women are better caregivers. The issue is that women prefer caregiving more than men do, which is why, as r.Evo pointed out, only 10-15% of nurses are male in extremely egalitarian Sweden.
I give up. It's incredibly obvious that you aren't going to change your mind given your refusal to do anything other than twist evidence into saying things it doesn't say.
I know there's a name for the fallacy where you construct plausible hypotheses and then assert their validity, but I can't remember its name.
"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic?
sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons.
not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though.
Shiori assumes that any rapid changes over a period of a few generations establishes that the phenomenon was cultural (e.g. due to cultural reasons).
The example of women joining the workforce shows that this is poor logic, because the real reason that men were historically the primary breadwinners is because most work was hard physical labor that women could not perform, and because until the advent of birth control women were generally constrained too much by childbirth to be primary breadwinners (and even today, pregnancy is a major factor for women in the workplace).
In other words, the change was due to technology alleviating biological conditions, not because male breadwinners were a cultural phenomena that simply was dispensed with when the prevailing cultural winds shifted.
TL;DR: you can't assume that simply because a phenomena changes quickly that the phenomena is cultural, because the phenomena might be a biological one that simply applies differently.
It is unbelievably disingenuous to suggest that there was no cultural component to women joining the workforce. Actually, it's absolutely absurd. While technology alleviating biological conditions was certainly important and relevant to women joining the workforce, so too was the women's rights movement which challenged the widespread belief that women were best suited to work in a particular field or only in the home.
The argument I was making is that division of labor which explained the historical trend of male breadwinners was a biological phenomenon in the first place. Culture certainly was constructed around it, and needed to change for women to join the workforce, but that doesn't mean that the phenomenon was cultural.
On June 11 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: Furthermore, even the idea that children should be raised by women or by one mother is completely a cultural phenomenon, as evidenced by hunter-gatherer tribes which are structured in a completely egalitarian fashion and which had children raised by men as well as multiple women; mothers even lived with their mothers for a period, undermining the very typical conception of the nuclear family that continues to dominate Western culture. Of course, men are generally breadwinners in these sorts of societies, but there are exceptions to this rule.
Modern hunter-gatherer tribes are egalitarian. This does not imply that most hunter-gatherers historically were egalitarian.
In fact, I would argue that the reason why archaeologists and anthropologists disagree on this notion is because the anthropologists study modern hunter-gatherers, whereas archaeologists look at historical ones.
Why the difference? I would speculate this is because the non-egalitarian ones were the ones that developed civilizations because they figured out that division of labor was an advantageous strategy, given the biological differences between men and women.
On June 11 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: Ultimately, my point is that you appear far too eager to justify virtually any existent divide between men and women in modern culture by way of biology in order to uphold the utterly absurd conclusion that feminism not only has nothing to accomplish but is actually unfounded by definition.
I haven't recently argued that feminism is unfounded, and my posts in this conversation were not aimed at establishing that notion.
My conclusion that feminism is unfounded is due to the fact that it rests on patriarchy theory (an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it), the fact that feminists in practice do not actually pursue gender equality as they claim, and the fact that feminism assumes that all gender differences are entirely culturally constructed.
From the Wiki article on sexism: "According to Peter Sterns, women in pre-agricultural societies held equal positions with men; it was only after the adoption of agriculture and sedentary cultures that men began to institutionalize the concept that women were inferior to men.[7]"
So I'm afraid your insistence that the modernity of hunter-gatherer tribes has anything to do with the equal influence of men/women just doesn't fly.
Your source here is unreliable. It is an audio CD that is a recording of a professor's undergraduate lecture, not a scholarly article or anything backed by support.
On June 11 2013 10:41 Shiori wrote: By the way, division of labour != primacy of males when it comes to decision making.
I was not talking about primacy of males when it comes to decision making. We were, if you recall, talking about male breadwinners. That's division of labor.
On June 11 2013 10:41 Shiori wrote: Your definition of feminism is actually just wrong. Not only are not all feminists complete deconstructionists, but a feminist is nothing more and nothing less than "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women" according to the OED.
I didn't argue that all feminists are complete deconstructionists. My argument is that predominant feminist theory is deconstructionist, something that is easily verified.
The "definition" of feminism is irrelevant to what I argued as well. I specifically stated "feminists in practice", not "feminists according to their definition".
On June 11 2013 10:41 Shiori wrote: I've encountered feminists who go overboard with the intersectionality and post-structuralism, but to say that this is a necessary component of feminism is demonstrably false.
Many of the things that feminists lobby for is based on the notion that men and women are inherently identical. Feminists rarely if ever question why there are differences in representation (whether political or economic), they simply assume that it should be 50/50 and demand accommodation to make it so. The wage gap myth perpetuated by feminists is a prominent example (aside from being a blatant failure to understand statistics): feminists assume that women and men should make the same amount of money, without considering that men may prefer higher wage occupations or vice versa. Same goes for feminists demands to have equal representation as executives or politicians.
On June 11 2013 10:41 Shiori wrote: EDIT: "patriarchy theory" isn't any singular thing. It's incontrovertible that patriarchal societies have not only existed in history but have been the dominant force, at least in the West, so I'm not sure why it's so puzzling to you that vestiges of patriarchal institutions could still have influence. Not that I think everything is because of the patriarchy, or whatever, because that's lunacy, but to call the very idea that there might still be constructs that derive from patriarchal ones a conspiracy theory is pretty silly.
I agree that "patriarchal societies" have existed throughout history. However, the feminist definition of "patriarchy" has nothing to do with the anthropological definition.
Before feminists misappropriated the term, anthropologists defined "patriarchy" as simple societies organized around fathers holding authority over their families (e.g. rule of the father, as the name implies), a situation that not replaced until it was reversed by the feminist-created Tender Years Doctrine. However, feminists define "patriarchy" as the system in which all men dominate and oppress all women, which is not substantiated by any evidence. Further, they use this false myth of historical female oppression to demand restitution.
Do you remember the name of the guy in your highschool (if your in highschool then elementary school, and if in college then middleschool) that you hung out with at lunch but wasn't really a friend of yours?
And then do you remember the name of the girl that you never really spoke with, maybe you said hi a couple times, but were smitten with.
I don't remember the first name of that guy but I can remember her name was Kathrine Ashley Steward.
Judging by the fact that most of the audience of both male and female sports is male, which tends to favor the female sex as far as choosing a mate, we can find that men will remember the names of female athletes that are more attractive than female athletes that aren't. How well someone's name is recognized is how useful that person is in marketing so that allows for more sexually attractive people to be easier remembered and easier to make it further in marketing.
This isn't 100% true, I don't have scientific studies to show this, but marketing companies use easy to remember and catchy jingles to get their idea/product out there.
"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic?
sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons.
not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though.
Shiori assumes that any rapid changes over a period of a few generations establishes that the phenomenon was cultural (e.g. due to cultural reasons).
The example of women joining the workforce shows that this is poor logic, because the real reason that men were historically the primary breadwinners is because most work was hard physical labor that women could not perform, and because until the advent of birth control women were generally constrained too much by childbirth to be primary breadwinners (and even today, pregnancy is a major factor for women in the workplace).
In other words, the change was due to technology alleviating biological conditions, not because male breadwinners were a cultural phenomena that simply was dispensed with when the prevailing cultural winds shifted.
TL;DR: you can't assume that simply because a phenomena changes quickly that the phenomena is cultural, because the phenomena might be a biological one that simply applies differently.
It is unbelievably disingenuous to suggest that there was no cultural component to women joining the workforce. Actually, it's absolutely absurd. While technology alleviating biological conditions was certainly important and relevant to women joining the workforce, so too was the women's rights movement which challenged the widespread belief that women were best suited to work in a particular field or only in the home.
In Norway today about 10-15% of engineers are female and about 10-15% of nurses are male. Care to explain that phenomena in one of the most gender-equal countries in the world?
It's easily explained!
Nine times as many women find their way to the nursing line of work because nine times as many women as men work in the nursing line of work. People identify as men or women, people do manly or womanly things.
Riding horses used to be manly as fuck in Scandinavia. Now it's the girliest thing there is. Because that's what girls do. They ride horses.
EDIT: Not saying that there isn't a biological component. But any biological differences will be greatly enhanced because we naturally act according to our role as white/black, man/woman, short/tall whatever.
"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic?
sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons.
not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though.
Shiori assumes that any rapid changes over a period of a few generations establishes that the phenomenon was cultural (e.g. due to cultural reasons).
The example of women joining the workforce shows that this is poor logic, because the real reason that men were historically the primary breadwinners is because most work was hard physical labor that women could not perform, and because until the advent of birth control women were generally constrained too much by childbirth to be primary breadwinners (and even today, pregnancy is a major factor for women in the workplace).
In other words, the change was due to technology alleviating biological conditions, not because male breadwinners were a cultural phenomena that simply was dispensed with when the prevailing cultural winds shifted.
TL;DR: you can't assume that simply because a phenomena changes quickly that the phenomena is cultural, because the phenomena might be a biological one that simply applies differently.
It is unbelievably disingenuous to suggest that there was no cultural component to women joining the workforce. Actually, it's absolutely absurd. While technology alleviating biological conditions was certainly important and relevant to women joining the workforce, so too was the women's rights movement which challenged the widespread belief that women were best suited to work in a particular field or only in the home.
The argument I was making is that division of labor which explained the historical trend of male breadwinners was a biological phenomenon in the first place. Culture certainly was constructed around it, and needed to change for women to join the workforce, but that doesn't mean that the phenomenon was cultural.
On June 11 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: Furthermore, even the idea that children should be raised by women or by one mother is completely a cultural phenomenon, as evidenced by hunter-gatherer tribes which are structured in a completely egalitarian fashion and which had children raised by men as well as multiple women; mothers even lived with their mothers for a period, undermining the very typical conception of the nuclear family that continues to dominate Western culture. Of course, men are generally breadwinners in these sorts of societies, but there are exceptions to this rule.
Modern hunter-gatherer tribes are egalitarian. This does not imply that most hunter-gatherers historically were egalitarian.
In fact, I would argue that the reason why archaeologists and anthropologists disagree on this notion is because the anthropologists study modern hunter-gatherers, whereas archaeologists look at historical ones.
Why the difference? I would speculate this is because the non-egalitarian ones were the ones that developed civilizations because they figured out that division of labor was an advantageous strategy, given the biological differences between men and women.
On June 11 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: Ultimately, my point is that you appear far too eager to justify virtually any existent divide between men and women in modern culture by way of biology in order to uphold the utterly absurd conclusion that feminism not only has nothing to accomplish but is actually unfounded by definition.
I haven't recently argued that feminism is unfounded, and my posts in this conversation were not aimed at establishing that notion.
My conclusion that feminism is unfounded is due to the fact that it rests on patriarchy theory (an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it), the fact that feminists in practice do not actually pursue gender equality as they claim, and the fact that feminism assumes that all gender differences are entirely culturally constructed.
From the Wiki article on sexism: "According to Peter Sterns, women in pre-agricultural societies held equal positions with men; it was only after the adoption of agriculture and sedentary cultures that men began to institutionalize the concept that women were inferior to men.[7]"
So I'm afraid your insistence that the modernity of hunter-gatherer tribes has anything to do with the equal influence of men/women just doesn't fly.
Your source here is unreliable. It is an audio CD that is a recording of a professor's undergraduate lecture, not a scholarly article or anything backed by support.
On June 11 2013 10:41 Shiori wrote: By the way, division of labour != primacy of males when it comes to decision making.
I was not talking about primacy of males when it comes to decision making. We were, if you recall, talking about male breadwinners. That's division of labor.
On June 11 2013 10:41 Shiori wrote: Your definition of feminism is actually just wrong. Not only are not all feminists complete deconstructionists, but a feminist is nothing more and nothing less than "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women" according to the OED.
I didn't argue that all feminists are complete deconstructionists. My argument is that predominant feminist theory is deconstructionist, something that is easily verified.
The "definition" of feminism is irrelevant to what I argued as well. I specifically stated "feminists in practice", not "feminists according to their definition".
On June 11 2013 10:41 Shiori wrote: I've encountered feminists who go overboard with the intersectionality and post-structuralism, but to say that this is a necessary component of feminism is demonstrably false.
Many of the things that feminists lobby for is based on the notion that men and women are inherently identical. Feminists rarely if ever question why there are differences in representation (whether political or economic), they simply assume that it should be 50/50 and demand accommodation to make it so. The wage gap myth perpetuated by feminists is a prominent example (aside from being a blatant failure to understand statistics): feminists assume that women and men should make the same amount of money, without considering that men may prefer higher wage occupations or vice versa. Same goes for feminists demands to have equal representation as executives or politicians.
On June 11 2013 10:41 Shiori wrote: EDIT: "patriarchy theory" isn't any singular thing. It's incontrovertible that patriarchal societies have not only existed in history but have been the dominant force, at least in the West, so I'm not sure why it's so puzzling to you that vestiges of patriarchal institutions could still have influence. Not that I think everything is because of the patriarchy, or whatever, because that's lunacy, but to call the very idea that there might still be constructs that derive from patriarchal ones a conspiracy theory is pretty silly.
I agree that "patriarchal societies" have existed throughout history. However, the feminist definition of "patriarchy" has nothing to do with the anthropological definition.
Before feminists misappropriated the term, anthropologists defined "patriarchy" as simple societies organized around fathers holding authority over their families (e.g. rule of the father, as the name implies), a situation that not replaced until it was reversed by the feminist-created Tender Years Doctrine. However, feminists define "patriarchy" as the system in which all men dominate and oppress all women, which is not substantiated by any evidence. Further, they use this false myth of historical female oppression to demand restitution.
"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic?
sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons.
not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though.
Shiori assumes that any rapid changes over a period of a few generations establishes that the phenomenon was cultural (e.g. due to cultural reasons).
The example of women joining the workforce shows that this is poor logic, because the real reason that men were historically the primary breadwinners is because most work was hard physical labor that women could not perform, and because until the advent of birth control women were generally constrained too much by childbirth to be primary breadwinners (and even today, pregnancy is a major factor for women in the workplace).
In other words, the change was due to technology alleviating biological conditions, not because male breadwinners were a cultural phenomena that simply was dispensed with when the prevailing cultural winds shifted.
TL;DR: you can't assume that simply because a phenomena changes quickly that the phenomena is cultural, because the phenomena might be a biological one that simply applies differently.
It is unbelievably disingenuous to suggest that there was no cultural component to women joining the workforce. Actually, it's absolutely absurd. While technology alleviating biological conditions was certainly important and relevant to women joining the workforce, so too was the women's rights movement which challenged the widespread belief that women were best suited to work in a particular field or only in the home.
In Norway today about 10-15% of engineers are female and about 10-15% of nurses are male. Care to explain that phenomena in one of the most gender-equal countries in the world?
It's easily explained!
Nine times as many women find their way to the nursing line of work because nine times as many women as men work in the nursing line of work. People identify as men or women, people do manly or womanly things.
Riding horses used to be manly as fuck in Scandinavia. Now it's the girliest thing there is. Because that's what girls do. They ride horses.
EDIT: Not saying that there isn't a biological component. But any biological differences will be greatly enhanced because we naturally act according to our role as white/black, man/woman, short/tall whatever.
You suggest that nursing sort of accidentally became regarded as feminine, and that this primordial accident is self-perpetuating? And, more generally, I assume you also think the over representation of women in pre-schooling and animal care is also arbitrary? This is quite the coincidence, particularly seeing as the same pattern can be found in quite a few different cultures. However, I guess, the fact that women's breasts secrete milk and men's do not is not accidental?
I am not sure why you want to dismiss the biological component. How about, maybe the culture got the way it is, with caretaking being considered feminine and competition being considered masculine, because of innate biological differences? Wide hips are also considered feminine, but this is not a cultural accident, this is readily explained by physiological differences.
Furthermore, maybe the reason horseback riding went out of favor with men was that bicycles and cars sort of obsoleted them as useful for getting around, while women still enjoy the hobby aspects of caring for and bonding with the animals?
Finally, I would be really interested to hear why you apply the same cultural wishy washy explanation for how horses can suddenly go from being a masculine to a feminine interest and nursing being stuck as a feminine job. I can't really see why it makes more sense for nursing than horseback riding to be self-perpetuating as far as gender roles are concerned.
I think it is not the mens fault for sexualizing womens sport it is the womens fault for not watching female sport.
There is nothing wrong if a male watches women sports because of the nice physical appearance of a female athelete, if it wouldnt be that why would he watch it anyway means it would get the same recognition as a lower tier male competition (if it is just about skills). If it it is just about skills then it would get much less recognition anyways. Let's say men shouldnt watch women sport because if the sexiness then you have to either a) accept that it would get less recognition or b) you have to make up for the lack of viewership by an audience that wouldnt care so much about looks and more for the skills, that means other women watching women sport.
Let us turn this around: If women would watch men sports just because about their looks then it wouldnt be a big deal since you have a big male viewership that wouldnt care about the looks at all. That means if you take a way an audience that cares about looks you have to back it off with an audience that cares about skills which means other females.
If you cant back it up with other women watching then you have to accept a decline in viewership.
To bring up a different example which doesnt relate to sexiness or sex:
The NA scene has a lot of pros that wouldnt make any money at all if they were code b or less koreans living in korea. They only make money out of starcraft 2 because people can identify with them. This is a feature like "sexiness" that doesnt justify the attention/moneymaking just by the skill but more because they are foreigners in NA. Just take idra as an example, i m a idrafan but his skill doesnt justify the money he makes out of sc2. I watch him nonetheless because i can identify with him and i think he is entertaining + he has a decent amount of skill. Also the darma created around him generates a lot of viewers + attention.
Now does that mean we are all xenophobic or racist because NA foreigners make more money and get more attention than code b or less koreans? If you answer this with no than you also have to say that it is not sexist to watch women sport because of their looks.
So the real question is not if women in sports are sexualized but why dont women watch women sport?
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Marta_at_Union_at_Earthquakes_2010-09-15.jpg/400px-Marta_at_Union_at_Earthquakes_2010-09-15.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://cdn.petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2013/01/phelpstime1_mini.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://english.chosun.com/site/data/img_dir/2012/08/10/2012081001338_0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/hot-chicks-sexy-golf-7.jpg?w=500&h=625)
![[image loading]](http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/hot-chicks-sexy-golf-4.jpg?w=500&h=698)
![[image loading]](http://www.theunrealtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/federer-roger-federer-31390177-400-472.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.topnews.in/files/Rafael-Nadal_9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.audemarspiguet.com/uploads/media_items/novak-djokovic-6.955.446.s.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Franck_Rib%C3%A9ry_20120611.jpg/220px-Franck_Rib%C3%A9ry_20120611.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://answers.bettor.com/images/Articles/thumbs/extralarge/Victoria-Azarenka-breezes-past-Elena-Vesnina-to-enter-round-two-French-Open-2013-216001.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://gfx.aftonbladet-cdn.se/image/14550017/800/normal/ab5f531b86dd6/curling800.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/05/article-2184051-14660C6B000005DC-99_634x423.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://files.sharenator.com/35_Anna_Kournikova_Hot100_l-s400x500-29200.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://us.cdn283.fansshare.com/photos/serenawilliams/full-serena-williams-1136454746.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://arodrive.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/SerenaWilliamsESPNbodyIssue.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://static.onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Lingerie-Football-League-056.jpg)
