Beware of humanitarians!

Last edited Sun Feb 16, 2014, 08:59 AM - Edit history (1)

That it looks like it was drawn by Rob Liefeld, then I will consider your arguments in more depth.

Edit:

Can't ever repost this enough

?w=450&h=669

as young men kick their dogs in frustration and anger upon seeing the cover, knowing that no matter how hard they try, they will never be good enough at sports to appear on the cover of Sports Illustrated like this fine specimen. Think of the children!

I thought the sign said something else.

and it is illustrated.

ˈiləˌstrātid/
adjective
1.
(of a book, newspaper, etc.) containing pictures or other graphical material.
"an illustrated collection of poems"

This is satire, right?

If it is, it's genius.

Wow.

But it sure is smart

and a potential Heisman trophy candidate. To me, that's an appropriate cover for a sports magazine.

Personally, I don't have a *major* problem with the SI swimsuit edition, but I understand why some people do. It's symptomatic of a larger cultural problem that seeks to objectify people based solely on their sex appeal. I get that.

You must be a hater of some sort and can't possibly care about the issues.

You know what though - I do think we have a cultural problem with objectifying others. Especially women. Not just them mind you, but more so them than others.

What I don't think though is that every single little thing is a part of that and when you make everything that way you get a little lost.

Men, and women, like looking at others. I cannot, I will not, make that into some monstrous thing and label them all as broken people who need to be cured by jeebus or something else.

Real life, for many folks, is nothing like we see on tv, in movies, or on the cover of magazines. Myself and many others get that and simply laugh that crap off. We know that not everyone lives like the Kardashians or most other tv 'reality' shows. We really do get that.

I don't think every women looks like those in SI. Don't expect them to. There sure are a lot that do though. But, like others, I can also say I don't mind looking at beautiful people (or things like redwoods).

Just because I enjoy looking at such things does not mean I want to cut down the redwoods and mount them on my wall anymore than appreciating a beautiful woman means I want to bang her - nor does it mean that is all I see her as.

What we are hearing is that when we see such images we want to mind rape women, hate them, we think they are nothing more than meat, etc and so on. Maybe some do, but I and many don't think that way - but we are told we are monsters that need cured and that the mere act of looking at women in any way other than some business way is akin to us wanting to just use them for sex.

It is like sitting in the room with a psych dr. and they show you a photo of a woman. If you smile or like it then out comes the hammer of shame - you should not find others attractive, you shouldn't like it, you should be shamed for seeing someone as prettier than someone else. We should all just like the exact same thing. Period.

The in comes the rest of it - question every action you take. Open a door? Maybe you hate the person you opened it for and want to keep them down. Comment on something someone is wearing? You probably hate women and why aren't you talking about the outfit some guy is wearing (maybe you have because it is natural to comment on such things but no one paid attention to that - you are a hater right out of the gate.). Never mind that women wear a lot more different things than men (they have a wider wardrobe to tap into) - it is hard to talk about Obama and the suit he is wearing today because it is the same damned thing everyday. Comment on some nice dress Hillary wore and suddenly - bam! you are a sexist and you judge women, hate them, and why didn't you say the same about someone else and such.

What we have is one group who rides around telling folks that every little thing they do has to be scrutinized and analyzed and then shamed because somewhere deep inside you are sure all of those people just want to use and rape women and can never appreciate them.

It gets a little silly. Post a story about someone who committed a crime and the perp is a woman? You have an agenda and hate women and this is your way of showing they are bad. What? WTF is that shit? When you have one small group who does nothing but try to find ways to tell you that you are bad and hate women it gets tiring.

I don't have a problem calling out sexism or talking about the issues. What I have is a problem with a select few who believe they are the sole keepers of it all and if you aren't as pissed as they are over every little thing you want to screw women over and use them as toys.

When your allies become your enemy - maybe you are the problem (not you as the poster, you are fine, meant that in a more general way) and maybe you should take a little time and realize that just because folks don't see a demon around every corner does not mean they hate you, women, or the causes you support.

We need to listen to the voices of those who have.

That doesn't mean that we will always agree with them, but we should listen to them and give them the respect they deserve.

I have never met a woman who was offended when I held a door for her. Holding a door is just a simplistic way of explaining the concept of benevolent sexism. A much better example would be sending my female reported to do a story about an unusual kitten while I send my male reporter to investigate a drug ring. Because I want her to be safe and far from danger. Because she's a woman.

As you might guess, like many men, I, too, enjoy the sight of a pretty woman. But I much prefer the sight of a real woman, across the table from me, with a coffee cup in her hand.

I feel a little "pandered to" by the SI swimsuit edition, and other such kitsch in our society. To me, it's kind of silly and unrealistic. I think, on the balance, it's bad for society. Not all that harmful in and of itself, but part of an unhealthy pattern.

Those yelling the loudest have not see what my life is like either.

And I do listen. A lot. Just not to certain voices that really don't want people to listen but want to use their voices to shout down people.

"As you might guess, like many men, I, too, enjoy the sight of a pretty woman." -- That sentence alone, to some here, would warrant a tombstone because by using the word 'pretty' your are judging someone. You can't define pretty, you can't use that word, unless you are some sort of woman hating bigot.

There is plenty of sexism out there in the work force, you cited a good example of it. I am all for fighting against that and bringing it to the surface ---- oh wait, no I am not. I am a woman hating sexist rapist in waiting according to some here.

My problem is not with exposing it and fighting it, it is with some who also want to do that who take any friend they have and smash them on the rocks of their purity.

In radio shows I have done in the past I addressed these issues. I have in posts of mine over the years. But still - I am the bad guy because I don't see it everywhere and don't always agree with how the discussions are handled.

I get there are problems. We can have great discussions on them. But that does not happen on DU. It boils down to simply - you don't always agree with me so you hate women and want to keep them down.

You want to talk about objectifying people? I am nothing but a man who hates women and does not care about them or their issues. Period. I am just an object who has no other motivation in life but to ridicule them.

There is no talking about this issue on DU with some - there is only accusations and anger at men. Allies who care about the issues facing women, and I have posted a ton of threads on such things over the years. But no, I am the enemy because I don't agree with every assessment of some on the issues.

Are there some feminists who do the same thing? Undoubtedly. But no progress or understanding can ever come from such a place. There is no true dialog.

The door-holding thing is a good example. It was just a simplistic way of illustrating a feminist concept. But many people misunderstood and were outraged. "How dare they criticize me just for being a gentleman!"

But the thing is, they weren't criticizing anyone. They were trying to illustrate a concept: benevolent sexism.

And they don't think it is a crime to admire a woman's physical beauty. But I *do* think it's a crime to reduce a woman to nothing more than that. Or to consider her "less than" if she doesn't have those coveted physical features.

I come from a position of great privilege, and I know it. That doesn't mean that everything goes my way; women have some advantages in this society that I don't have. But for every societal advantage a woman has over me, I have 99 over her. I know that.

I honestly get it. I know they were trying to illustrate something. Thing is I didn't agree with it because their take was basically that people who did certain things hate women. And there was no debating that.

My mom taught me it was simply polite to hold open doors for women (and the elderly) - not because women were weaker than men but because it was a nice thing to do because women do so much for others. It was more of a mom thing than a woman thing. Mom takes care of you, she packs your lunch, does your laundry, she is there every day for you while dad was off working so you do what you can to help out moms.

But no - it became you hate women and see them as weaker. Not that you respect them and this was a show of respect. Hold the door open and you hate women, think they are weak, or want to bang them. There was no compromise. There was only 'this is my view, if you don't hold it you suck'.

Put out your own view? Well that is not allowed and you have latent misogyny in you.

Angry? Yeah - because being I told I hate women and don't care time after time does that to me.

It doesn't offend me to have that pointed out to me, because I recognize it and accept it for what it is. And those tendencies don't mean that I'm a terrible person or that I hate women.

Those tendencies are, however, imperfections in my personality. I recognize that.

Women are not "better" than men. They don't deserve "extra" deference. They don't deserve "extra" consideration.

They don't need it either.

Some individuals are deserving of every special treatment imaginable. They deserve to be put on pedestals and admired for being the kind, intelligent, beautiful people that they are. Some of these people have penises; some of them do not.

My way of dealing with them is simple. The little "extra" courtesies I feel inclined to offer to women; I now try to offer them to everyone. I try to look at everyone as an individual and treat them accordingly.

You mean you didn't before?

All my life I have pretty much treated others as equals. Well, not always - I did treat women different than men because, oh I dunno, I am more attracted to women than men (which, to some, means I suck).

"I try to look at everyone as an individual and treat them accordingly."

Yeah, I have too (though not always). But none of that matters. Your intentions, mine, everyone's, are subject to review and judgement.

You can spend your whole life learning, changing, and doing the right thing as best you can - but you are still a bad person because you are a man, don't and can't understand, etc. You just hate women and want to screw them all.

Point is - you and I can learn, move on, be better in how we act. But no - we are not decent people because we are men, have no possible issues, can't complain, and cannot possibly get how others feel. No matter what you do or say you are crap and don't care if you don't do x/y/z.

We are all imperfect beings and we are all *wrong* about some things. Most people recognize that.

If there are things that seem harmless to me, but they are offensive to a significant portion of my "sisters-in-arms", I tend to reflect and consider that there might be something that I just don't "get".

For what it's worth, I do that for all groups to which I don't belong.

not going to hold my breath on that one.

will ever admit that they are doing little to actually focus on discussions and instead use their time and energy one bashing people here on DU.

Communication is a two way street and it is easy to tell which way some are driving.

Why not take a little time out today and look over my entire posting history - and compare what I have posted to those who have been attacking me.

See some folks with a one track mind? See others telling you aren't a feminist or trying to define you at all? Well, you will see that with some here.

Yet your problem is with me.

Interesting the things you bother to post and reply to here on DU.

Gotta say that is exactly WHY I have no interest in reviewing your posting history. You blather on pretending things are issues, when they clearly are not. When you admit that you yourself know better.

Not sure why anyone would be interested in bullshit based on false premises like that.

the end of the human species and looking at it makes all men rapists who hate women.

It is the attitude and energy expended ripping apart fellow progressives.

Really - take a look over what some of those folks most vocal on all this have posted over the years.

Most of it is attacks on people over every little thing they can find and accusations that they are not progressives and that they don't give a rat's ass about women.

That is what they are looking for. That is what they post every day - men are bad, you are a victim, and lets jump into a thread and bash some more people.

I can post a thousand stories about many different things and they don't jump in at all (same with others here) - nothing exists in this world except how bad men and fellow DU'ers are.

And the whole thing about holding open doors? You notice that about me and nothing else I post.

Maybe that says something about you and what you are looking for.

sorry- you did this to yourself. when you harp on something you consider meaningless for two years, pretending it matters- it makes you look dishonest, and not worth reading. At best, I've been skimming and stop cold at the word doors. Because we both know what BS that is, and what a waste of time it is to have an honest discussion.

Judging people and their motivations based on a second of their life.

"I went to the market and some guy opened the door for me - I am a victim and he probably wanted to have sex with me or thinks I am weak"

But there it is. Helping someone out needs to be judged and questioned and has as it's roots a deep desire to keep women in their place.

And, again, what are your stances on other topics affecting the world and how many posts about those things have you started or been a part of - or is the only problem that exists evil men and how they like pretty women (forgive me Jesus for using the word pretty as it is sexist) on the cover of a magazine (of course when women buy magazines that have similar women on the cover they are what...victims who need educating?)

I love posts that DEMAND ANSWERS DAMMIT- when their whole premise is based on BS. Too funny!

Maybe that is why the message you so claim you care about isn't playing so well.

You don't discuss - you try to shame people. Call them names, tell them they are bad, etc.

And when someone stands up to that it just pisses you off.

On DU I have been called everything over the years from a libertarian, child molester, hater of women, gun nut, etc - I am pretty used to people bashing on me and not discussing things, but keep trying. I actually embrace it all now

and that is exactly why you're not at all worth responding to. Hope that is clearer, because I am out of here.

Where people make quick hits (like calling them names, stating what they are - in this case 'in denial') and don't add much else.

Maybe because that is all they have done this whole time. Because really - they don't have any argument past one liners.

They don't have 'discussions' - they have only accusations.

Against everyone.

And I am the one in denial?

Here is a mirror - hold it up to your post.

You seem to think you are an enlightened person who is fully self aware as to his desire to look at beautiful women (whether in person, in magazines, or online).

You see no adjustment necessary. That is the way of the world and the straight story. Men primarily like to look at and admire beautiful women. And though fully clothed women are a delight to behold, if they are scantily clad, so much the better.

I am sure the next thought in your mind is, "I'd really like to know that woman and understand what is important to her. I want to see how she adds to her beauty with a sense of humor, strong ego, and support network of friends and family."

Or you just click on Page 2 of the photo gallery.

There are no issues to discuss - only DU'ers to attack.

You have read plenty of my posts 'on gender issues' - maybe you should get out more and try not to objectify me or make me in the image you think I am.

In other words, don't see me as some stripped down model on the cover of misogyny monthly.

That won't happen. Many here can look at a cover and see a lot more, but we are accused of not being able to - perhaps because the people accusing us themselves only see one thing. Which is why they believe so many of us are one dimensional.

He has become a thing robbed of his essential humanity! He's more than just the number of touchdowns he gets!!!!!

For 40 years you read their magazine and supported them?

Only time my hands have touched their magazine is in a Dr office waiting to be seen.

I think, perhaps, you might have missed the sarcasm/satire of my original post

.... gags that breaks down if someone doesn't get the joke three turns back.

Power. The media manipulation at work in this photo has resulted in an image of power, not vulnerability. He doesn't look happy to see the viewer, and if the action in the photo were to continue, the viewer would be mowed down by the sheer strength of his will.

This image of power suggests that if he's threatened by a male predator, he won't necessarily need another man to help defend himself.

But the three young women on the current SI cover have been arranged to project vulnerability. They're presenting the viewer with just their faces and asses, and they pose no threat at all to the viewer. Unlike in the case of the football player above, "if the action in the photo were to continue," the passive viewer would remain unaffected because the women are projecting nothing more than happiness and vulnerability.

The image of vulnerability suggests that if they're threatened by a male predator, they would do well to have another male nearby to protect them (unlike the football player above, whose demeanor suggests he could probably handle himself). This would not be the case if the cover image were to present three female athletes in their uniforms, instead of three happy, vulnerable, topless women who appear to be delighted to see and/or be seen by the viewer.

The player above is portrayed as a potential predator who operates within the confines of a rule-governed sport. The young women on the anniversary issue are portrayed as something much less powerful.

I do understand the significance of your six points, but power is the concept that shows the difference between the two images. I think you'd have to be contrasting images of male and female athletes, or of male and female swimsuit models, in order to make truly objective comparisons.

Is objectifying women as sex objects to be leered at.

I thought I covered the very thing you just said, but in much more detail.

Not happy to see the viewer was false and a red herring.

I took away your false analysis of the football player's intensity.

Otherwise, I guess we somewhat agree. I do think projecting vulnerability is partly what selling sexy female bodies and pretty faces is about.

Why did "angry black guy" suddenly get injected into this discussion?

Far from being a red herring, this intentional projection of power is proof that there is, indeed, a big difference in the intentions of those who created the two projected images, and it's a difference that goes beyond the OP's six points.

I was opposing the OP's six points by adding a seventh. I am essentially in agreement with you, and in disagreement with the OP (because I believe my "point seven" negates the force of his argument).

The power that the football player is allowed to have (by the image-makers responsible for that cover) is not present in the image of the three models. I'm pointing out an inequity that supports the same point you're trying to make.

But I was making it simpler and to the point.

But we generally agree the SI swimsuit cover is not remotely comparable to typical SI cover.

"The image of vulnerability suggests that if they're threatened by a male predator, they would do well to have another male nearby to protect them "

Yes indeed. Like linemen and such. Ohhhh you were talking about the women in SI? Anyone else here look at that and think they needed protection? That sounds like benevolent sexism to me (I didn't think for a second they looked like they needed anything - but yeah, the QB of the Buckeyes needs it - as is evident from their last two losses of the year).

Are you equating power with his physical fitness? If that is the case those three ladies seemed pretty fit to me. And they seemed to have enough power amongst them to cause a storm on DU all because they chose to get paid in a career called modeling.

"I think you'd have to be contrasting images of male and female athletes,"

Before I posted this I looked over many SI issues - and there were several women on the cover. One was a skier - she was wearing a skin tight outfit, which she wears on the slopes. Could have posted that but it was a woman who many might consider pretty and she was wearing, as this guy was, what she does to 'work'. It would have been a similar feeding frenzy though to the other thread because she was not fully covered in a burka.

...but when I viewed the two side-by-side (because I was following along with your six points), the contrast between power and lack-of-power jumped out at me. My conclusion was that a fair compare/contrast exercise would be most valid by presenting female swimsuit media images alongside male swimsuit media images (instead of male athlete media images).

Sexual titillation like the mostly naked women on the cover of swimsuit edition ate.

Get real.

Wow, let me gather the rest of our species around and let them know that - or maybe you and a few others could hop thread to thread telling them they are sinners (or knock on their doors and pass out pamphlets).

I guess we get everything wrong - liking women, being excited in any way when we look at one, etc and so on.

You must live in a world where nothing gets looked at or desired and it if does it is a sin or something.

Remind me not to visit that planet.

Their world around them. Their id still exists, but it does not drive them.

Yet about the only place we see them in discussions (or ops) is on one issue?

And I am the one they say isn't progressive.

Funny that.

You have one issue you focus on - telling others on DU that they aren't progressive.

When all you do is hunt everyone looks like a deer.

And that's good, because it was much to do about nothing- yet sums it all up.

well i think the classic female fitness models from the 1980's and 1990's had a good look, and i do not see that as being sexist, just was a offshoot to bodybuilding that you got these more toned models, as i used to by the bodybuilding magazines back in the 1990's these were some of the female fitness models that i remember from back then.

some of the best really, with really good physiques, that toned look but still keeping a really feminine look as well, really good models like monica brant, dena doster, amy fadhli, stacey lynn, trish stratus, laurie donnelly, marla duncan, all the best, going on how they had there physiques back then, very athletic.