Total Posts:91|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can we stop sexualizing young girls, plz?

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 7:30:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Communications Director for the representative from Tennessee's 8th District recently stated that Sasha and Malia were dressed too slutty for the National Turkey Day Pardon ceremony at the White House. [http://jezebel.com...] Each year, the President of the United States pardons two turkeys as a ceremonial gesture prior to Thanksgiving. Sasha wore a red dress that was approximately to her knees and Malia wore a sweater with a skirt and leggings. The Communications Director for the Congressman in question told the two young women that their attire was more suitable for a bar, not a national press conference.

They're still just kids. Um, can we not use our position as a national-level communications director to sexualize thirteen and sixteen year old girls? Who the fvck cares what they're wearing? A guy would never get this kind of heat for wearing a nice button down shirt with fancy jeans, i.e. "club attire." Also, can we show a little respect for the First Family? This event isn't exactly like announcing that Pearl Harbor has been attacked. It's not a serious press conference. Wtf is wrong with the media? Every single time a female in politics appears before a camera, her attire is picked apart. A prominent male news anchor recently wore the same suit for an entire year to prove a point: that his female co-anchors have made tabloid news for their attire, yet no one even *noticed* that he wore the same thing for a year. It's a ridiculous double standard. It's gross that a media director would invoke the imagine of an underaged Sasha and Malia trying to pick up guys with their supposedly slutty attire in a bar. And it's ridiculous that the President's daughters aren't off limits for bashing on. They're just kids; they didn't ask for any of this. The communication in question was clearly aimed at bashing President Obama by blaming him for being a bad "role model" for his daughters, which explains their allegedly horrid attire. Bash Obama all you want; he's President -- he can take it. But seriously, what is your problem? Leave his daughters alone. And particularly don't sexualize them by calling them out for their attire. They weren't even wearing anything particularly sexual. A cocktail dress and a skirt with leggings is not overtly sexual. They didn't come in dressed in bikinis.

If you tell young girls that they're bar sluts for dressing a certain way and tell young boys they can't cry, you're dangerously reinforcing problematic gender norms in the next generation. In my opinion, the esteemed representative from Tennessee's 8th owes the Obama family an apology.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 7:38:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Lol...calling out the President's daughters for dressing like teenagers do (and it wasn't even something revealing in the least) and she wants to talk about respect and class...what a joke.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 10:16:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 7:30:24 PM, bluesteel wrote:
The Communications Director for the representative from Tennessee's 8th District recently stated that Sasha and Malia were dressed too slutty for the National Turkey Day Pardon ceremony at the White House. [http://jezebel.com...] Each year, the President of the United States pardons two turkeys as a ceremonial gesture prior to Thanksgiving. Sasha wore a red dress that was approximately to her knees and Malia wore a sweater with a skirt and leggings. The Communications Director for the Congressman in question told the two young women that their attire was more suitable for a bar, not a national press conference.

They're still just kids. Um, can we not use our position as a national-level communications director to sexualize thirteen and sixteen year old girls? Who the fvck cares what they're wearing? A guy would never get this kind of heat for wearing a nice button down shirt with fancy jeans, i.e. "club attire." Also, can we show a little respect for the First Family? This event isn't exactly like announcing that Pearl Harbor has been attacked. It's not a serious press conference. Wtf is wrong with the media? Every single time a female in politics appears before a camera, her attire is picked apart. A prominent male news anchor recently wore the same suit for an entire year to prove a point: that his female co-anchors have made tabloid news for their attire, yet no one even *noticed* that he wore the same thing for a year. It's a ridiculous double standard. It's gross that a media director would invoke the imagine of an underaged Sasha and Malia trying to pick up guys with their supposedly slutty attire in a bar. And it's ridiculous that the President's daughters aren't off limits for bashing on. They're just kids; they didn't ask for any of this. The communication in question was clearly aimed at bashing President Obama by blaming him for being a bad "role model" for his daughters, which explains their allegedly horrid attire. Bash Obama all you want; he's President -- he can take it. But seriously, what is your problem? Leave his daughters alone. And particularly don't sexualize them by calling them out for their attire. They weren't even wearing anything particularly sexual. A cocktail dress and a skirt with leggings is not overtly sexual. They didn't come in dressed in bikinis.

If you tell young girls that they're bar sluts for dressing a certain way and tell young boys they can't cry, you're dangerously reinforcing problematic gender norms in the next generation. In my opinion, the esteemed representative from Tennessee's 8th owes the Obama family an apology.

She did, in fact, issue an apology. A single person acting alone did this, so let's let dead dogs lie.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 12:27:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A Blue Ideology

Bluesteel:: The Communications Director for the representative from Tennessee's 8th District recently stated that Sasha and Malia were dressed too slutty for the National Turkey Day Pardon ceremony at the White House.

[http://jezebel.com...]

The Fool: Jezebel is well known to have an extreme feminists biased

Bluesteel: Each year, the President of the United States pardons two turkeys as a ceremonial gesture prior to Thanksgiving. Sasha wore a red dress that was approximately to her knees and Malia wore a sweater with a skirt and leggings. The Communications Director for the Congressman in question told the two young women that their attire was more suitable for a bar, not a national press conference.

The Fool: Who cares? SHE allowed to have a right to an opinion on her own Facebook page.

Bluesteel: : They're still just kids.

The Fool: And it's just an opinion. I

Bluesteel: Um, can we not use our position as a national-level communications director to sexualize thirteen and sixteen year old girls?

The Fool: Where are you getting SEXUALIZATION out of this? And in what way is it immoral.

Bluesteel: Who the fvck cares what they're wearing?

The Fool: Exactly, and who cares about her opinion On her Facebook page. End of story. The only one looking at them in a sexual nature is yourself.

Bluesteel: A guy would never get this kind of heat for wearing a nice button down shirt with fancy jeans, i.e. "club attire."

The Fool: Because we are not the same, and men tend to have different preferences for women than women do for men. It's not all social construct.

Bluesteel: Also, can we show a little respect for the First Family? This event isn't exactly like announcing that Pearl Harbor has been attacked. It's not a serious press conference.

The Fool: It's not many things.

Bluesteel: Wtf is wrong with the media?

The Fool: It's Facebook. Somebody's personal opinion on their Facebook page.

Bluesteel: Every single time a female in politics appears before a camera, her attire is picked apart.

The Fool: Every single time eh"Lol Oh the misogyny..

Forget about shirtstorm.

Bluesteel: A prominent male news anchor recently wore the same suit for an entire year to prove a point: that his female co-anchors have made tabloid news for their attire, yet no one even *noticed* that he wore the same thing for a year. It's a ridiculous double standard.

The Fool: Males fashion, is much less of a market. But who cares??

Bluesteel: It's gross that a media director would invoke the imagine of an underaged Sasha and Malia trying to pick up guys with their supposedly slutty attire in a bar.

The Fool: He just stated his opinion. The rest is all you.

Bluesteel: And it's ridiculous that the President's daughters aren't off limits for bashing on.

The Fool: Why are you saying they should have special privilege?

Bluesteel: They're just kids; they didn't ask for any of this.

The Fool: And nobody asked for your opinion. Must we all be asked first?

Bluesteel: The communication in question was clearly aimed at bashing President Obama by blaming him for being a bad "role model" for his daughters, which explains their allegedly horrid attire.

The Fool: I would not be surprised. But that's quite the inference ladder.

Bluesteel: Bash Obama all you want; he's President -- he can take it. But seriously, what is your problem? Leave his daughters alone.

The Fool: I love that kind of misandry. Just like, it's okay to hurt men/boys because they can take it but leave the women/girls alone. I know that's not exactly what you mean here, but it's inherent in the notion of violence against women.

Bluesteel: And particularly don't sexualize them by calling them out for their attire. They weren't even wearing anything particularly sexual. A cocktail dress and a skirt with leggings is not overtly sexual. They didn't come in dressed in bikinis.

The Fool: There's nothing about sex. Even if there was, who cares.

Bluesteel: : If you tell young girls that they're bar sluts for dressing a certain way and tell young boys they can't cry, you're dangerously reinforcing problematic gender norms in the next generation.

The Fool: There's nothing about "bar sluts" here. Nobody tells boys not to Cry.
Not all gender norms, are dangerous. These are all hyperbolic versions of the truth.
I think you've been drinking the poison Kool-Aid for way too long.

Bluesteel: In my opinion, the esteemed representative from Tennessee's 8th owes the Obama family an apology.

The Fool: Besides the one sentence, it has all been your opinion. Either way SHE did apologize. On her Facebook page.

Did I forget to mention Facebook page?
<(8D)

Against The Ideologist

Say no to Feminist "thought control".
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 1:06:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 12:27:47 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

(1) The Fool: it's her own Facebook page

As a media director, the point of her Facebook page is to have the press pick up quotes from her. Your argument is like saying that Sean Hannity is not accountable for anything he says because he's just talking and expressing his personal opinion. There just happen to be cameras rolling broadcasting his opinion to millions of people. Like Hannity, she has a lot of Facebook followers only because she is a media person.

(2) The Fool: no one said anything about sexualization

In saying a dress is inappropriate because it is only appropriate attire for a bar, what is she really saying? That the dress is too slutty. Clothing only becomes "inappropriate" when we imbue it with special power because we perceive it as being too sexual. Is a bikini or nudity on a five-year-old too sexual? We let really young girls run around the house naked, even with close friends or family around. Yet, at some age, we start to sexualize their extremely young bodies. At around age 5, for some reason, their nudity is no longer deemed appropriate by society because we sexualize them at such a young age. Nudity or scant clothing is only inappropriate to the extent you think that others will sexualize the poor young girl when they see her.

For example, when I was five, I was playing on the playground at school with some girl. We were playing chase. I caught her by grabbing her shirt. Her shirt started stretching exposing part of her chest. She screamed at me, half joking (I assumed), "Stop staring at my boobs." It was ironic because of our young age that she would try to imbue the situation with some sort of sexual undertone. Yet, for some reason, a 13-year-old Sasha's legs have become sufficiently sexual that a media personality feels the need to tell her to cover up.

I'm kind of tired of the "he or she never explicitly said that" argument. Only fifteen percent of communication is verbal, meaning a lot of communication is based on *implications.* People on the Autism Spectrum have trouble communicating because they don't understand the implied parts of communication. No one is going to say, "Hey Facebook Followers, I just wanted to take a second to sexualize Malia and Sasha." It's asinine to argue that anything short of such an explicit statement is not sexualization.

(3) The Fool: it's misandry to say we can bash Obama and not his daughters

No, I made my point clear. President Obama chose the national spotlight; his daughters didn't. My point has more to do with consent to media exposure and age than with gender.

(4) The Fool: it's just a harmless opinion

Negative media effects on our society occur when hundreds of media personalities all express so-called "harmless" opinions on a consistent basis that reinforce negative societal viewpoints. Racism is just a collection of so-called "harmless" individual opinions.

(5) The Fool: stop drinking the feminist cool-aid

You admit she apologized. She clearly did something wrong. It's not very unique of you to call every argument related to gender norms "feminist poison." And it's hypocritical since you've been drinking the anti-feminist cool-aid. You feel that it is so important to paint me as a misandrist that you're willing to straw man my argument about Obama to do so.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 1:53:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A Blue Ideology
Part 2

(1) The Fool: it's her own Facebook page

Bluesteel: : As a media director, the point of her Facebook page is to have the press pick up quotes from her.

The Fool: No it's not. You're just making that up on the spot. It doesn't even say that in the article. Jezebel has taken the clip from her personal Facebook page, where she has her personal information and photos, and one needs to ask for consent to see any information about her friends. There's nothing which indicates, that it is for business.

Bluesteel: Your argument is like saying that Sean Hannity is not accountable for anything he says because he's just talking and expressing his personal opinion.

The Fool: No it isn't. My argument is that a grown woman has a right to express her own opinion on her own personal Facebook page without getting harassment from Jezebel. It's not like it was hate speech. Nor does it have anything to do with sexualizing young girls, as you are selling.
Your headline reads, "Can we stop sexualizing young girls, plz?"

But it's not a "we" thing, it's a "you" thing.

Not even Jezebel is going that far with it. Jezebel is already misleadingly exaggerating, and on top of that you are being misleading of the Jezebels article, thus leading to an overall double exaggeration of the facts.

Bluesteel: There just happen to be cameras rolling broadcasting his opinion to millions of people. Like Hannity, she has a lot of Facebook followers only because she is a media person.

The Fool: It's not the same, you don't have to ask permission to hear someone's opinion on national TV. Obama's children, are not reading this woman's Facebook. Jezebel is reading this to Obama's children. It Jezebel, who are publicly targeting this woman's credibility, for their own political views. It's not the first time.

Against The Ideologist

MRA 1 FEM 0
<(89)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 3:21:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 1:53:33 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
A Blue Ideology
Part 2

(1) The Fool: it's her own Facebook page

Bluesteel: : As a media director, the point of her Facebook page is to have the press pick up quotes from her.

The Fool: No it's not. You're just making that up on the spot. It doesn't even say that in the article. Jezebel has taken the clip from her personal Facebook page, where she has her personal information and photos, and one needs to ask for consent to see any information about her friends. There's nothing which indicates, that it is for business.

Apparently you don't understand how social media is used by media personalities.... If her message was set to private, how did Jezebel get it? Because she's friends with a bunch of contributors to news sites. Because she wants her Facebook posts to be read by media personalities.

Jezebel isn't the only site with access to her Facebook page. Here's another picture (from a mobile device) by another news source. [http://www.theroot.com...] This source also questions why she's sexualizing two young girls: "I don"t know what"s worse here: treating teenagers who act like teenagers as though they"ve committed treason or implying that girls don"t deserve respect because of the length of their skirts. Way to uphold rape culture, Lauten. And why is she even discussing 13- and 16-year-old girls being at a bar anyway?"

Your over-reliance on bashing Jezebel is a failed argument. Are you going to claim that BBC News is a radical publication that merely espouses the feminist party line? [http://www.bbc.com...]

And here's another article (published earlier than all the others) with another picture of her profile page. [http://www.vibe.com...] Obviously, enough news sites follow her Facebook page that this story got picked up quickly. Why else did she feel the need to issue a public apology? I doubt that would be necessary if her only Facebook friends were her actual real life friends.

Furthermore, at best, you're proving that her post can't be associated with the Congressman. You're not proving that the substance of her post had merit. I think commenting on the legs of a 13-year-old ought to be an off-limits topic. I doubt you'd be defending her if she said, "black people all suck." Racist comments aren't acceptable, even if made by a public official only in a private capacity. I don't think commenting on Sasha's legs should be considered acceptable either.


Bluesteel: Your argument is like saying that Sean Hannity is not accountable for anything he says because he's just talking and expressing his personal opinion.

The Fool: No it isn't. My argument is that a grown woman has a right to express her own opinion on her own personal Facebook page without getting harassment from Jezebel. It's not like it was hate speech. Nor does it have anything to do with sexualizing young girls, as you are selling.
Your headline reads, "Can we stop sexualizing young girls, plz?"

I'm sorry that you lack the intelligence to understand how her post sexualizes young girls. If you look at her apology, even she was able to comprehend that point. I've explained it to you in as clear terms as possible. Your continued insistence that she would have to be more explicit about her intentions is ridiculous. It's tantamount to saying that you can't be racist unless you explicitly state that you don't like black people.


But it's not a "we" thing, it's a "you" thing.

lol, yeah, sure, society doesn't sexualize minors. Ever.

http://i.ebayimg.com...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...

(Brooke Shields photo shoot post-Pretty Baby)


Not even Jezebel is going that far with it. Jezebel is already misleadingly exaggerating, and on top of that you are being misleading of the Jezebels article, thus leading to an overall double exaggeration of the facts.

Bluesteel: There just happen to be cameras rolling broadcasting his opinion to millions of people. Like Hannity, she has a lot of Facebook followers only because she is a media person.

The Fool: It's not the same, you don't have to ask permission to hear someone's opinion on national TV. Obama's children, are not reading this woman's Facebook. Jezebel is reading this to Obama's children. It Jezebel, who are publicly targeting this woman's credibility, for their own political views. It's not the first time.

I'm not Jezebel. Stop straw manning.

A lot of news networks cite Twitter and Facebook more than they do any actual investigative reporting of their own. Communications directors take that into account. The fact that her post was screenshotted by so many different news networks shows you the purpose of her Facebook profile. No one writes on their Facebook or Twitter, "This account was set up for the sole purpose of the news media picking up quotes from me." If they did that, they wouldn't seem "authentic" and wouldn't be quoted by news networks ever.


Against The Ideologist

MRA 1 FEM 0
<(89)

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 3:24:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 1:53:33 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
MRA 1 FEM 0
<(89)

This is pathetic that you see this as a "Men's Rights" issue. It's like in your mind, anything that you associate with feminism is automatically wrong and part of a struggle between MRA and feminism. It'd be like opposing everything the NAACP does merely because it's the NAACP. There's only one group that ever did that, and they wore white hoods and burned crosses on people's lawns.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 3:29:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 7:30:24 PM, bluesteel wrote:
The Communications Director for the representative from Tennessee's 8th District recently stated that Sasha and Malia were dressed too slutty for the National Turkey Day Pardon ceremony at the White House. [http://jezebel.com...] Each year, the President of the United States pardons two turkeys as a ceremonial gesture prior to Thanksgiving. Sasha wore a red dress that was approximately to her knees and Malia wore a sweater with a skirt and leggings. The Communications Director for the Congressman in question told the two young women that their attire was more suitable for a bar, not a national press conference.

They're still just kids. Um, can we not use our position as a national-level communications director to sexualize thirteen and sixteen year old girls? Who the fvck cares what they're wearing? A guy would never get this kind of heat for wearing a nice button down shirt with fancy jeans, i.e. "club attire." Also, can we show a little respect for the First Family? This event isn't exactly like announcing that Pearl Harbor has been attacked. It's not a serious press conference. Wtf is wrong with the media? Every single time a female in politics appears before a camera, her attire is picked apart. A prominent male news anchor recently wore the same suit for an entire year to prove a point: that his female co-anchors have made tabloid news for their attire, yet no one even *noticed* that he wore the same thing for a year. It's a ridiculous double standard. It's gross that a media director would invoke the imagine of an underaged Sasha and Malia trying to pick up guys with their supposedly slutty attire in a bar. And it's ridiculous that the President's daughters aren't off limits for bashing on. They're just kids; they didn't ask for any of this. The communication in question was clearly aimed at bashing President Obama by blaming him for being a bad "role model" for his daughters, which explains their allegedly horrid attire. Bash Obama all you want; he's President -- he can take it. But seriously, what is your problem? Leave his daughters alone. And particularly don't sexualize them by calling them out for their attire. They weren't even wearing anything particularly sexual. A cocktail dress and a skirt with leggings is not overtly sexual. They didn't come in dressed in bikinis.

If you tell young girls that they're bar sluts for dressing a certain way and tell young boys they can't cry, you're dangerously reinforcing problematic gender norms in the next generation. In my opinion, the esteemed representative from Tennessee's 8th owes the Obama family an apology.

===========================

Your wrong. Just because a girl is 16 doesn't mean she isn't attractive to men of all ages. This may be found by some people as disgusting, but it's true and totally natural.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 3:42:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A Blue Ideology
Part 3

(2) The Fool: no one said anything about sexualization

Bluesteel:: In saying a dress is inappropriate because it is only appropriate attire for a bar, what is she really saying?

The Fool: She didn't say the dress was inappropriate, or that it was only appropriate for a bar. You're creating this narrative. She s saying that Because of their high status social status they should be dressed classier.

She is a fashion critic after all.
"Elizabeth Lauten (some may know her as DC GOP Girl) " -Jezebel

That's her business Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com...

This is her personal Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com...

Bluesteel: [ She is really saying] That the dress is too slutty. Clothing only becomes "inappropriate" when we imbue it with special power because we perceive it as being too sexual. Is a bikini or nudity on a five-year-old too sexual?

Counterexample:
The Fool: Wearing jeans would be inappropriate for such an event, but appropriate for a bar, and not necessarily sexual. There are clubs and there are bars, a bar is not necessarily a club so your projection doesn't work.
QED

Against The Ideologist

MRA 2 FEM 0
<(89)

(To be continued)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 3:51:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A Blue Ideology
Part 4

On Sexualization

Bluesteel: We let really young girls run around the house naked, even with close friends or family around. Yet, at some age, we start to sexualize their extremely young bodies. At around age 5, for some reason, their nudity is no longer deemed appropriate by society because we sexualize them at such a young age.

The Fool: Who's "we"? Your language is misleading, we can just as well argue that we see them more sexually, as they get older. The age your choosing is arbitrary, as it is more of a continuum.

Counterargument:
We may also argue that a father, seizes to feel comfortable kissing his young boy on the lips as he gets older. But we wouldn't say that the boy is being victimized, in the impression you're giving by the way you're throwing around the term "sexualized", trivializing its meaning.
QED

Sexualization is a designed Feminist construct, made to give the perception that somebody's being victimized, as though in this case, it's something which is being done to the child, and not something passively recognized, or that one should feel ashamed, for perceiving that as though this very perception is itself immoral.

Bluesteel: Nudity or scant clothing is only inappropriate to the extent you think that others will sexualize the poor young girl when they see her.

The Fool: Again your words imply, a unilateral sense of active projection on the part of the observer, as opposed to a passive recognition. Secondly if the young girl is not suffering, then she is not a poor young girl.

Bluesteel: : For example, when I was five, I was playing on the playground at school with some girl. We were playing chase. I caught her by grabbing her shirt. Her shirt started stretching exposing part of her chest. She screamed at me, half joking (I assumed), "Stop staring at my boobs." It was ironic because of our young age that she would try to imbue the situation with some sort of sexual undertone.

The Fool: Simply warning a children, about sexual predators, will give somebody a child that perception, although a child may not understand the actual nature itself.

Bluesteel: Yet, for some reason, a 13-year-old Sasha's legs have become sufficiently sexual that a media personality feels the need to tell her to cover up.

The Fool: The media eh?
<(8D)

Look, despite feminist intentions, we cannot control what everybody is thinking, nor condemn what people think of passively. And that's just the way the world is. So, people are going to be sexually attracted to them, whether we like it or not. That doesn't mean they're going to act on it, or because they are bad people. It's just human nature, you can shame everybody about it but, as a conservative

Most parents generally want their children to not have sex until they are responsible enough, to handle safe sex, while puberty for girls occurs between 10 and 14. And so it's not extreme to think that, such activities including dressing sexually early can increase the probability premature promiscuous behavior.

Bluesteel: : I'm kind of tired of the "he or she never explicitly said that" argument.

The Fool: I'm tired of feminist, thinking they have claim over what one is thinking, over the person who has exclusive access to their own minds..

Bluesteel: Only fifteen percent of communication is verbal, meaning a lot of communication is based on *implications.* People on the Autism Spectrum have trouble communicating because they don't understand the implied parts of communication.

The Fool: Nonetheless, my thoughts are mine. And only I have exclusive access to my thoughts. And the same goes for each and every person. Any outside person is simply making an inductive inference which could be wrong. Nor do feminist have the right to claim one's subconscious states, since by what it means to be subconscious, they are not observed by any outside person, nor by the person who has them if they have them.

Many feminist constructs such as Internalized Misogyny presume the power to do so. But they are infallible, and thus scientifically invalid.. Doesn't matter what size social science says.

Bluesteel: No one is going to say, "Hey Facebook Followers, I just wanted to take a second to sexualize Malia and Sasha." It's asinine to argue that anything short of such an explicit statement is not sexualization.

Hitchens "That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

The Fool: It's absurd to think that this conservative woman wants to sexualize, Obama's daughters.
She's merely giving an unfair fashion critique, which is likely to be motivated from her dislike of the Obama administration. Nor does it sound like it was ever meant to be public.

Evidence:
"Then again your mother and father don"t respect their positions very much, or the nation for that matter, so I"m guessing you"re coming up a little short in the "good role model" department."-Elizabeth Lauten

The Fool: Yeah I'm really sure she wanted Obama see that.
<(8P)

Against The Ideologist

MRA 3 FEM 0
<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 4:44:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 3:42:38 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
A Blue Ideology
Part 3

(2) The Fool: no one said anything about sexualization

Bluesteel:: In saying a dress is inappropriate because it is only appropriate attire for a bar, what is she really saying?

The Fool: She didn't say the dress was inappropriate, or that it was only appropriate for a bar. You're creating this narrative. She s saying that Because of their high status social status they should be dressed classier.

She didn't mention social status. She's not a WASPy dressage coach. She was saying they were tramps whose attire belonged in a bar, not in the White House. I'm not the only one to interpret her words that way. The top Reddit comment says the same thing. [http://www.reddit.com...] (She "attacked the presidents daughters by calling them classless tramps ready to go to the bar"). Enough people agree with that interpretation to have voted that comment to the top of the page.


She is a fashion critic after all.
"Elizabeth Lauten (some may know her as DC GOP Girl) " -Jezebel

That's her business Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com...

This is her personal Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com...


Bluesteel: [ She is really saying] That the dress is too slutty. Clothing only becomes "inappropriate" when we imbue it with special power because we perceive it as being too sexual. Is a bikini or nudity on a five-year-old too sexual?

Counterexample:
The Fool: Wearing jeans would be inappropriate for such an event, but appropriate for a bar, and not necessarily sexual. There are clubs and there are bars, a bar is not necessarily a club so your projection doesn't work.

She didn't say that they should have worn more formal attire. She invoked the imagery of their trashy attire only being appropriate for a bar.

You're being asinine. If I had a female co-worker who wore jeans to a formal event, I'd tell her that she should have dressed more formally. If I told her that her outfit was only appropriate for a bar, she'd think I was saying that it was too slutty. Language is contextual. The example of the bar was chosen for a reason. You can keep upping your point counter, but you're making idiotic points that ignore the basic way that language functions.

I won't continue to respond to you after this because you seem incapable of agreeing with me on the basic premise of *how language works.* You can't have a rational discussion with someone if you don't agree on basic first principles, such as that language has subtext.

QED

Against The Ideologist

MRA 2 FEM 0
<(89)

(To be continued)

Your second post is just a very long straw man. I'm glad that I inspire you, but Stan, why are you so mad? I never claimed thought control over your mind. I never claimed that the woman in question can't say whatever she d@mn well pleases, but she deserves the backlash that she has gotten. My friend has the right to call me an @sshole for no reason, but I'm going to ask for an apology. I think you're missing the difference between thought control and debating what should be considered societally acceptable. People can be racist if they want to be, but expressing racist views is not societally acceptable.

I don't fault you for misunderstanding the basic precept that the right to free speech does not entail a right to be insulated from backlash from people who think your speech is unacceptable. The government can't censor what you say, but private citizens can censure you for what you say.

I hope this thread was educational to you. It certainly was to me. It's nice to be reminded every once in awhile how many stupid people there are out there.

/endthread
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 4:51:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A Blue Ideology
Part 4
: (1) The Fool: it's her own Facebook page

Bluesteel: : As a media director, the point of her Facebook page is to have the press pick up quotes from her.

The Fool: No it's not. You're just making that up on the spot. It doesn't even say that in the article. Jezebel has taken the clip from her personal Facebook page, where she has her personal information and photos, and one needs to ask for consent to see any information about her friends. There's nothing which indicates, that it is for business.

Bluesteel:: Apparently you don't understand how social media is used by media personalities....

The Fool: Apparently you don't understand evidence works. I went to the site already, and checked for myself. I forgot to give you the link into the next section. That's why I have said there's nothing which indicates that it is for business, especially since she has another one for business.

Bluesteel: If her message was set to private, how did Jezebel get it? Because she's friends with a bunch of contributors to news sites. Because she wants her Facebook posts to be read by media personalities.

The Fool: Notice how you constantly have to switch around what was said. I didn't it was absolutely private, but private enough that you had to be a friend, or friend of a friend to capture it. Either way, It doesn't follow that it was made for mainstream media. Especially when she has a Facebook website exclusively for mainstream media.

Bluesteel:: Jezebel isn't the only site with access to her Facebook page.

The Fool: No one says that they had exclusive access. But rather that it had to be accessed by somebody she accepted. I checked the site myself.

Bluesteel:: Here's another picture (from a mobile device) by another news source. [http://www.theroot.com...]
This source also questions why she's sexualizing two young girls: "I don"t know what"s worse here: treating teenagers who act like teenagers as though they"ve committed treason or implying that girls don"t deserve respect because of the length of their skirts. Way to uphold rape culture, Lauten. And why is she even discussing 13- and 16-year-old girls being at a bar anyway?"

The Fool: And that's an extreme exaggeration of her actual text. In addition this is just another extreme left a source, who are obviously concerned about the political position, that's what the real dispute is about. Sexualization is not inherent in the message that she actually gives. But is an opinion of the article writers who both happen to be extreme left online news sources.

Bluesteel:: Your over-reliance on bashing Jezebel is a failed argument.

The Fool: No it doesn't, it fits perfectly on both. It's called collusion. I just said that Jezebel is well-known for it. Not that it's the only one.

Bluesteel:: Are you going to claim that BBC News is a radical publication that merely espouses the feminist party line? [http://www.bbc.com...]

The Fool: No I will claim that "if you pay attention you would see that there is no feminist constructs or suggestion of sexualization in the BBC version." which is proof of this opinion bias In the latter article
<(8D)

Bluesteel:: And here's another article (published earlier than all the others) with another picture of her profile page. [http://www.vibe.com...] Obviously, enough news sites follow her Facebook page that this story got picked up quickly.

The Fool: Vibe is in that black readers, and is probably seeing the attack as a racial one. There's nothing remotely close about sexualization.

The differences in the opinions of the article writers reflects the feminist bias. The feminist interpretation was only in the first two, but missing in the latter two.

Bluesteel:: Furthermore, at best, you're proving that her post can't be associated with the Congressman.

The Fool: No I didn't say anything like that, in fact I agreed that it probably is related to politics more than it is really about the girls.

Bluesteel: You're not proving that the substance of her post had merit.

The Fool: I don't need to, I'm arguing that she has a right to her opinion, that wasn't meant to get out to the girls, that was overblown and is trying to be sold as some sort of hate speech, when it is not hate speech.

Bluesteel: I think commenting on the legs of a 13-year-old ought to be an off-limits topic.

The Fool: And you have the right to your opinion. Although, there's nothing in her message which refers to the legs of a 13-year-old. So stop this deceptive victimizing feminist rhetoric.

Bluesteel: I doubt you'd be defending her if she said, "black people all suck." Racist comments aren't acceptable, even if made by a public official only in a private capacity.

The Fool: NO because that would be hate speech.

Bluesteel: I don't think commenting on Sasha's legs should be considered acceptable either.

The Fool: This on the other hand is not hate speech.

Do you think she hates women or that she's a misogynist because of these comments? Probably not. But that's how The feminists media articles are trying to portray it..

Bluesteel: Your argument is like saying that Sean Hannity is not accountable for anything he says because he's just talking and expressing his personal opinion.

The Fool: No it isn't. My argument is that a grown woman has a right to express her own opinion on her own personal Facebook page without getting harassment from Jezebel. It's not like it was hate speech. Nor does it have anything to do with sexualizing young girls, as you are selling.

Your headline reads, "Can we stop sexualizing young girls, plz?"

Bluesteel: : I'm sorry that you lack the intelligence to understand how her post sexualizes young girls.

The Fool: I'm sorry that you lack of the conceptual apparatus to evaluate the clarity and applicability of Philosophical Constructs such as sexualization, and perhaps a general understanding of ethics and moral reasoning. The concept of sexualization is for the most part morally ambiguous.

Bluesteel: Why else did she feel the need to issue a public apology?

The Fool: Because of the pressure society is going to put on her either way.

Bluesteel: I doubt that would be necessary if her only Facebook friends were her actual real life friends.

The Fool: The guy in from shirtstorm who had a flamboyant shirt, while landing a spacecraft on a comet, broke down in tears and apologized, after being repeatedly bullied by feminists, but almost all rational people do not believe that he should have had to apologize at all.

Therefore your argument makes no sense.
QED

Against The Ideologist

Like the rest of your nonsense
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 5:00:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A Blue Ideology
Part 5

Getting Sadder
At 11/30/2014 3:24:40 AM, bluesteel wrote:

MRA 1 FEM 0
<(89)

Bluesteel: This is pathetic that you see this as a "Men's Rights" issue.

The Fool: NO I see it as a conflict between MRA and a feminist as we are here now, not necessarily as an MRA issue.

Bluesteel: It's like in your mind, anything that you associate with feminism is automatically wrong and part of a struggle between MRA and feminism.

The Fool: No, there is some overlap between feminism and MRA which are compatible. But most first principle presumptions in feminist theory are inherently misandrous. They presuppose the maliciousness of men.

Bluesteel: It'd be like opposing everything the NAACP does merely because it's the NAACP.

The Fool: It's like another failed argument. How many is that now?
<(89)

Bluesteel: There's only one group that ever did that, and they wore white hoods and burned crosses on people's lawns.

The Fool: No but feminist do that, when they say you're either a feminist or a bigot.

Against The Ideologist

MRA 4 FEM 0

Can you Dig it, bigot!
<(XD)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 5:40:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At Blue Ideology
Part 6


(2) The Fool: no one said anything about sexualization

Bluesteel:: In saying a dress is inappropriate because it is only appropriate attire for a bar, what is she really saying?

The Fool: She didn't say the dress was inappropriate, or that it was only appropriate for a bar. You're creating this narrative. She s saying that Because of their high status social status they should be dressed classier.

Bluesteel:: She didn't mention social status. She's not a WASPy dressage coach.

The Fool: You speak falsely, again.
Proof:
"I get your both in those awful teen years, but your part of the First Family, try showing a little class. At least respect the part you play"
QED

Bluesteel: She was saying they were tramps whose attire belonged in a bar, not in the White House. I'm not the only one to interpret her words that way. The top Reddit comment says the same thing.

[http://www.reddit.com...] (She "attacked the presidents daughters by calling them classless tramps ready to go to the bar"). Enough people agree with that interpretation to have voted that comment to the top of the page.

The Fool: What is this, mob justice? Then you're not the only one who is wrong.
<(8D)

Why don't you just quote the actual source? Why are you quoting people's opinions about the source, but not the exact source itself, when it's easier to do so.

She is a fashion critic after all.
"Elizabeth Lauten (some may know her as DC GOP Girl) " -Jezebel

That's her business Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com...

This is her personal Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com...


Bluesteel: [ She is really saying] That the dress is too slutty. Clothing only becomes "inappropriate" when we imbue it with special power because we perceive it as being too sexual. Is a bikini or nudity on a five-year-old too sexual?

Counterexample:
The Fool: Wearing jeans would be inappropriate for such an event, but appropriate for a bar, and not necessarily sexual. There are clubs and there are bars, a bar is not necessarily a club so your projection doesn't work.

Bluesteel:: She didn't say that they should have worn more formal attire.

The Fool: Nor did she say, anything about tramp or sluttiness, or sex. She said that they should dress more classy. Your personally creating the sexualization narrative, because you've committed to it already in your title. So you're forced to defend it even though you can't, even though no other article went as far as to say that exactly.

Bluesteel: She invoked the imagery of their trashy attire only being appropriate for a bar.

The Fool: This is completely subjective. It's not the imagery that I get.

Bluesteel:: You're being asinine. If I had a female co-worker who wore jeans to a formal event, I'd tell her that she should have dressed more formally. If I told her that her outfit was only appropriate for a bar, she'd think I was saying that it was too slutty.

The Fool: Who cares about your personal narrative? She didn't say that they were dressed inappropriate, but that they can do better. Your forced to create your own contexts because that interpretation will follow from the actual message given.

Bluesteel::Language is contextual

The Fool: And when you take the message out of the context of the article, you don't get sexual imagery at all. Clearly they're not wearing anything slutty, there wearing sweaters. I don't know where you got this other information about their legs from. Because it's not in the message. You created that for yourself as well. Because you're just like the other lying feminist.

Bluesteel: The example of the bar was chosen for a reason. You can keep upping your point counter, but you're making idiotic points that ignore the basic way that language functions.

The Fool: I probably know more about the philosophy of language did you ever will. So don't give me that bullsh-it.

Bluesteel: : I won't continue to respond to you after this because you seem incapable of agreeing with me on the basic premise of *how language works.*

The Fool: I'm surprised you answered this much, you usually run away long before this. You should've kept your losses earlier.

Bluesteel: You can't have a rational discussion with someone if you don't agree on basic first principles, such as that language has subtext.

The Fool: You can't have it rational discussion with somebody who cannot differentiate reality from their own projections on reality.

Against The Ideologist

MRA 5 FEM 0
<(89)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 6:21:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At Blue Ideology
Part 7

Poison cool-aid
The Fool: Nobody tells boys not to Cry. Not all gender norms, are dangerous. These are all hyperbolic versions of the truth. I think you've been drinking the poison Kool-Aid for way too long

Bluesteel: It's not very unique of you to call every argument related to gender norms "feminist poison."

The Fool: I don't. You just not being truthful. But I understand, you can't be truthful and argue for your position at the same time. It's not defendable without some sort of deception.

Some norms are disadvantageous for one sex, and some advantageous for the other sex. Norms are most disadvantageous for those who do not fits in the general norms. But they're not by necessity immoral, they just should not be forced onto anybody.. Nor am I a traditionalist.

Bluesteel: And it's hypocritical since you've been drinking the anti-feminist cool-aid.

The Fool: No it's not. Anti-feminist in what sense, I don't believe in the abolition of feminism, but rather a reform Feminism, and an equal MRA advocacy for men outside the framework of feminist theory. There is no MRA counter ideology to feminist theory.

Feminist theories such as Patriarchy theory are inherently Misandrous, as they presuppose that men throughout history or if left alone without feminist socialization(thought control) are naturally malicious and selfish. Therefore Feminism as is, could never be an equality movement for both genders.

Bluesteel: You feel that it is so important to paint me as a misandrist that you're willing to straw man my argument about Obama to do so.

The Fool: Again you speak falsely. Stop trying to tell me what I feel, and demonstrate conclusions from what I say logically. Not subjectively.

Recall: I said "Just like, it's okay to hurt men/boys because they can take it but leave the women/girls alone. I know that's not exactly what you mean here, but it's inherent in the notion of violence against women."

Why is that? because if violence against women is prioritized then it suggests that violence against men, and thus men suffering is generally less important.

That's not a strawman. That's misandry. And it's inherent in feminist thinking.

Against The Ideologist

And the beat goes on.
<(89)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 6:53:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Am I the only person who thinks that bars are not the equivalent of a brothel or some gigantic sex house with massive orgies going on 24/7? Am I the only person that actually realizes that some people do go to bars just to hang out with friends, meet new people, or just have some casual time to themselves and that a bar can reference something other than just sex, sex, and more SEX?

I think it's very possible for someone to use the image of a bar to evoke the feeling of something incredibly casual, comfortable, and very informal rather than some giant pile of naked bodies writhing and squirming around each other (maybe you're thinking that everyone lives in a porno or something? I don't know). I also think that it's telling that this obviously family-oriented and religious WOMAN talks about the "hours of prayer" and "talking to her parents" that led to her apology, which also leads me to believe that she wasn't watching the president's speech and getting all aroused with her secret dirty sexual thoughts about teenage girls that she decided to post publicly so that she could turn them into sexual objects of desire in some massive bar-orgy going on behind the scenes and that must have been arranged by the presidential staff without our knowledge (maybe she was, but I wouldn't automatically jump to that assumption myself).

I also think it's important to mention that feminists do not actually have some magical mind-reading insight into everyone's thoughts and intentions. It is impossible to know until she actually tells us herself if this woman actually had intended some type of sexual imagery or simply meant to imply something very casual and inappropriate for standing aside the president working in an official capacity at an event that would be televised. Words can have many meanings that are based on each individual's personal life experiences and it is ridiculous to assume that they could mean one thing and only that one thing. I personally would not have gotten anything sexual out of either of this woman's statements either way, but maybe that's just me. But i think there is a social dynamic here that might be ignored by some people who want to make everything into some form of rape or victimizing and want to see evil sexual predators everywhere, in everything, and in everyone (you can find anything if that's what you're looking to find). There are many people who have personal beliefs that place a fair amount of value in modesty of dress and demeanor. They ESPECIALLY tend to value these things in certain situations that are considered formal as is the tradition in our society. Toddlers can rarely be held accountable for their behavior and therefor cannot be held to the same expectations, but at the age of about 5 or so children start becoming more aware of themselves and others which prepares them to accept teaching of what some see as appropriate social behaviors. Many responsible parents believe that this is the age to start preparing them for their eventual development into adults and build lifelong habits. When parents tell their five year old children not to take their pants off and then run around the restaurant screaming while taking food off of stranger's plates, it would be absolutely ludicrous (not to mention disgusting, extremely upsetting, and weirdly accusatory in the worst possible way imaginable) to assume that it's because the parents get all hot and bothered at seeing their own children's naked genitalia. Parents don't do it because they think of their children as sexual. Holy hell, what kind of disgusting parent does? They do it because they are trying to teach children consideration and awareness for others and because they want to prepare them for a successful life as an adult, not to mention that they want to be considerate of others who might have to interact with their children. Whether or not we personally agree with the value some people hold in modest and traditionally appropriate dress in formal situations, I cannot buy into the idea that all parents who teach their children these things are thinking of them in sexual ways or as sexual objects. In the name of all that is decent, what would lead someone to make this assumption? Also, what kind of an idiot parent only waits until their child is 18 (the age of legal sexual consent in my country) to finally teach their children about their values and ideas on what they find appropriate (even if it's in regards to things that might be seen as sexual in an adult even though no such thing is perceived in very young children by the VAST majority of people)? Who in the hell actually does that? The very idea of all of this is incredibly upsetting to me. The assumptions made are so disgusting and horrible that it literally turns everyone everywhere into child predators and every parental action into something predatory. I just don't.....just......WHY?! The idea of rape culture is retarded enough as it is, but must we extend it to children and turn every parent into sexual predators?! Is there someone here that actually thinks of children in sexual ways when they tell five year olds to keep their clothes on in public or tells their teenagers to dress appropriately for extremely formal occasions (that is, whatever you happen to consider "appropriate")? Am I the only person who actually finds this incredibly strange and insulting to parents everywhere?
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 7:40:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 3:24:40 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/30/2014 1:53:33 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
MRA 1 FEM 0
<(89)

This is pathetic that you see this as a "Men's Rights" issue. It's like in your mind, anything that you associate with feminism is automatically wrong and part of a struggle between MRA and feminism. It'd be like opposing everything the NAACP does merely because it's the NAACP.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 7:44:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 7:30:24 PM, bluesteel wrote:
The Communications Director for the representative from Tennessee's 8th District recently stated that Sasha and Malia were dressed too slutty for the National Turkey Day Pardon ceremony at the White House. [http://jezebel.com...] Each year, the President of the United States pardons two turkeys as a ceremonial gesture prior to Thanksgiving. Sasha wore a red dress that was approximately to her knees and Malia wore a sweater with a skirt and leggings. The Communications Director for the Congressman in question told the two young women that their attire was more suitable for a bar, not a national press conference.

They're still just kids. Um, can we not use our position as a national-level communications director to sexualize thirteen and sixteen year old girls? Who the fvck cares what they're wearing? A guy would never get this kind of heat for wearing a nice button down shirt with fancy jeans, i.e. "club attire." Also, can we show a little respect for the First Family? This event isn't exactly like announcing that Pearl Harbor has been attacked. It's not a serious press conference. Wtf is wrong with the media? Every single time a female in politics appears before a camera, her attire is picked apart. A prominent male news anchor recently wore the same suit for an entire year to prove a point: that his female co-anchors have made tabloid news for their attire, yet no one even *noticed* that he wore the same thing for a year. It's a ridiculous double standard. It's gross that a media director would invoke the imagine of an underaged Sasha and Malia trying to pick up guys with their supposedly slutty attire in a bar. And it's ridiculous that the President's daughters aren't off limits for bashing on. They're just kids; they didn't ask for any of this. The communication in question was clearly aimed at bashing President Obama by blaming him for being a bad "role model" for his daughters, which explains their allegedly horrid attire. Bash Obama all you want; he's President -- he can take it. But seriously, what is your problem? Leave his daughters alone. And particularly don't sexualize them by calling them out for their attire. They weren't even wearing anything particularly sexual. A cocktail dress and a skirt with leggings is not overtly sexual. They didn't come in dressed in bikinis.

If you tell young girls that they're bar sluts for dressing a certain way and tell young boys they can't cry, you're dangerously reinforcing problematic gender norms in the next generation. In my opinion, the esteemed representative from Tennessee's 8th owes the Obama family an apology.

Well said. +1
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 9:48:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Wait. No. Lol. Everyone's lining up on the wrong sides here.

Because the OP is a shocking display of objectifying women, ironically. The original facebook post said that the girls dressed as if they deserved a "spot at the bar". Since when has a spot at the bar meant ANYTHING about being sexually available or promiscuous? Since when does going to a bar make you "slutty"? The OP created all this sexual innuendo on his own.

So the feminist haters should be lining up to defend his right to free interpretation, or whatever, and kbub should be decrying the sexism (would saying a teenage boy was dressed to sit at a bar imply that he was slutty?). And anyway. I was at a bar yesterday, with some girlfriends, and we were there to drink beer. We felt like it. Dear god.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:10:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 7:44:00 AM, kbub wrote:
At 11/29/2014 7:30:24 PM, bluesteel wrote:
The Communications Director for the representative from Tennessee's 8th District recently stated that Sasha and Malia were dressed too slutty for the National Turkey Day Pardon ceremony at the White House. [http://jezebel.com...] Each year, the President of the United States pardons two turkeys as a ceremonial gesture prior to Thanksgiving. Sasha wore a red dress that was approximately to her knees and Malia wore a sweater with a skirt and leggings. The Communications Director for the Congressman in question told the two young women that their attire was more suitable for a bar, not a national press conference.

They're still just kids. Um, can we not use our position as a national-level communications director to sexualize thirteen and sixteen year old girls? Who the fvck cares what they're wearing? A guy would never get this kind of heat for wearing a nice button down shirt with fancy jeans, i.e. "club attire." Also, can we show a little respect for the First Family? This event isn't exactly like announcing that Pearl Harbor has been attacked. It's not a serious press conference. Wtf is wrong with the media? Every single time a female in politics appears before a camera, her attire is picked apart. A prominent male news anchor recently wore the same suit for an entire year to prove a point: that his female co-anchors have made tabloid news for their attire, yet no one even *noticed* that he wore the same thing for a year. It's a ridiculous double standard. It's gross that a media director would invoke the imagine of an underaged Sasha and Malia trying to pick up guys with their supposedly slutty attire in a bar. And it's ridiculous that the President's daughters aren't off limits for bashing on. They're just kids; they didn't ask for any of this. The communication in question was clearly aimed at bashing President Obama by blaming him for being a bad "role model" for his daughters, which explains their allegedly horrid attire. Bash Obama all you want; he's President -- he can take it. But seriously, what is your problem? Leave his daughters alone. And particularly don't sexualize them by calling them out for their attire. They weren't even wearing anything particularly sexual. A cocktail dress and a skirt with leggings is not overtly sexual. They didn't come in dressed in bikinis.

If you tell young girls that they're bar sluts for dressing a certain way and tell young boys they can't cry, you're dangerously reinforcing problematic gender norms in the next generation. In my opinion, the esteemed representative from Tennessee's 8th owes the Obama family an apology.

kbub: Well said. +1

The Fool: She could've said "a ding dang dong" and you would have agreed..
<(XD)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:31:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 9:48:01 AM, GarbChat it go to a baranza wrote:

Garbanza:: Wait. No. Lol. Everyone's lining up on the wrong sides here. Because the OP is a shocking display of objectifying women, ironically.

The Fool: Can you give an example of who and how somebody has been used as merely an object?

Garbanza: The original facebook post said that the girls dressed as if they deserved a "spot at the bar".

The Fool: The original Personal Facebook post said "Dress like you deserve respect, not a spot at the bar"

Garbanza:: Since when has a spot at the bar meant ANYTHING about being sexually available or promiscuous?

The Fool: There are bars and there are clubs. You can go to the bar watch a hockey game, Play pool, have a pint and/or Chat.

You go to a club dance, and drink..

Garbanza: Since when does going to a bar make you "slutty"?

The Fool: Exactly since when?

Garbanza: The OP created all this sexual innuendo on his own.

The Fool: What sexual imagery do these comments inspire in you?

Garbanza:: So the feminist haters should be lining up to defend his right to free interpretation, or whatever, and kbub should be decrying the sexism (would saying a teenage boy was dressed to sit at a bar imply that he was slutty?).

The Fool: Okay bub.
<(89)

Garbanza: And anyway. I was at a bar yesterday, with some girlfriends, and we were there to drink beer. We felt like it. Dear god.

Why do you feel like a slut. If you're not a slut. Are you a slut?
<(8D)

Against The Ideologist

I love sluts.
<(XD)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:54:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:31:31 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Garbanza: And anyway. I was at a bar yesterday, with some girlfriends, and we were there to drink beer. We felt like it. Dear god.

Why do you feel like a slut. If you're not a slut. Are you a slut?
<(8D)

Well, I did go to a bar. ;)
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 12:03:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:54:07 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:31:31 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Garbanza: And anyway. I was at a bar yesterday, with some girlfriends, and we were there to drink beer. We felt like it. Dear god.

Why do you feel like a slut. If you're not a slut. Are you a slut?
<(8D)

Well, I did go to a bar. ;)

Hehe
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 4:31:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 12:03:43 PM, kbub wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:54:07 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:31:31 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Garbanza: And anyway. I was at a bar yesterday, with some girlfriends, and we were there to drink beer. We felt like it. Dear god.

Why do you feel like a slut. If you're not a slut. Are you a slut?
<(8D)

Well, I did go to a bar. ;)

kbub : Hehe

The Fool: So you agree that if a woman is a in a bar she is necessary a slut?
<(89)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 5:19:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A Blue Ideology
The Series
Part 1
http://www.debate.org...
Part 2
http://www.debate.org...
Part 3
http://www.debate.org...
Part 4 a (Unanswered)
http://www.debate.org...
part 4 b(Unanswered)
http://www.debate.org...
Part 5 (Unanswered)
http://www.debate.org...
Part 6 (unanswered)
http://www.debate.org...
Part 7 (Unanswered)
http://www.debate.org...

Excuse my bad spelling and grammar.
<(89)

Must be because I'm stupid.
<(8P)

Against The Ideologist

Perhaps anything associated with Feminism is wrong.
<(XD)

Perhaps.....
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 6:13:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 7:40:38 AM, kbub wrote:
At 11/30/2014 3:24:40 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/30/2014 1:53:33 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
MRA 1 FEM 0
<(89)

This is pathetic that you see this as a "Men's Rights" issue. It's like in your mind, anything that you associate with feminism is automatically wrong and part of a struggle between MRA and feminism. It'd be like opposing everything the NAACP does merely because it's the NAACP.

It's ironic that there's more arguments being made that are similar to arguments racists make, such as "you're the one sexualizing them bluesteel; no one said bar clothing is sexual; you brought it up." Oh so similar to: "why are you bringing up race, mr. black person; no one said anything about race; you're the one thinking about race, instead of being color-blind, so you're the racist."
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 6:38:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I bet the message she originally intended would have been clearer if she had used 'cafe' or 'amusement park' instead of 'bar'.
That's just a guess.
I'd eat my hat if you could prove otherwise.
c(X^>)
Senpai has noticed you.
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 6:42:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This issue would also be a lot simpler if she were to just call them sluts.
c(8^>)>
Senpai has noticed you.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 6:42:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I happen to be in agreement with your opening comment. I must diverge from your opinion on whether or not pre-adolescent girls are sexualized in the context you spoke of. It is more of a cultural sense of shame rather than pure sexualization; and, should there be differing opinions on this, it makes little difference. It would be, in many situations, inappropriate for young girls to walk around very exposed, and it is because we find there to be an association between behaviors, traits, and more, that we find wrong or inappropriate simply because the association exists, not because it, at its own, has any meaning attached to it.