|
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.
|
On June 11 2013 06:26 JimmiC wrote:
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.
|
|
|
On June 11 2013 06:30 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 06:26 JimmiC wrote:
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 06:27 Maekchu wrote:Show nested quote +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 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 06:11 Maekchu wrote:Well, it's just how the world is. You might disagree with this, but what decides it is what the majority of the world population wants to watch. No one is going to come out and openly admit it, but there was a case some years ago where it was considered whether or not female badminton players should wear skirts like tennis players, in order to attract more viewers. But in most cases it's not that bad and it depends on the specific sport. I think one of the pretty obvious sports where you would say it is definitely sexualized is the Lingerie Football League. + Show Spoiler +We can discuss back and forth whether this is bad or not. But in the end, the amount of viewers will decide. The more viewers, the more money, the better training facilities etc. Yes, it is how the world is. I was under the assumption that the OP made this thread because, (a) he sees this happening in the world, and (b) he wants to know if it is our moral imperative to do something about it (or at least feel bad about it).
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 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +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.
On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 06:30 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 06:26 JimmiC wrote:
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 06:49 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:11 Maekchu wrote:Well, it's just how the world is. You might disagree with this, but what decides it is what the majority of the world population wants to watch. No one is going to come out and openly admit it, but there was a case some years ago where it was considered whether or not female badminton players should wear skirts like tennis players, in order to attract more viewers. But in most cases it's not that bad and it depends on the specific sport. I think one of the pretty obvious sports where you would say it is definitely sexualized is the Lingerie Football League. + Show Spoiler +We can discuss back and forth whether this is bad or not. But in the end, the amount of viewers will decide. The more viewers, the more money, the better training facilities etc. Yes, it is how the world is. I was under the assumption that the OP made this thread because, (a) he sees this happening in the world, and (b) he wants to know if it is our moral imperative to do something about it (or at least feel bad about it). 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.
|
On June 11 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:30 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 06:26 JimmiC wrote:
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.
|
On June 11 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:30 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 06:26 JimmiC wrote:
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.
|
On June 11 2013 07:00 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:30 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 06:26 JimmiC wrote:
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?
|
On June 11 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 07:00 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:30 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 06:26 JimmiC wrote:
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.
|
|
|
On June 11 2013 07:24 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 07:00 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:30 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 06:26 JimmiC wrote:
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
QED.
|
On June 11 2013 06:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 06:00 r.Evo wrote:
...what exactly is bad about sexualization in both men or women's sports? If someone is attractive it's simply human to say "Hey, he/she is sexy!" ~ that statement is not mutually exclusive with any statement about that persons capabilities as an athlete. Within the confines of the specific action there is no harm. The problem people like myself have with it is not that sports sexualizes athletes but how that sexualization perpetuates social normative practices that encourages gender norms as opposed to allowing the fullness of possibility within youth. I don't like it when a mother calls her daughter princess any more than I don't like it when a yahoo article of a high school high jumper who just broke an american high school record is described as a model instead of being described as a record breaking athlete. + Show Spoiler +http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/record-setting-oregon-high-jumper-top-fashion-model-152515924.html It's the pieces adding up to a larger problematic whole wherein girls are taught to only care about their looks. Sports is not the problem, western culture is the problem.
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 07:53 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 06:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:00 r.Evo wrote:
...what exactly is bad about sexualization in both men or women's sports? If someone is attractive it's simply human to say "Hey, he/she is sexy!" ~ that statement is not mutually exclusive with any statement about that persons capabilities as an athlete. Within the confines of the specific action there is no harm. The problem people like myself have with it is not that sports sexualizes athletes but how that sexualization perpetuates social normative practices that encourages gender norms as opposed to allowing the fullness of possibility within youth. I don't like it when a mother calls her daughter princess any more than I don't like it when a yahoo article of a high school high jumper who just broke an american high school record is described as a model instead of being described as a record breaking athlete. + Show Spoiler +http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/record-setting-oregon-high-jumper-top-fashion-model-152515924.html It's the pieces adding up to a larger problematic whole wherein girls are taught to only care about their looks. Sports is not the problem, western culture is the problem. 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 08:00 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 07:53 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 06:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:00 r.Evo wrote:
...what exactly is bad about sexualization in both men or women's sports? If someone is attractive it's simply human to say "Hey, he/she is sexy!" ~ that statement is not mutually exclusive with any statement about that persons capabilities as an athlete. Within the confines of the specific action there is no harm. The problem people like myself have with it is not that sports sexualizes athletes but how that sexualization perpetuates social normative practices that encourages gender norms as opposed to allowing the fullness of possibility within youth. I don't like it when a mother calls her daughter princess any more than I don't like it when a yahoo article of a high school high jumper who just broke an american high school record is described as a model instead of being described as a record breaking athlete. + Show Spoiler +http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/record-setting-oregon-high-jumper-top-fashion-model-152515924.html It's the pieces adding up to a larger problematic whole wherein girls are taught to only care about their looks. Sports is not the problem, western culture is the problem. 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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://static.onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Lingerie-Football-League-056.jpg)
