Jesus that is right out of the right wing playbook. She cant be both, especially when asked on the show for exactly that?
I have indeed and I was wrong too.
Well you just said she can’t be what makes her a celebrity. So no, bro.
No.
Clovis is right, let’s try to make this place more welcoming to women.
2 Likes
Yes. These kind of comments are not bad because they are offensive to Pamela Anderson (she’s not reading the thread!). There are two harms:
-
Gratuitous sexual comments about women tend to code spaces as male-designed or even actively hostile to women. This is why you would not comment on any woman’s fuckability in front of a coworker or in mixed social company. A classic failure mode of the internet is that you can’t check your audience like you would in person before making off-color comments, with the result that female participants are discouraged from getting involved.
-
Irrelevant comments about women’s physical appearance in preference to comments about the reason they are brought into the discussion encode/reflect/reinforce/whatever sexist norms that a woman’s sexual attractiveness to men is of overriding importance to everything a woman does, even if it’s her political opinions.
This is why the fact that Anderson has appeared in sexually explicit work misses the mark. We’re not trying to decide whether she’s a Madonna or a whore. If you want to talk with bros about whether or not you sexually desire Pamela Anderson, that’s your business. Or your partner if she’s into it! The real question is whether the comment creates an unwelcoming atmosphere for this particular forum and also why we’re having a discussion that treats some random dude’s horniness for a TV personality as relevant or interesting.
11 Likes
lol good luck with that, by making this less of a man’s place you’re going to end up with neither. I know I know, misogynistic take. I’m sure.
I had an oddly Keed-like feel playing contrarian and then I saw he was the only one who liked my wordplay joke, and I’m sure the bulk of you took it literally. Not sure I have the mettle to fight for common sense takes here I don’t think.
You guys can go back to being chastised by clovis and calling him dumb.
I think that’s what I mistakenly thought this place was: Talking with bros.
It’s not a completely trivial issue. Talking about imaginary sex you’ve had or would like to have it a classic male bonding ritual, which is why “locker room talk” is a phrase. The distinction between really talking with your bros and posting on the internet is that you can’t figure out whether you are actually talking to a bunch of bros you can assume are cool with it (maybe–there’s a whole toxic masculinity angle here too that we can just ignore for now) or whether you’re talking to 99 bros who can mildly bond with you and 1 women who is skeeved out. Personally, I think it’s not that hard to find a better way to bond with people (post some music videos!) and it’s a better habit to foster an inclusive atmosphere.
5 Likes
Except Sarah huckabee sanders obv.
3 Likes
No disagreement.
But again with the locker-room imagery, picture a group of guys talking. One is making an impassioned plea about the stigma attached to sex work and how he thinks prostitution is totally cool to the point he’d be fine with his daughter doing so. Flash forward a minute and the same guy is offended that someone called a sex symbol fuckable.
Take a step back and look at it.
You seem really stuck on this as contradictory. It’s just not. The only reason you think so is because you seem ok substituting your morality for women who choose sex work.
Erm…
I could completely be projecting (or whatever term: speaking out of ignorance, etc) but I don’t think a healthy person chooses to do so. Only someone desperate, damaged, and/or someone so materialistic that it trumps everything else (I guess nihilists are in here too).
I think you’d find very, very few people who align with your thoughts and views. I also substitute my morality for people that used to sell their children fwiw. I just don’t see how your argument differs at all if sub had said sexy or very attractive, all largely seems a distinction without a difference. I understand the word used was more crass.
This made me lol.
If you were a champion for women’s rights that’d be different. I know you think you are, but I think you’re condoning women literally being used as objects (not just celebrities being viewed as them).
Are most feminist groups pro-prositution?
You seem stuck on Clovis’s hypocrisy. Let’s say for the sake of argument that he is a hypocrite. So what? It doesn’t change the argument. Pretend your mom made the same point if it makes you feel better.
I rale at my mom’s hypocrisy even more.
I loathe hypocrisy.
Sex work is a hotly contested issue among feminist thinkers with two very opposed sides. I don’t know the stats but I’d say more are pro-sex work, but not by a wide margin.
It’s important to note that prostitution is a tiny part of sex work. Most sex workers never have sex.
That’s a huge leak. Hypocrisy affects someone’s character but makes no difference whatsoever to a specific argument.
The argument I’ve largely been making is about his hypocrisy.
Only other point I made was that I think there should be a carve-out for commenting on the appearance of people who make their living primarily that way. It’s like saying they’re still good at their work, it’s also acknowledging reality. No one is really arguing that what was used should be the ideal word choice, but Clovis’ point has been about how she’s on tv talking politics - that’s all that should be ok to discuss.