Women Stand For Peace and Justice

[omega minimo]

Here is a good example of confusing the message (as a topic) with the messenger (as a topic). This photo and this woman are being held up as a topic of ridicule, rather than the topic being the messages on the signs.

Whether it's a fixation on Valerie Plame's appearance or the gender identity of someone in the background, the topic isn't her testiimony or the relevance of a distracting presence in the photo frame. The topic shifts to trivial aspects-- trivializing the issues and the people involved. Because they're women.

The intense need of some to distract from the message and use ridicule --of women's gender, appearance and social status --as a tool for dismissing and misrepresenting their actions is divisive and disgusting. It is an attempt to deny women their rights to participate in the process in any way that isn't condoned by The Powers That Be. Often just the fact that they ARE women participating isn't condoned by TPTB. The same tactic is used against others who are unconventional.

This includes the attacks on a citizen activist who was ridiculed, dismissed and attacked for daring to speak to a Congressman in the halls.

And yet the same smirking, snickering types who ridicule those willing to stand up and stand out are the ones who think everyone ELSE is the "sheeple," not them. Easy to ignore truth when all you do is divide-- and help the Dark Side conquer.

[verse18]

1. THANK YOU!!!!

:applause:

You got to the heart of the matter on this one and some people aren't gonna like what you said.

[Cerridwen]

2. K & R

Maybe after my caffeine kicks in I'll have something more substantial to say. Right now I'm afraid I'm reduced to "ugh, coffee good. need more coffee."

[bryant69]

3. Hmmmm. I agree with the sentiment in general but perhaps not in specific

To be fair, one can assume that woman dressed herself; she is choosing to wear a deliberately provocative outfit. While I agree with her message, I'm not sure it's entirely fair to be surprised when a provocative outfit provokes a reaction beyond what is intended.

But in general you are right that Gender gets mixed into our discourse in ways that it shouldn't.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Cerridwen]

5. You make a good point. And it could lead us to a discussion of

how we participate in our own "conditioning" and perpetuate "gender norms" without realizing that when we refer to "others" as "sheep," for example, we forget or ignore our own contributions to the equation.

[omega minimo]

6. "she is choosing to wear a deliberately provocative outfit"

"she is choosing to wear a deliberately provocative outfit" maybe to provoke a response BEYOND the typical one.

:think:

[bryant69]

7. Well exactly. I'm just saying that she can't be upset

nor can we be upset on her behalf, when she gets that response.

Bryant

[omega minimo]

8. You're right

OTOH it's not outside the realm of possibility that the first response to this would NOT be "well if this gal was in the back of the Plame hearing" or :drool: or Wonder If That Sticker Will Fall Off..............................

What about" "this young woman is putting her body on the line"? "this woman is putting herself on the line"? "This woman doesn't give a shit who the Next Pussycat Doll is"?

I would ask you to read the OP until it makes some sort of sense to you. It's pretty good. :evilgrin:

And yes-- I can be upset on her behalf-- I can be upset that someone here presents it first as a trivialized joke (see OP) -- and calls her a "gal."

That's a strong woman and committed human being, IMHO.

No "balls" required.
:kick:

[TahitiNut]

4. "Girls Who Say 'Yes' To Guys Who Say 'No'"

This was a well-known "peace activist" group originating at UC Berkeley in the late 60s. (I knew - and dated - a former member of this group.)

It'd take more space than I care to use to list the sociological dysfunctions I see inherent in this 'movement.' Suffice it to say that it's not JUST the media - or possibly even 'mostly' the media.

This is NOT a new behavior.



Even in medicine, one substance is attached to another which has the ability to permeate semi-permeable cellular walls. It's not at all unusual for people to choose behaviors for the very fact that they attract attention in order to carry a message that they see as otherwise ignored. The behavior is deliberately chosen for that very reason. To then condemn the media or audience for affording attention to the behavior that was freely chosen for that very reason is a one-sided indictment, imho.

It even got YOUR attention. Q.E.D. :shrug:

[omega minimo]

9. Flatterer

:blush: "It even got YOUR attention. Q.E.D." :hi:

Interesting.

"t's not at all unusual for people to choose behaviors for the very fact that they attract attention in order to carry a message that they see as otherwise ignored. The behavior is deliberately chosen for that very reason. To then condemn the media or audience for affording attention to the behavior that was freely chosen for that very reason is a one-sided indictment, imho."

If they attract attention to carry a message, how is it "one-sided" to question a fixation on the medium rather than the message?
I am not "condemning" the media or the audience. I am questioning the limited perspective that sees only a babe and a joke and NOTHING beyond that. See OP: keyword "trivialize."

"Girls Who Say 'Yes' To Guys Who Say 'No'"
Guerilla Girls, Riot Grrrls, Lysistrata.......

"This is NOT a new behavior."

Correct. And in the view of the effects or the the "sociological dysfunctions I see inherent in this 'movement" at what point does the right of women to be "babes" -- or not -- and stand up for peace and justice unapologetically expecting to be viewed as human beings... at what point does that come into play? Is the view of females as always Female first the predominant POV? And does tweaking that predominant POV by poking fun at it or writing slogans on one's belly (a movement before it was an Irritable Bowel Syndrome commercial) or sticking a bumpersticker on one's breast-- or wearing gorilla masks and spoofing the male dominance of the art world...

At what point do women making a statement become people and not women? How is this "IMPEACH" sign woman more ridiculous than the bloody "Pussycat Dolls" bogus empowerment franchise?

No-- it's not a "condemnation" (when does commentary become "condemnation"?) of the media, it's duly noted that all these broader points are lost in the base reaction.

I'm glad you checked in and you know I have asked you on other occasions to share some of your wisdom. So when I saw "TahitiNut launched a level 10 snark rocket @ Brit Hume" because for some reason I think highly of you, I was surprised by

"Brit Hume CAN'T HANDLE the Truth! He wouldn't acknowledge the truth if it gave him a lap dance."


This is NOT a new behavior. :eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. Wow you rock!!!

Thank you so much for this.

[omega minimo]

11. Women stand up for all of us

even when being ridiculed (or preemptive ridiculousness like CodePink) or yelled at by legislators.

:thumbsup: :hi: