Whaddaya gonna do, right?

And you know, you gotta go through that "defy Mom" period in order to grow up. Or get stuck there, and keep acting the adolescent fool.
See also, hormones and red monkey butts.

Thank you on behalf of all us ladies who dislike seeing such things on this type of discussion board.

Why not put it in the lounge? Or if it's 'scientific' one of the science groups? Or creative speculation or something?

"marking their territory". I've been told they can't help it.

back in the sock drawer before mom walks in on them . . .

that this remains a place where men will do whatever they damn please, whether or not women like it.

They get a special pleasure knowing that it offends a lot of women.

It's very adolsecent/locker room.

with the pictures or other subject matter. They also like to alternate between feigning confusion and just outright hostility. By pretending to be confused, they can thwart communication in their favor and laugh and point at the increased efforts to help them gain understanding, but understanding is never their goal. Their goal is to keep women off balance so they can keep the upper hand.

Extremely adolescent/locker room like you said, and very obvious.

It's a game where they holler link or sink.
Sorry- I don't fetch for gas lighters who play dumb for kicks. It's moronic.

Someone asked for a link to a statement that porn is marketed to and viewed more by men than women. Some clown asked for a link to verify that. What a joke.

And then tell you we are all chimps and acting like chimps is a good thing!
Lotsa bright shiny red asses on "display", don't bother explaining to them they are actually human beings.

... or uncomfortable here.

Although only a very tiny percentage of posters are involved, that seems to be the effect.

I don't see any "no SI swimsuit issue" posts in the GD statement of purpose, but I do see "no meta threads" on there.

Huh.

Go figure.

but men who like scantily-clad models have to slither into the closet?
censorship is censorship no matter how well your prose reads.
where do you want to draw the line on DU?

Such victims!

It's cold and we could use the wood. TIA.

I'd take your post seriously, but probably not.......some people are just poor little misunderstood things aren't they?
Lou

If you really believe an lgbt person coming out on a progressive board is analogous to posting sexist pix of women on same progressive board, then you need some serious help w/ rationality, logic, & good old thinking.

Lou

Others simply call it civility

The OP said the Lounge would be an appropriate place. GD is for serious discussion about politics, news and current events. Oggling is none of that.

I didn't alert because I'm not very fond of censorship, but this post is just egregiously stupid and wrongheaded.

Do you honestly believe that a request for courtesy and discretion - e.g. not posting cheesecake photos in GD - is comparable to lifelong oppression because of who you are? How did you even think to form such an analogy?

Do you think "reverse racism" is a big important issue as well? Because that's pretty much the same line of thinking that you're using here.

Look, I have no problem with suggestive imagery as such - witness the whole long "hot celebrity" thread in the Men's Group that even I participated in - but there's a time and place for that sort of thing. Or would you argue for your "right" to watch porn in the workplace as well?

Oops.

0/10.

...so tell me- in the context of the free association song you're apparently singing, what does that imply?

I had to ask who she even is. I thought that maybe she was an athlete because the pictures came from sports illustrated but I did think it was weird that she wasn't being portrayed as an athlete.

I was told that she's a supermodel. What's she doing in a sports magazine?

So it fits right in with the SOP?

I honestly think it's little more than a few broken people finding entertainment by poking their fingers in the eyes of those they desire to offend, and then justifying the lack of courtesy by calling it anything other than what it is... petulance.


Fifth grade children going "nyah, nyah, nyah..."

Petulance R Us you might say.

it was a WOMAN who posted one of those!!! because it was on the NEWS!

why can't women and men gawk at sexual images on a political discussion board? You are trying to FORCE THEM HOW TO THINK!!!!!!! freedum!!!!

for the obtuse and chronically intellectually dishonest: this post is

It was on the NEWS and has been posted on DU in the past.

I'll own it and have nothing to hide.

although frankly, I didn't change my initial impression that it was flamebait, despite your claims of "news" primarily because it wasn't presented as a discussion about news, rather it was posted as: 1) an image to gawk at 2) comment on the appearance of the three subjects and 3) to get the precise reaction it did. you can deny the last one, but you would not be very credible.

so if you want to own it, I think that is great.

Sure, the men that post them have a right to look at them, discuss them, like them, etc. Was that ever in question?

But, this is a progressive board. At least half of the posters are females. Females see this stuff continuously in the corporate media, and it is very harmful to some. It creates poor self esteem for many young women.

Why do men have to post it here? Please answer that question. Isn't that what the lounge is for? Also, men have many, many other places to view and discuss these images.

It just seems to me that progressive men would show common courtesy and take their ogling elsewhere.

freedum!

revelatory is damn fine word for it all

The corporate media wants us at each others' throats and blaming each other. However, I still find that the average person I meet in real life is polite. I teach elementary school, and the students I teach come to school with varying level of "manners." However, they are very quick to embrace good manners when we discuss them and why they are important. The students I teach (under nine years old) seem to instinctually understand the purpose of thinking of others and treating others as you would want to be treated. They really try to do this. So, all is not lost.

whether someone thinks those things are acceptable in general or not....just posting it to post it with no real news value related to DU's overall mission is wrong.

Almost as though TRYING to elicit negative reactions based on the history here on the topic.

And what exactly does that mean?

" made an unfortunate typo..." Rather the thin patina of an unimaginatiove allegation.

However, I completely understand your need to be irrational, over-emotional and shrill... it owns you.

If a thread, or post, offends you, there are four basic options

1. ignore it, don't click on it or read it
2. even beyond that, put the person who keeps posting those types of things on ignore
3. alert on it, if the community agrees with you, it will be hidden.
4. respond to it, explaining, perhaps for the 10 millionth time why it is offensive. This does not even have to be a lot of work, since a standard "these types of posts are offensive" essay could be kept in a journal for handy reference. like so http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2521283


This seems to be more wanting to control others. Not only "I don't want to see those types of posts (or threads)" but "I don't want anybody else to see them either".

or, perhaps, "I don't want to belong to a community which finds these things acceptable".

So either change the community or find a different community.

Some people seem to think that "posting OPs about radical feminist issues or perspectives" is flame bait and starts gender wars and they wish they belonged to a community where that didn't happen.

Again, trying to control other people.

What if, instead, we belonged to a sort of big tent community where people with somewhat radically different ideas and perspectives could still discuss things in a reasonable fashion and teach and learn from each other? Instead of wanting to box people with a label "the disgusting misogynists" and "the loony feminists".

Oh, you are one of THEM.

I know.

What a concept.

"What a concept..."

Much like addressing everything but the direct question asked in the OP...

Irrelevant responses rather than relevant answers are indeed, quite the concept.

makes me want to engage in a serious discussion.

Uhm, there were about five questions in the OP, which one was I supposed to have answered?

"Irrelevant responses"

See, it's right there, in black and white. They called your RESPONSE irrelevant. Not you. Not sure how you could manage to misread that as a personal attack... but then I'm also not sure why you're pretending that you need to be instructed on how to reply to the topic of the OP rather than just post some random instructions of your own.

Still not a personal attack?

Jesus, for all the false gossip that travels around here can we at least get this correct?

I can honestly say direct all insults at me....I'll take the "blame" for a fucking annual magazine cover.

Or so I hear.

Bad, bad, bad!!!!!
(as seen on DU)...

my opinion too much has been made of this cover. It's just a magazine. I worry about the economy, people killing each other, homeless, our lousy education system, welfare cuts - the cover means very little in my life.

for this forum.

1. "Trash" the thread, by clicking the little X next to it. (This is the option I use all the time)

2. Alert on the thread, a community standards alert. It might be hidden, it might not.

3. Alert on the thread, but a SOP alert that goes to the hosts. This is a way to appeal to hosts that you think the thread is inappropriate for the forum.

Edited: Post #25 above had the same idea I did, and gives other options that are available.

So I can't comment on the quality of the thread. I will say that sometimes there may be a reason to start a discussion other than salacious interest.

That said, I'd certainly agree that a content warning should be posted on all posts some might find offensive. And that should be the end of the matter. As long as Admin finds it appropriate, there should not be any brouhaha from the persons finding it unpalatable.

We have a definite problem with prudish folk attempting to censor this board. Once warned they can ignore the thread/post and let the rest of the community participate if they wish.

So brouhaha on that for a while.

in these puerile discussions anymore. Thank you for your interest.

Ignore.

As has been said elsewhere, thanks for playing.

that are excluded by the SOP of GD, sports and showbiz. Love it or hate it, SI is sports and entertainment, the models are entertainers and these are allegedly not the subjects to discuss in GD. Same thing I say about the Pope threads, SOP exists for a reason.

but it should be because of common courtesy, and not out of manshaming.

Such prudish attitudes may be universally considered as 'progressive' in HoF, but not for the rest of the party.

This is Democratic Underground, not certain-subtype-of-feminism underground.

that's not the reason they are objected to. No one on DU approaches it from that perspective. It is all from a feminist perspective. It's not that they offend standards of 1950s morality, it's that they objectify women.

half dozen in the other.



Either way it's just as nauseating.

One is old fashioned and the other progress.

you mean 'regressive' than I agree with you.

Women didn't have careers then, and were covered from head to toe. They were completely under the thumbs of men, just about, except for a few. They had no chance of objecting to being objectified. They were just objectified differently.

doing whatever they want to do, including being sex goddesses.

How dare the prudes consider shaming women for that choice as 'progress'.

As I said before... Disgusting

It seems that that would be obvious, but I guess not. I certainly didn't come at it from a prudish angle in my OP. People will read that into it, however.

Manshaming. It's what's for dinner.

There's a perfectly good thread going with pictures to ogle, and that would have been a great addition, but instead it was posted by one of their pals in GD where it would get maximum exposure for the maximum shit-stirring, which is what happened.

The rest of your post is really condescending and myopic. I haven't read much in either of those groups, but I am going on basically what I've seen in GD, and it's nothing like you describe. The self-identified HoF members go out of their way to describe their intentions and what it means, yet the molesters (a derogatory label used to counter your derogatory "prude" label) follow them around to inflame them. This is Democratic Underground, not certain-type-of abusers underground.

And if not, it's because they are just a bunch of prudes?

Or is it unacceptable to hang T&A photos in the local Democratic office because it shows disrespect to half the population?

because a loud minority is still in the Victorian Age.

I just want to make sure you are saying what you are saying.

This is why you think T&A shots don't show up in political offices?

Sexually enlightened people could care less if tasteful T&A is present at the local political office.

Blow back, if you will.
You know, those that post known, often repetitious flame bait and then pat each other on the back, while feigning outrage at anyone that disagrees with them.

Yeah, those people.

how often multiple threads would be made that were essentially man shaming threads, and this could go on for weeks at DU. One after another. All basically doing the same thing.

You can't be nice to them, because if even you try, they, or more often, a cohort, starts twisting what you post and when you try ot explain, they post something a little more off and even get "upset". You can't win, They obviously don't really want to get along.
Bullying within the lines, is what is is.

Of course, this gang likes to play all innocent and act the victim, but I think most aren't fooled by it.

They feed on the shit they can stir up here and the anger and divisions it exacerbates.

into one, easily ignored space so the rest could post and converse/debate issues. It wasn't perfect, but GD was far more productive when Meta existed.

Eliminating the soft porn will help achieve that.

I think it makes sense to define some spaces for various things. This will also get push back, of course, for suggesting the same, but it seems like a reasonable accommodation to say Sports Illustrated in sports, or if it's a cover meant for admiring the models in swimsuits, it might also be appropriate for other forums that want to host the pix. Obviously exceptions would include something like Superbowl covers, etc. - event related that's actually about sports, not swimsuits.

I'm glad Skinner locked the Kate Upton post, too, just to stop the current flaming.

I don't know Riff well at all. The only time I've interacted with her was during an insult moment. I think everyone who knows this situation here knows there are hard feelings on all sides about certain issues, and, tho certainly the SI cover is a news event, it didn't need to be posted in GD.

It was a general call out based on previous interactions. Of course, someone has to rise to the bait for that to work, so, duly noted as well. Riff, if you read this, I'm not trying to call you out, but I am saying... I think you can admit that certain people here have made you mad by the way they have characterized you, and this is one way to say "you know what."

Objecting isn't the same as rising to the bait of the post, as you demonstrate.

There are reasonable arguments for both sides - and unreasonable things too - which is what the Upton thread was about.

And, again, I would suggest that people use hide thread or ignore liberally if not doing so interferes with their experience of this site. I saw the SI thread, then trashed it. Not because I dislike Riff, but b/c I wasn't interested in any of the comments it would generate.

The reason why men "have to" post it here - isn't a "have to." It's again about insults that are freely delivered here between people who dislike one another or something someone has done. What the men don't realize is there comes a point when they're pressing their "cause" too much and this will create a backlash - which is what is going on now.

A few points...yes, someone insulted me undeservedly and a simple apology would have sufficed and I would move on.

That is not the reason I posted it; I don't feel the need the apologize for it, either.

What I find the most annoying is being told to think or believe a certain way by others that are far more vociferous on this board than I am; I usually stay out of those threads as they aren't worth my time.

ETA: IMO, your last paragraph is far more applicable to certain women on DU than men.

I have always enjoyed your posts RD; this post is just my 2 cents.

I understand both sides.

My bg is somewhat different than others here. My (now former) sister-in-law, in Europe would go with her husband and kids and go topless on the beach. It was no big deal, but she didn't do so around her parents because it would freak them out.

Her peers, and her kids, etc. didn't get all bothered by this different standard. So sometimes I feel like it's a question of... who are your peers here - and who is coming from another space in this world.

I agree that it's annoying, as a female, to be told how you are supposed to respond to something related to, say, female nudity. The example above explains why. I used to go topless on the beach near where I lived, too, because it was allowed. I wasn't walking around all over the place, etc. just minding my business reading on a blanket in the sun to tan with no lines. Other women did the same. It wasn't a big deal.

My post was sort of an attempt to find a way for both povs to co-exist.

I have friends from other parts of the country and swimming naked was part of growing up - mixed groups, male, female, and there wasn't any big deal about it. Lots of different places this is part of life and no one is crippled by showing their bits.

but one time some guys from another part of the beach wandered into the area and made comments to me that really pissed me off - because they weren't abiding by the idea that I had the right to wear what I wanted in that space without them making me feel like they could say something about their reaction.. to me. that was long ago, before two children, and a lot of life. I wouldn't do that anymore, tho I have gone skinny dipping in a private lake place where I am - but not around my kids, either. so, I have sort of a mix of attitudes, probably.

I find the attacks made here by those who position themselves as "the feminists" are often more off putting than useful, so a lot of times I just have no desire to participate in what they're talking about because they're framing things in such a way... and then to read what basically comes down to "shut up and listen to us tell you how to think" is REALLY, REALLY annoying and offensive because I don't think they know enough to tell me what to think. I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself. But I saw that exact statement here in relation to this... from someone also claiming humans aren't apes. so I'm like... really? You think you know enough to tell me what my reactions are supposed to be when you're so off base?

There was one time, long ago, when a well-loved person from that group attacked a lesbian who was doing her graduate studies in economics, saying that the reason the econ femme didn't get upset about treating sex work as work is because that person had stated she was a stripper and then changed the post. This well-loved person from that group was disgusting in the way she made accusations against that woman... what, are you ashamed? trying to hide you're a stripper? blahblahblah... and the reality is that the well-loved hoffer had confused two people on the thread. But that didn't stop her from this badgering sort of attempt at insult that you still see here in other ways with other people. And, the point, really, is that if a woman is a feminist, she's not going to attack other women for the work they do, even if it involves having no or few clothes on - because that's not feminism - that's using feminism for the same sort of attitude you see among social conservatives.

I think a lot of what passes as feminism here is social conservatism but people haven't had a chance, maybe, to step outside of their own culture to see something for what it is, rather than the "radical" label they put on it to justify the same old same old judgmental attitudes of some women toward others. -- and so often it relates to fashion and other really, really worthless topics, when the red meat of oppression right now is in the political/religious discourse from Republicans.

who wants that sort of feminism?

And the people who have insulted me, and others here, the most, and have gone through this board with a scorched earth policy of nastiness - they're all self-proclaimed feminists. If they want others to be polite to them, they need to be polite to others. They don't get to claim "I'm a woman so I can say what a man can't" and get away with it. It's really sexist in its own way. That's why I don't get riled up about language usage, unless it's direct insults.

If it's direct insults - it doesn't have to have what are viewed as curse words as part of it.

It also disgusts me to see someone trying to smear another person here as racist because they don't think posting the swimsuit issue is a big deal. But this, too, is someone who constantly insults others here. Yet if someone were to do the same to her, it would, no doubt, be because of sexism, not because she has acted like a jerk.

what I see now is that these same people are trying to use the example of racism to justify their judgmental attitudes. It's sad because it cheapens the issue of racism, but, as you know, some women here are "dirty fighters" not ethical ones.

to what you want to discuss. What's really funny are all of the sanctimonious guys who try to make themselves look like saints. Yeah, right.

Anyway, it's your thread, so have at it.

Either they are young and clueless, or have antisocial personality "issues". At least in regards to women. IMO.