GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently August 21 19, 5:04 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 520 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 52  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: November 19 18, 10:38 am 
Offline
darjeeling sipping elite
User avatar

Joined: October 17 06, 11:19 am
Posts: 36750
Location: Huis Clos
33anda3rd wrote:
lukethedrifter wrote:
Can’t we think a woman is hot and still take her totally seriously?


Yes.

And we can also keep those thoughts to ourselves to not normalize talking about women like that. If we were around the water cooler with female colleagues would we make those comments? Are those types of jock-ish locker room conversations things that need to be part of the public discussion? Is it possible to understand why people find them kind of offensive? I'm not trying to be a Social Justice Warrior here, just saying that this drags the discourse into the muck.


Fair point and i mostly agree. I do think there’s an in between where sex/sexuality is normalized but we probably aren’t ready for that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 19 18, 10:46 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7228
Location: Chicago, IL
lukethedrifter wrote:
33anda3rd wrote:
lukethedrifter wrote:
Can’t we think a woman is hot and still take her totally seriously?


Yes.

And we can also keep those thoughts to ourselves to not normalize talking about women like that. If we were around the water cooler with female colleagues would we make those comments? Are those types of jock-ish locker room conversations things that need to be part of the public discussion? Is it possible to understand why people find them kind of offensive? I'm not trying to be a Social Justice Warrior here, just saying that this drags the discourse into the muck.


Fair point and i mostly agree. I do think there’s an in between where sex/sexuality is normalized but we probably aren’t ready for that.


I feel very strongly that we are past that normalization. There are reasons people are so willing to ignore the fact that Trump is a proud sexual aggressor, payer-off of porn stars, habitual philanderer, and rampant misogynist who trades wives in every decade or so for a younger model. And it has to do with stuff like the Britney Spears era where we normalized the sexualization of a girl--not a woman, but a child, a teenager--and others like her. Kids who were coming of age when it was ok to sexualize a female child are now 30-something guys who vote and don't think critically about stuff like that. The internet gives horny guys endless opportunities to think about women in one and only one way. The overwhelming normalization and almost mainstreaming of porn (when the Stormy Daniels thing broke, did you have to look up who she is, or do we all know who she is already?) is another part of it. We have normalized the hyper-sexualization of women to the point that we are where we are with this doofus of a President who when he speaks of female adversaries often speaks of them in terms of their bodies and their looks. I'm sorry, but when the conversation on a young female Congresswoman-elect goes from thoughts about why the GOP is scared of her, and how effective she can be to "yo, I'd smash that" we lose a little bit of our dignity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 19 18, 10:52 am 
Offline
Perennial All-Star

Joined: April 18 06, 7:45 pm
Posts: 3636
33anda3rd wrote:
Are those types of jock-ish locker room conversations things that need to be part of the public discussion? Is it possible to understand why people find them kind of offensive? I'm not trying to be a Social Justice Warrior here, just saying that this drags the discourse into the muck.


I 100% agree with you. So where do you draw the lines? People use a lot of language that others find offensive but say it’s their right to do so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 19 18, 11:03 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19599
Location: Low A Minors
I've said this elsewhere but when a candidate comes out of a movement, the candidate's traits become less important. The important thing is the candidate has the trust of the people within that movement that they will follow through on the movement's goals. That's all they really need.

The GOP has been doing this themselves for ages. It's how the GOP ended up with Trump and Kavanaugh and many other corrupt jerks as candidates for various things. The GOP has their own movement. It literally doesn't matter if a guy sexually assaulted someone or dated teenagers. The important thing is GOP voters trust the candidate to follow through on the GOP agenda.

The GOP is used to facing establishment, centrist candidates that Dems use to try to triangulate suburban voters. That strategy worked in the election we just had because voters want a check on GOP power. But in most elections, the GOP knows they can easily beat those kind of centrist candidates. AOC does not fit that mold, so the GOP is concerned.

Obama was the rare centrist Democrat that could beat anybody because he was such a gifted speaker and all around politician. But Democrats lost 1,000 seats at all levels of government in the Obama era because there was no movement behind him. Obama could win with that suburban voter strategy, but no one else could.


Last edited by pioneer98 on November 19 18, 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 19 18, 11:09 am 
Offline
Perennial All-Star

Joined: April 18 06, 7:45 pm
Posts: 3636
How is someone considered such a gifted speaker when they use ummm so often?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 19 18, 11:12 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7228
Location: Chicago, IL
Diddy wrote:
33anda3rd wrote:
Are those types of jock-ish locker room conversations things that need to be part of the public discussion? Is it possible to understand why people find them kind of offensive? I'm not trying to be a Social Justice Warrior here, just saying that this drags the discourse into the muck.


I 100% agree with you. So where do you draw the lines? People use a lot of language that others find offensive but say it’s their right to do so.


I work in the bar and restaurant world and I see probably a dozen young women a day I think are quite attractive. But I don't talk about them in those terms and I steer conversations like that to something else or go find someone else to talk to. I think that's kind of the easy solution. It's totally their right to stand around and play Marry / F / Kill about the women in the room, but I find it kinda offensive and usually exit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 19 18, 11:16 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19599
Location: Low A Minors
Diddy wrote:
How is someone considered such a gifted speaker when they use ummm so often?


You don't think Obama was a gifted speaker? OK

Obama beat the same Democratic machine that Bernie was unable to beat. Obama beat Republicans twice while Democrats downballot were doing really poorly. He definitely had some kind of special traits that made him different from most Democrats, whatever they were.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 19 18, 11:54 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Posts: 11436
Location: Austin
pioneer98 wrote:
I've said this elsewhere but when a candidate comes out of a movement, the candidate's traits become less important. The important thing is the candidate has the trust of the people within that movement that they will follow through on the movement's goals. That's all they really need.

It’s true that the movement was the key, but it’s also true that AOC is quite a talented politician.

It’s totally hilarious when people pretend to believe 57 states type comments mean she’s actually super ignorant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 19 18, 11:55 am 
Offline
Veteran Player
User avatar

Joined: April 27 10, 11:08 pm
Posts: 951
33anda3rd wrote:
lukethedrifter wrote:
33anda3rd wrote:
lukethedrifter wrote:
Can’t we think a woman is hot and still take her totally seriously?


Yes.

And we can also keep those thoughts to ourselves to not normalize talking about women like that. If we were around the water cooler with female colleagues would we make those comments? Are those types of jock-ish locker room conversations things that need to be part of the public discussion? Is it possible to understand why people find them kind of offensive? I'm not trying to be a Social Justice Warrior here, just saying that this drags the discourse into the muck.


Fair point and i mostly agree. I do think there’s an in between where sex/sexuality is normalized but we probably aren’t ready for that.


I feel very strongly that we are past that normalization. There are reasons people are so willing to ignore the fact that Trump is a proud sexual aggressor, payer-off of porn stars, habitual philanderer, and rampant misogynist who trades wives in every decade or so for a younger model. And it has to do with stuff like the Britney Spears era where we normalized the sexualization of a girl--not a woman, but a child, a teenager--and others like her. Kids who were coming of age when it was ok to sexualize a female child are now 30-something guys who vote and don't think critically about stuff like that. The internet gives horny guys endless opportunities to think about women in one and only one way. The overwhelming normalization and almost mainstreaming of porn (when the Stormy Daniels thing broke, did you have to look up who she is, or do we all know who she is already?) is another part of it. We have normalized the hyper-sexualization of women to the point that we are where we are with this doofus of a President who when he speaks of female adversaries often speaks of them in terms of their bodies and their looks. I'm sorry, but when the conversation on a young female Congresswoman-elect goes from thoughts about why the GOP is scared of her, and how effective she can be to "yo, I'd smash that" we lose a little bit of our dignity.

I pretty much agree with everything you’re saying. I shouldn’t have typed it. It was mainly a joke based on the picture; while I do find her attractive, it wasn’t literally impossible for me to imagine her sexually. But didn’t you once post a picture of your wife just to prove to everyone how hot she was? Why objectify her like that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 19 18, 12:07 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Posts: 11436
Location: Austin
33anda3rd wrote:
I feel very strongly that we are past that normalization. There are reasons people are so willing to ignore the fact that Trump is a proud sexual aggressor, payer-off of porn stars, habitual philanderer, and rampant misogynist who trades wives in every decade or so for a younger model. And it has to do with stuff like the Britney Spears era where we normalized the sexualization of a girl--not a woman, but a child, a teenager--and others like her. Kids who were coming of age when it was ok to sexualize a female child are now 30-something guys who vote and don't think critically about stuff like that. The internet gives horny guys endless opportunities to think about women in one and only one way. The overwhelming normalization and almost mainstreaming of porn (when the Stormy Daniels thing broke, did you have to look up who she is, or do we all know who she is already?) is another part of it. We have normalized the hyper-sexualization of women to the point that we are where we are with this doofus of a President who when he speaks of female adversaries often speaks of them in terms of their bodies and their looks. I'm sorry, but when the conversation on a young female Congresswoman-elect goes from thoughts about why the GOP is scared of her, and how effective she can be to "yo, I'd smash that" we lose a little bit of our dignity.

I really don’t think you can date inappropriate sexualization of women to 1999. Powerful men’s terrible sexual behavior used to be so accepted that it was considered improper to even bring it up.

You can certainly make the case that MTV style trashy hyper-sexuality was/is bad, but it is unarguable that attitudes around sexuality have improved substantially, and that greater openness is an important part of that.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 520 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 52  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Big Amoco Sign, cardinalkarp, Indiana Dave, wart57 and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group