"Subordination of women perpetuates the very conditions of repression and violence liberals abhor."

[omega minimo]

"It's time to admit that the subordination of women perpetuates the very conditions of repression and violence liberals abhor."

Latin: liber
Meaning: free
English words: liberate, liberal, liberty


The multi-disciplinary Liberal Arts major fell out of fashion about the time International Business majors exploded, about the time Big Brother Limbaugh was gearing up his phony talk show program to demonize "Liberals" and dumb down the national IQ. Even some liberals may not realize how thoroughly the Dittohead mentality (and spitefulness) has permeated the culture... (culture being something that Liberal Arts majors used to study).

Even some liberals may not realize that they ARE liberals, just as many young women don't associate their own egalitarian attitudes with "feminism" -- another word misappropriated by Limbaugh, catapulting the toxic bullshit.

Words used to mean something, way back when (another word derived from Latin "liber": library, a place where books are stored and read). These days, words are often weighted not with meaning, but with their power as blunt force objects. Generic media, political propaganda and professional hatemongers create an atmosphere of confusion, relieved by disembodied "discussions" via computer screens, where limited reading skills and intentional troublemakers add more turds to the punchbowl of disinformation, frustration and disconnection.

"Liberal" used to be associated with informed, open-minded, tolerant behavior. The liberal arts were multi-disciplinary, encompassing different points of view, the perpetuation of culture and development of "lifelong learners," as they were called.

It's much simpler to be a Dittohead, to be told what to think in black & white, to be told how to think about what you're told to think about, to be told what others -- "LIBERALS!!!!!!!" -- think, as if that IS what they think......... It's easier, it's addictive, it's a quick release for all the pent up rage and confusion to just say MEGADITTOES. It's so easy to be led, to be told what to do.

It takes a bit more energy to consider and think clearly for oneself. If we are liberals, we might honor each other and our common cause by taking a moment to read -- or even reread if necessary -- and think and show some respect to each other before flying off on wild and violent tangents triggered by mistaken assumptions that a single reference is an indictment of of ALL "_______," ALL the time, forEVER and EVER, aMEN. That would be fundamentalist thinking, not liberal at all.

To use authoritarian bully behavior against each other is to TRULY insult "liberals."


Authoritariamism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1926760

Media Manipulation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=7894&mesg_id=7894

Liberal Denial
http://www.alternet.org/story/63349

"What we're dealing with are old patterns. The fact is that the view that women are put on earth to service men is our inheritance from times when the "natural order" was the ranking of man over woman, man over man, race over race, religion over religion, and nation over nation."
<snip>
"It's high time to stand up against images sexualizing the degradation, humiliation, domination, torture, and even killing of women. It's time to ask why liberals who would run to court to ban images degrading members of a different race still think degrading members of a different sex is OK. It's time to admit that the subordination of women perpetuates the very conditions of repression and violence liberals abhor."

.....................................................................

It's time to read past the first sentence or the first word that sends “you” into a blind rage that “you” "can't read past."

It's time to admit that we have a right -- the LIBERty -- to discuss issues of our choice, without asking permission for what male authority considers "productive" or "legitimate." To prevent us from doing so is to deny us that liberty, it is to CENSOR us, to subordinate and try to repress US ... in an abusive, misguided, supposed defense of "liberals."

So please, take a breath and read carefully -- even reread if necessary:

"It's time to admit that the subordination of women perpetuates the very conditions of repression and violence liberals abhor."



Here's to the liberal arts, here's to liberals. Here's to reading deLIBERately to understand the meaning instead of automatically assuming something means what we already think (that's Dittoheadness). Here's to liberally giving each other the benefit of the doubt, allowing discussion to flourish rather than censoring it. Might even learn sumthin.

Here's to including women in the discussion, the party and the process, instead of driving women away.

Women's issues are the key to unlocking the straitjacket of authoritarianism that is destroying us.

Maybe that's why the issues seem, to some, to be so volatile. In order to use that key, we can't run away from the discussions about the issues or from women’s liberty to have those discussions.

Or it will be Megadittoes, ALL the time, forEVER and EVER, aMEN.





edit: corrected link

[musette_sf]

1. K&R

and one more time:

It's time to admit that the subordination of women perpetuates the very conditions of repression and violence liberals abhor.

[omega minimo]

2. here's to the future

:toast:

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Liberal arts graduate checking in.

I studied three foreign languages, European civilization, literature, theatre history, art history, music history, music theory, composition, wrote an 80-page thesis, and performed a music recital. The one thing I remember from graduation was the promise that all of us could do ANYTHING we wanted as we had been taught how to learn and how to think. (BTW, I attended an independent all women's college.)

[omega minimo]

4. lost arts

it seems we live in a much more limited, specialized, compartmentalized world now....


love your story. taking art and music out of schools was the biggest mistake.

"The one thing I remember from graduation was the promise that all of us could do ANYTHING we wanted as we had been taught how to learn and how to think."

and THAT was the lesson. :thumbsup: that sort of well roundedness may also prevent people from being threatened by new/unfamiliar ideas.

[noamnety]

7. I was at a liberal arts college as well

and one of the big lessons there - as well as learning how to think, as you aptly put it, was how interconnected everything was. That's an issue I am constantly running up against here, that people want to compartmentalize everything, as if you can solve each issue individually without grasping the big picture. So we get mad if immigration rights are brought up at an anti-war rally, but oppression of immigrants stems from the same exact issues as the war - othering, racism, supremacy, nationalism, greed, class. And the oppression of women is tied directly to homophobia, which is tied to male supremacy. And all those supremacy issues, and the way they manifest themselves, are mixed in with the posturing that goes hand in hand with warfare.

[Recursion]

5. Actually "library" has a different etymology

It comes from libra meaning bark of a tree. It's also unrelated to libra meaning "scale" or "balance".

Facio liberos ex liberis libris libraque...

Really good post though; I just felt the need to finally put those years of Latin to use...

[omega minimo]

6. thank you

my google showed the bark reference and a difference b/w liberal/library but the site showed "liber" as the root for both, something about long and short I's... confusing so I didn't link as if it was the last word.

Thanks :toast:

[pingzing58]

10. Done in freedom from this freedom freedom is balanced. It seems to me.

[Recursion]

13. Close; it's a pun

"I make free people from children (or slaves) by means of books and a balance."

It's the motto of the (liberal arts) college I went to.

[omega minimo]

25. and the current Emperor has niether

books or balance ;)

[hfojvt]

8. "you've gotta serve somebody"

In the Peanuts comic strip, Lucy proclaimed the philosophy/theology that our purpose on earth is 'to help others'. Then Linus asked 'what are the others here for?'

"The fact is that the view that women are put on earth to service men is our inheritance from times when the "natural order" was the ranking of man over woman, man over man, race over race, religion over religion, and nation over nation."

I do not think that view has held sway in my lifetime. Instead, the view has been 'women are put on earth to service children'. In Kate Chopin's "The Awakening" it is the burden of her children that the 'heroine?' is rebelling against. In the real world, Charlotte Perkins Gilman and other feminists were attacked as being 'unnatural mothers'. The working woman is not abandoning her husband as much as she is abandoning her children. In the tradition kid-centered hierarchy, it is the children who are catered to. The mother is the primary care giver, but she is still more important than the father, who is at the bottom only valued for his monetary contribution. The money he works for is not for him, it is for the family.

However, as prosperity had increased in the 1940s, under consumerist culture, the ad-men started selling the notion of 'having it all'. Have your nice car, fancy house, vacations, big screen TV, gadgets and hobbies and also save money for college and retirement. Also, against the traditional values are competing value systems, among them feminism and playboy and also socialism.

Capitalism is conflicted. One the one hand it says 'you can have it all', but on the other hand it says 'you have to work your a$$ off for it (or be very lucky or talented)'. It also ignores its own class system and pretends it is a meritocracy. In one sense, however, the 'subordination of women' is their lack of status in this system.

Yet to me, it is a screwed up system, and not because of discrimination, although I might consider that a symptom. It seems to me that there is no freedom. Feminism throws off the traditional values to enter the capitalist system, to become a female playboy, to try to 'have it all'. She is no longer subordinate to her children or her family, but now she is subordinate to her employer and to whatever fashion society or the ad-people create. I do not think there is freedom from subordination in a capitalist society. Ultimately, only rich people can 'have it all' and they have it at the expense of poor people.

[pingzing58]

9. Excellent philosophy! Thanks for the post hfojvt.

[omega minimo]

26. i love that

we can talk about these things b/c the differences are there, the POVs are definitely different.

"The fact is that the view that women are put on earth to service men is our inheritance from times when the "natural order" was the ranking of man over woman, man over man, race over race, religion over religion, and nation over nation."

"I do not think that view has held sway in my lifetime."

The attitude is still there and it is institutionalized. I hear what you're saying about kids -- altho a friend pointed out that many women feel they have to choose a main allegiance to the husband or the kids. And you know some men expect women to be deferential to them -- or it's so ingrained they don't even realize they expect it ("Male Privilege").

I really don't see "The mother is the primary care giver, but she is still more important than the father, who is at the bottom only valued for his monetary contribution."

What about relationships? This sounds bloodless.

I look at the quote and get more a point of the relationship b/w all those levels of domination, also institutionalized....


"Feminism throws off the traditional values to enter the capitalist system, to become a female playboy, to try to 'have it all'. She is no longer subordinate to her children or her family, but now she is subordinate to her employer and to whatever fashion society or the ad-people create. I do not think there is freedom from subordination in a capitalist society. Ultimately, only rich people can 'have it all' and they have it at the expense of poor people."

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." Each person decides how to deal with the larger economic forces you are focusing on. There's a lot to think about in your post. Glad yer here hfojvt :spray:

[Riktor]

11. Critical Errors in Reasoning

It's time to ask why liberals who would run to court to ban images degrading members of a different race still think degrading members of a different sex is OK.

Begging the question. Is gender inequality being ignored and racial inequality being addressed? No, I think not.

It's high time to stand up against images sexualizing the degradation, humiliation, domination, torture, and even killing of women.

Observational selection. There's no shortage of media depicting the sexualization, degradation, humiliation, domination, and torture of men. Male celebrities are sexualized, just like female celebrities, and any Hollywood splatterfest or violent video game contains more instances of violence and domination over men than women. This doesn't justify the treatment of women by the media, but if one is going to argue from a truly liberal perspective, one must admit that both sexes deserve equal treatment. That was, after all, the premise of the aforementioned fallacy.

Now, for the whole thing in context:

It's high time to stand up against images sexualizing the degradation, humiliation, domination, torture, and even killing of women. It's time to ask why liberals who would run to court to ban images degrading members of a different race still think degrading members of a different sex is OK. It's time to admit that the subordination of women perpetuates the very conditions of repression and violence liberals abhor.

Again, observational selection. It is true a liberal would oppose repression and violence, but a liberal would likewise oppose censorship. As Voltaire wrote, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

[Triana]

12. Statistics, please?

"There's no shortage of media depicting the sexualization, degradation, humiliation, domination, and torture of men. Male celebrities are sexualized, just like female celebrities, and any Hollywood splatterfest or violent video game contains more instances of violence and domination over men than women."

[Riktor]

20. No, I think not

I don't have any, and made a statement entirely from personal experience. That is, of course, the personal experience of a guy with who owns over 200 movies and well over a hundred video games. So, unless you have any statistical data that refutes my claim (perhaps you have access to a database I do not), then you're simply appealing to ignorance, which doesn't prove or disprove anything.

[Scout]

22. right back at ya' dude

"unless you have any statistical data that refutes my claim (perhaps you have access to a database I do not), then you're simply appealing to ignorance,"

your anecdote/opinion is not data, either :eyes:

[Riktor]

23. Which I readily admitted (nt)

[Triana]

24. Exactly. Riktor wants to challenge the OP, fine, but the onus is on him then...

....to provide the statistical data (the facts) that refute what is in the OP, IMO.

It's not untrue just because someone disagrees. Where's the data?

[Riktor]

28. The intial claim in the OP was not backed up by any statistical data...

... hence, the burden of proof is on the author of the OP. As I stated quite clearly in my refutation, the OP is beleaguered by claims that beg the question, and I tossed up my refutation to illustrate that. Now, there's no study I'm aware of that tallies up the ratio of male to female on-screen deaths and acts of humiliation. While that doesn't support my argument, it doesn't support the OP either, which makes it a moot point. It is all speculation until until somebody with more time than you or I sits down and watches every movie and plays every video game ever created until there's an accurate body count, which isn't likely to happen any time soon.

Look, even if such a study existed, the argument still wouldn't hold up. All longitudinal studies on the correlation between violent media and aggressive behavior haven't produced positive results. That, I do have data for. If you have access to a psychology database, feel free to investigate:

Ferguson, C. J. "Evidence for Publication Bias in Video Game Violence Effects Literature: A Meta-analytic Review," Aggression and Violent Behavior, February, 2007. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2007.01.001

Williams, D. & Skoric, M. "Internet Fantasy Violence: A Test of Aggression in an Online Games." 2005.

Olson, C. "Media Violence Research and Youth Violence Data: Why Do They Conflict?" Academic Psychiatry, 28:2. 2004.

Bensley, L. & Van Eeenwyk, J. "Video Games and Real-Life Aggression: Review of the Literature." Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Health. 2002.

Vastag, B. "Does Video Game Violence Sow Aggression?" Journal of the American Medical Association. 2004.

Sternheimer, K. "It's Not the Media: The Truth About Pop Culture's Influence on Children." 2003.



So, there you have it. The media's influence over the behavior of its audience has yet to be determined, but actually seems to be quite minimal. Furthermore, the OP calls for an end to images depicting the sexualization, humiliation, degradation, torture, and murder of women on the grounds these images influence the attitudes and behaviors of those who view them, ultimately resulting in the perpetual status of women as second-class citizens. While the exact ratio is clearly unknown, there is no way one can refute the claim that there's no shortage of media portraying the same acts against men. That, too, begs the question: why would these negative images effect the social status of women in a negative manner, while not producing similar results with men?

With that said, there is something else that needs to be addressed.

This isn't directed at you, specifically, but I don't understand why I have became the target of hostility merely for disagreeing with the premises of a post. Simply because I believe the OP uses logically flawed premises to arrive at an equally flawed conclusion does not in any way imply that I am opposed to equal rights. I merely think that if we are to make any progress at all, we need a logical, iron-clad, irrefutable case. For me, this one just fails to deliver. Is there a reason why we can't discuss this in a civil tone, or is that too much to ask?

[Katherine Brengle]

15. Exactly - fighting against the oppression of women is "censorship" while

fighting against the oppression of other oppressed classes is righteous.

It's bullshit but I'm pretty sure you already know that.

[Riktor]

21. What the fuck are you talking about?

What is it with you and the Straw Men?

I support the equality of all social classes, but I vehemently oppose limitations to free speech. I made that perfectly clear in my post.

[Katherine Brengle]

30. ?

I think my point was pretty clear, and not made of straw.

It's high time to stand up against images sexualizing the degradation, humiliation, domination, torture, and even killing of women. It's time to ask why liberals who would run to court to ban images degrading members of a different race still think degrading members of a different sex is OK. It's time to admit that the subordination of women perpetuates the very conditions of repression and violence liberals abhor.

Again, observational selection. It is true a liberal would oppose repression and violence, but a liberal would likewise oppose censorship. As Voltaire wrote, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Because a true liberal would oppose censorship, a true liberal must therefore accept the oppression of woman and it's display in pornography.

I disagree.

Not that complicated.

I will not defend anyone's right to degrade other human beings.

[Riktor]

31. No, not quite

These are your words:

Exactly - fighting against the oppression of women is "censorship" while

fighting against the oppression of other oppressed classes is righteous.

You created a false scenario in which I support censoring racist media while oppose censoring sexist media, then you attacked it. Thus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_Man">Straw Man.

I will not defend anyone's right to degrade other human beings.

So, you'd support a constitutional amendment which would require everybody in the United States to be nice to one another? Countdown, the The Daily Show, and the Top Ten Conservative Idiots would certainly be far less interesting if that were the case. Although, I would be excited to see what basic training becomes.

If some neo-nazi stooge wants write a book, or some homophobic windbag wants to sing some songs, they are well within their constitutional rights to do so. You, however, are under no obligation to support what they do. If their views are unpopular, they will likewise be unprofitable, which means no major media outlet will hawk their product, and no retailer of sane mind would carry it. That's why Bill Hicks remains a virtually anonymous figure in this country.

[omega minimo]

27. Is the "observational selection" of others subordinate to your own?

:think: :evilgrin:


"Begging the question. Is gender inequality being ignored and racial inequality being addressed?"

Begging another question or continuation of yours:

"Is gender inequality being ignored (by the courts) and racial inequality being addressed (by the courts)?" That's what she's talking about.

+

"It's high time to stand up against images sexualizing the degradation, humiliation, domination, torture, and even killing of women."

"Observational selection. There's no shortage of media depicting the sexualization, degradation, humiliation, domination, and torture of men."

When the CSI:___ TV franchise shows men brutalized in the way women are every episode, then your comment won't look like comparing apples and oranges.
"
+

"This doesn't justify the treatment of women by the media, but if one is going to argue from a truly liberal perspective, one must admit that both sexes deserve equal treatment. That was, after all, the premise of the aforementioned fallacy."

No, it wasn't. That's ridiculous. (Maybe you already knew that).

+

"It's high time to stand up against images sexualizing the degradation, humiliation, domination, torture, and even killing of women. It's time to ask why liberals who would run to court to ban images degrading members of a different race still think degrading members of a different sex is OK. It's time to admit that the subordination of women perpetuates the very conditions of repression and violence liberals abhor."

"Again, observational selection. It is true a liberal would oppose repression and violence, but a liberal would likewise oppose censorship."



Are the only choices "repression and violence" or "censorship"?

[Riktor]

29. Rebuttal

"Begging the question. Is gender inequality being ignored and racial inequality being addressed?"

Begging another question or continuation of yours:

"Is gender inequality being ignored (by the courts) and racial inequality being addressed (by the courts)?" That's what she's talking about.

Precisely, and such a statement begs the question as to whether or not racial equality is truly being addressed at all by the judicial system. Seeing as that "95 percent of of the holders of corporations at the level of vice president and above are white men" while "only five percent of those who run major corporations and other major organizations are women- mostly white white women- or men of color" (Feagin 2000), it is relatively safe to say the courts are certainly not addressing any major issues of racial or gender discrimination whatsoever.

"It's high time to stand up against images sexualizing the degradation, humiliation, domination, torture, and even killing of women."

"Observational selection. There's no shortage of media depicting the sexualization, degradation, humiliation, domination, and torture of men."

When the CSI:___ TV franchise shows men brutalized in the way women are every episode, then your comment won't look like comparing apples and oranges.

As I don't watch CSI, why don't you take a crack at explaining how media depicting acts of violence against women is any more influential over the behavior and attitudes of society than media depicting similar acts of violence against men?

"This doesn't justify the treatment of women by the media, but if one is going to argue from a truly liberal perspective, one must admit that both sexes deserve equal treatment. That was, after all, the premise of the aforementioned fallacy."

No, it wasn't. That's ridiculous. (Maybe you already knew that).

Yes, it was. The author made an unsubstantiated blanketed claim that racial issues are being addressed to the neglect of gender issues, thus suggesting that both should be given equal consideration because that's the "liberal" thing to do.

"It's high time to stand up against images sexualizing the degradation, humiliation, domination, torture, and even killing of women. It's time to ask why liberals who would run to court to ban images degrading members of a different race still think degrading members of a different sex is OK. It's time to admit that the subordination of women perpetuates the very conditions of repression and violence liberals abhor."

"Again, observational selection. It is true a liberal would oppose repression and violence, but a liberal would likewise oppose censorship."



Are the only choices "repression and violence" or "censorship"?

Don't be fatuous.

Empirical evidence suggests little to no correlation between viewing violent media and aggressive behavior (I have provided a list of studies in my response to Triana), so attacking the media for depicting acts of violence against women on the grounds it keeps women down doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, legally speaking.

However, how the media portrays women in day-to-day roles may have an influence on perpetuating some particularly negative stereotypes associated with women. Does that mean you take the media to court and ban them from depicting such nonsense? Frankly, it's a ludicrous suggestion. Not only does it constitute a slippery slope, it isn't really necessary.

No one took Don Imus to court in order to pull his show from the airwaves. All it took was a concentrated effort on the part of the offended parties. The media relies on public consumption in order to stay afloat, and a boycott of their sponsors is usually effective enough for them to make some serious changes in programming. Just ask Bill Maher.

There is a catch, however. The fact shows like CSI, which you claim to be damaging to the image of women, are still on the air is solely because they are profitable. If the show is profitable, it suggests the majority of viewers don't find anything particularly offensive about the subject matter. Now, if a small, but considerable, percentage of outraged viewers successfully pulled CSI from the air, they would not be viewed as "feminists fighting for the liberation of women", they would be viewed as "assholes who took my favorite show away." You have to admit, feminism is a battle of hearts and minds, and you won't win any over by taking away what people enjoy.

So, let's get hypothetical:

For the sake of argument, let us operate on the premise that CSI is, beyond all shadow of a doubt, damaging to women. Then, what is it about the average CSI viewer that prevents him or her from seeing the damage this show causes, and what is a realistic, constitutional method of correcting it?

[omega minimo]

34. "Don't be fatuous"

:rofl: :spray:


"As I don't watch CSI, why don't you take a crack at explaining how media depicting acts of violence against women is any more influential over the behavior and attitudes of society than media depicting similar acts of violence against men?"


That isn't even in question. There are plenty of studies if you want to refer to them.

It's unknown why you want to show up and pick this apart in this way, automatically trying to negate the topic. It's really tedious.

And you make assumptions about what you are countering, ascribing attitudes without any basis, demanding a defense against your strawmen....

For example:

"This doesn't justify the treatment of women by the media, but if one is going to argue from a truly liberal perspective, one must admit that both sexes deserve equal treatment. That was, after all, the premise of the aforementioned fallacy."

OM: No, it wasn't. That's ridiculous. (Maybe you already knew that).

"Yes, it was. The author made an unsubstantiated blanketed claim that racial issues are being addressed to the neglect of gender issues, thus suggesting that both should be given equal consideration because that's the "liberal" thing to do."

"Both" what?

Genders or races and genders? Read it again.



"The fact shows like CSI, which you claim to be damaging to the image of women, are still on the air is solely because they are profitable. If the show is profitable, it suggests the majority of viewers don't find anything particularly offensive about the subject matter.....

"For the sake of argument, let us operate on the premise that CSI is, beyond all shadow of a doubt, damaging to women. Then, what is it about the average CSI viewer that prevents him or her from seeing the damage this show causes, and what is a realistic, constitutional method of correcting it?"


There's a lot to think about there, and the clues to answers to your questions, but your assumptions may get in the way of you learning anything here. ("Constitutional'? :wow: )

It seems your mind is already made up.




And another pointless strawman is trying to make this a COMPETITION b/w men and women.

[Riktor]

35. More fabrications.

That isn't even in question. There are plenty of studies if you want to refer to them.

Yes, there are plenty of studies, most of which I have had the benefit of reading. Most suggest if there is a correlation between violent media and violent behavior, it is minimal at best. Even then, the investigators readily admit it to be a "chicken or the egg" scenario. Is it outside the realm of possibility that sexually aggressive men are drawn to pornography because it reinforces their preexisting orientation towards sexuality? (Malmuth Addison Koos 2000)

It's unknown why you want to show up and pick this apart in this way, automatically trying to negate the topic. It's really tedious.

I'm not trying to negate the topic, I am trying to point out the weaknesses in the argument. It is my contention there are far more pervasive forces at work behind sexism than porno and CSI. Frankly, I think it an exercise in futility to crusade against something which empirical research suggests poses a very minimal threat.

For example:

"This doesn't justify the treatment of women by the media, but if one is going to argue from a truly liberal perspective, one must admit that both sexes deserve equal treatment. That was, after all, the premise of the aforementioned fallacy."

OM: No, it wasn't. That's ridiculous. (Maybe you already knew that).

"Yes, it was. The author made an unsubstantiated blanketed claim that racial issues are being addressed to the neglect of gender issues, thus suggesting that both should be given equal consideration because that's the "liberal" thing to do."

"Both" what?

Genders or races and genders? Read it again.

"Both" refers to "gender issues" and "racial issues".


"The fact shows like CSI, which you claim to be damaging to the image of women, are still on the air is solely because they are profitable. If the show is profitable, it suggests the majority of viewers don't find anything particularly offensive about the subject matter.....

"For the sake of argument, let us operate on the premise that CSI is, beyond all shadow of a doubt, damaging to women. Then, what is it about the average CSI viewer that prevents him or her from seeing the damage this show causes, and what is a realistic, constitutional method of correcting it?"


There's a lot to think about there, and the clues to answers to your questions, but your assumptions may get in the way of you learning anything here. ("Constitutional'? :wow: )

It seems your mind is already made up.

Please, humor me. Honestly, I'm just trying to get some insight as to how people believe sexism originates, is reinforced, and why it goes unnoticed by a significant portion of the population (about 40 million a week in CSI viewers alone). I'll hear you out.

And another pointless strawman is trying to make this a COMPETITION b/w men and women.

I didn't come here to compete with anyone, I merely read a post and pointed out the parts I felt to be particularly weak, and did so without insulting the author with infantile emoticons and sarcastic character assassinations. I posted a dissenting opinion and was met with nothing but knee-jerk trite remarks, condescension, and holier-than-thou rhetoric which insinuated because I disagree with the OP I must therefore must be opposed to women's rights.

It's childish, and, frankly, I don't understand why we can't debate this in a civil manner. Hell, we're all progressives here, we all want a just and equal society, we're all on the same side. Can't we at least be civil to one another?

[omega minimo]

36. "Civil"?

I am quite civil. I err on the side of greater caution than others here who are also bored with and tired of this sort of bs.


Are you being "civil"?

"I didn't come here to compete with anyone, I merely read a post and pointed out the parts I felt to be particularly weak, and did so without insulting the author with infantile emoticons and sarcastic character assassinations. I posted a dissenting opinion and was met with nothing but knee-jerk trite remarks, condescension, and holier-than-thou rhetoric which insinuated because I disagree with the OP I must therefore must be opposed to women's rights."


You condescend to "point out the parts I felt to be particularly weak" and then insult those who (apparently lumping every poster as speaking for the others) did not respond to your "dissenting opinion" in ways that you approve of.

"It's childish, and, frankly, I don't understand why we can't debate this in a civil manner. Hell, we're all progressives here, we all want a just and equal society, we're all on the same side. Can't we at least be civil to one another?"

"It is my contention there are far more pervasive forces at work behind sexism than porno and CSI. Frankly, I think it an exercise in futility to crusade against something which empirical research suggests poses a very minimal threat."

"Please, humor me. Honestly, I'm just trying to get some insight as to how people believe sexism originates, is reinforced, and why it goes unnoticed by a significant portion of the population (about 40 million a week in CSI viewers alone). I'll hear you out."




Some of the concepts that you come here fixated on "debating" are already understood by those who are forced to retreat to a designated forum or group to even attempt at "civil" discussion. If you want to "get some insight" you might check your attitude at the door. Your posture comes off as antagonistic, whether you like it or not. A start would be to listen when someone points out the strawmen and false assumptions you champion. Unless your mind IS already made up.

Despite your generous offer to "hear you out" this sort of tit for tat "civil" assault is almost too boring to even read. It took some effort.

Even these sort of "civil" challenges and demands for a certain response (under kneejerk, infantile, trite, rhetorical condescending threat of being be met with YOUR insults), have truly wasted enough of OUR time and energy.

"Frankly, I think it an exercise in futility to crusade against something which empirical research suggests poses a very minimal threat."

"crusade"?
"very minimal threat"?
"exercise in futility"?

This exchange is the exercise in futility. The OP was actually a call for an open-minded sort of discussion. If we are "all progressives here, we all want a just and equal society, we're all on the same side," then why not start with points of agreement or understanding, rather than pick apart?

[ismnotwasm]

32. Hanging out at Wikipedia?

How about women as sex class or women as subservient to men is not only a historical fact, but the base for the development of such images as technology advanced. You say "begging the question" regarding race and gender yet do the same thing between genders.

Voltaire for all his talent, was an asshole. Who said anything about censorship anyway? Straw man.

[Riktor]

33. No, why do you ask?

How about women as sex class or women as subservient to men is not only a historical fact, but the base for the development of such images as technology advanced.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what to make of that sentence. Are you saying the subordination of women is the motiving factor behind "degrading" images of women?

You say "begging the question" regarding race and gender yet do the same thing between genders.

Again, I'm afraid I don't know what part of my spiel you are referencing. If you would be so kind as to point to a specific instance, I'd be more than willing to take a look at it.

Voltaire for all his talent, was an asshole.

Frederick the Great certainly felt that was the case. Nevertheless, just because he was an asshole doesn't invalidate his opinions. Ad hominem.

Who said anything about censorship anyway? Straw man.

It was mentioned quite clearly in the OP:

"It's time to ask why liberals who would run to court to ban images degrading members of a different race still think degrading members of a different sex is OK. It's time to admit that the subordination of women perpetuates the very conditions of repression and violence liberals abhor."

[Katherine Brengle]

14. A-fricken-men!

I don't have anything to add to that other than THANK YOU.

[pingzing58]

16. Greatest societal and cultural challenge today protecting girls and women's rights.

[Katherine Brengle]

17. That was incoherent.

Care to write in complete sentences in order that we might understand your comment?

[pingzing58]

18. Alrighty then, Katherine.

We criticize middle eastern societies for their treatment of women. We here in the west must be vigilant and protect the rights of women. I have noticed an attack on these freedoms (women's education, reproductive rights, employment and careers) with challenges from the Catholic Church and mainline Christian denominations. The freedom that women enjoy today in our society is thought to threaten and weaken the institutions of Marriage and Family Life. If municipalities can pass ordinances that fine certain styles of clothing or how that clothing is worn (saggy pants) and with a Right Wing Activist SCOTUS it's not an impossibility that women may be made to cover their heads in public. "The bible says it and I believe it." Vigilance is what I'm advocating in the protection of women's rights in our society.

[Katherine Brengle]

19. Ah, okay.

Sorry if I sounded confrontational, we get a lot of nasty posts in here.

I agree wholeheartedly - I think that women's basic rights in the US are very fragile, and this at a point when women never really achieved full equality in the first place.

We are treading on dangerous ground, and it's hard to tell which way the pendulum will swing next.