HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Mika Brzezinski’s erotic ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:26 AM

Mika Brzezinski’s erotic dance (from Salon.com)

Last edited Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:06 AM - Edit history (1)



Mika Brzezinski’s erotic dance
A new photograph in Vanity Fair offers yet another example of the "pornification" of political culture

By Karrin Anderson

Vanity Fair’s short profile of MSNBC’s Morning Joe hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough ostensibly depicts them as a dynamic duo reminiscent of the great screwball comedies of the 1940s (the article references The Thin Man’s Nick and Nora). But the sassy journalist heroines popularized by Rosalind Russell and Katharine Hepburn would have balked at a photo shoot like this one—which is both reflective of current attitudes toward professional and political women and jarringly anachronistic. The notion that women exist primarily for men’s amusement (both on and off the job) seems oh so Mad Men, yet the trend toward depicting public women (especially those whose jobs place them in the realm of politics) primarily as sex objects is alive and well in the 21st century. The pornification of political culture (a process in which some women participate willingly and others have foisted upon them after their image is conscripted) has depicted political candidates (e.g., Sarah Palin and Janice Hahn) and women voters (in viral videos like this one and this one from the 2008 campaign) as strippers.

BagNewsNotes
 Looks like it’s Mika’s turn. Not a stripper, you say? Well, what else do we call women who dance on tables for men’s spectatorial enjoyment? Although the brief article that accompanies this picture emphasizes both Scarborough’s and Brzezinski’s various flirtations (with each other, Roger Ailes, and—in Scarborough’s case—the American electorate), the image tells the familiar story of a man who commands the attention of others and a woman who seeks only the attention of that man.

Gaze plays an important role in this visual narrative. Just as Scarborough is identified as the dominant persona on the show that bears his moniker (he’s identified as the “host,” whereas Brzezinski is the “co-host”), his gaze is turned outward while Brzezinski’s focuses exclusively on him. Rather than sitting parallel to Scarborough, Brzezinski is placed on a table—the empty chair underscoring her status as an accessory.

When women accessorize men in this fashion, it diminishes women’s credibility while simultaneously bolstering men’s heterosexual virility and strength. It’s important to note that in addition to playing up the alleged sexual tension between Scarborough and Brzezinski, the Vanity Fair piece announces Scarborough’s potential presidential aspirations. Should he worry that a picture like this one might make him look less presidential? Sadly, no. U.S. presidentiality is so thoroughly masculinized, we’ve become accustomed to seeing our presidents surrounded by women playing supporting roles, whose presence complements men’s performances as Patriarch-in-Chief. That’s one of the reasons women candidates have trouble being perceived as authentically presidential. Conversely, should Brzezinski harbor political or professional aspirations that contradict this narrative, the image would be a significant liability.


Rest at link: Mika Brzezinkski's erotic dance

Really, Mika? This was a good idea... how?

142 replies, 23193 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 142 replies Author Time Post
Reply Mika Brzezinski’s erotic dance (from Salon.com) (Original post)
MadrasT Sep 2012 OP
ann--- Sep 2012 #1
MgtPA Sep 2012 #30
Javaman Sep 2012 #40
banned from Kos Sep 2012 #56
MgtPA Sep 2012 #64
MADem Sep 2012 #135
SalviaBlue Sep 2012 #2
oldbanjo Sep 2012 #50
frazzled Sep 2012 #3
Brickbat Sep 2012 #5
flamingdem Sep 2012 #7
HappyMe Sep 2012 #10
woolldog Sep 2012 #33
onecent Sep 2012 #4
bupkus Sep 2012 #36
JoePhilly Sep 2012 #6
KoKo Sep 2012 #67
BlancheSplanchnik Sep 2012 #79
MadrasT Sep 2012 #83
JoePhilly Sep 2012 #84
PoliticalBiker Sep 2012 #111
JoePhilly Sep 2012 #113
PoliticalBiker Sep 2012 #136
HappyMe Sep 2012 #8
TahitiNut Sep 2012 #39
HappyMe Sep 2012 #47
Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2012 #92
redqueen Sep 2012 #9
closeupready Sep 2012 #28
redqueen Sep 2012 #32
closeupready Sep 2012 #57
MadrasT Sep 2012 #69
closeupready Sep 2012 #80
Dash87 Sep 2012 #11
Liberalynn Sep 2012 #20
Barack_America Sep 2012 #12
magical thyme Sep 2012 #13
Maximumnegro Sep 2012 #14
marions ghost Sep 2012 #15
closeupready Sep 2012 #16
TomClash Sep 2012 #17
tosh Sep 2012 #18
MadrasT Sep 2012 #25
SaveAmerica Sep 2012 #19
Whisp Sep 2012 #21
AlinPA Sep 2012 #22
Peregrine Took Sep 2012 #35
AngryOldDem Sep 2012 #38
heaven05 Sep 2012 #23
livetohike Sep 2012 #24
MadrasT Sep 2012 #29
Arugula Latte Sep 2012 #26
titaniumsalute Sep 2012 #27
Gold Metal Flake Sep 2012 #31
Fawke Em Sep 2012 #43
MADem Sep 2012 #120
Fawke Em Sep 2012 #123
MADem Sep 2012 #127
LiveNudePolitics Sep 2012 #34
AngryOldDem Sep 2012 #37
Cleita Sep 2012 #41
KoKo Sep 2012 #46
OnyxCollie Sep 2012 #55
tjdee Sep 2012 #42
Bandit Sep 2012 #44
berni_mccoy Sep 2012 #45
cali Sep 2012 #49
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #97
awoke_in_2003 Sep 2012 #53
tjdee Sep 2012 #58
MadrasT Sep 2012 #61
berni_mccoy Sep 2012 #72
cali Sep 2012 #74
MadrasT Sep 2012 #78
closeupready Sep 2012 #85
MADem Sep 2012 #122
closeupready Sep 2012 #125
MADem Sep 2012 #126
tjdee Sep 2012 #96
berni_mccoy Sep 2012 #101
cash__whatiwant Sep 2012 #109
onecent Sep 2012 #129
MADem Sep 2012 #121
valerief Sep 2012 #48
awoke_in_2003 Sep 2012 #51
Obamamite Sep 2012 #52
K Gardner Sep 2012 #62
librechik Sep 2012 #54
OnyxCollie Sep 2012 #59
MadrasT Sep 2012 #60
librechik Sep 2012 #75
Cleita Sep 2012 #93
WinkyDink Sep 2012 #73
deutsey Sep 2012 #63
bluesbassman Sep 2012 #65
MineralMan Sep 2012 #66
MADem Sep 2012 #124
MineralMan Sep 2012 #132
MADem Sep 2012 #134
cr8tvlde Sep 2012 #68
Bucky Sep 2012 #70
cali Sep 2012 #76
AnneD Sep 2012 #71
hlthe2b Sep 2012 #77
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #81
MadrasT Sep 2012 #86
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #90
MadrasT Sep 2012 #105
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #114
MadrasT Sep 2012 #116
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #98
MadrasT Sep 2012 #107
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #108
Bake Sep 2012 #82
closeupready Sep 2012 #87
Cleita Sep 2012 #94
polichick Sep 2012 #103
Mike Daniels Sep 2012 #88
bupkus Sep 2012 #89
AngryAmish Sep 2012 #91
chknltl Sep 2012 #95
redqueen Sep 2012 #112
DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #117
chknltl Sep 2012 #118
DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #119
chknltl Sep 2012 #128
seabeyond Sep 2012 #131
chknltl Sep 2012 #137
DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #138
chknltl Sep 2012 #139
DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #141
chknltl Sep 2012 #142
seabeyond Sep 2012 #130
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #99
stevenleser Sep 2012 #100
polichick Sep 2012 #102
TDale313 Sep 2012 #104
cash__whatiwant Sep 2012 #106
hifiguy Sep 2012 #110
Thinkingabout Sep 2012 #115
Liberal_Stalwart71 Sep 2012 #133
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #140

Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:28 AM

1. One word for this....

Freaky!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:54 AM

30. Jesus, that photo is just grotesque.

I'm sure Mika's Dad is so proud...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MgtPA (Reply #30)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:31 PM

40. Grotesque is being polite. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MgtPA (Reply #30)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:08 PM

56. Only because Joe is in it.

 

Mika is a vibrant woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #56)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:18 PM

64. The way she's looking at him

while he is ignoring her...Yuk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MgtPA (Reply #64)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 03:29 PM

135. Maybe I am old, and I don't see it...but she looks, to me, like she has shit on her lip

and she's lifting her ass off the table to cut a massive fart.

If the idea was to be "sexy" or "Mad Men-like" the photographer can chalk this 'un up as a great big FAIL.

It's just a dumbass picture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:29 AM

2. Perfect description.

This how I have always seen Mika and why I don't watch the show ( aside from the fact that I can't stand Joe).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SalviaBlue (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:51 PM

50. Me also, I can't stand that show.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:32 AM

3. An interesting and important analysis

The semiotics of politics—personal and political—is in full evidence here. This image was crying out for a discussion of "the gaze." We've got a long way to go, baby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:33 AM

5. Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:39 AM

7. Ahh, the "gaze" good point

Pretty soon all the female anchors will have to do a similar pose for ratings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #7)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:48 AM

10. I doubt that.

Only the ones with air between their ears will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #10)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:04 PM

33. exactly

Mika didn't get the job because of her sparkling wit, intelligence or incisive political commentary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:33 AM

4. He's married and all she has for him

is "fuck me" eyes....cannot stand this woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecent (Reply #4)


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:34 AM

6. Mika: Look at me, look at me Look at me ... Joe: Shut Up Mika

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:21 PM

67. "So, why did she do it?" .......another excerpt from the article on "why."

from the article:

"So, why did she do it? Although I can’t claim to know her personal motivations, the Atlantic’s Liza Mundy notes the importance of “erotic capital” for women in broadcast journalism—a currency that male pundits such as Bill O’Reilly, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, and Ed Schultz are not required to spend. But Brzezinski should not exclusively bear the blame that more properly belongs also to Scarborough, the Vanity Fair editorial staff, and a political culture in which women are routinely diminished, degraded, and dismissed."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #67)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:37 PM

79. Instead of blaming the culture and VF editorial staff....

How about individuals start standing UP to the status quo?

We need more women in high-clout positions in media--women who are actively thinking against the internalized messages we've been living with for decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #79)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:51 PM

83. Right on. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #67)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:56 PM

84. I find the picture to be a perfect summary of the show.

Joe is the "serious" morning show host, and she is his side-kick. Some eye candy who occasionally puts him in his place, but only briefly.

Sad really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #84)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 04:09 PM

111. It should be the other way around....

That show is sooooo much better when there is NO JOE!

I like Mika and always have. She goes a bit overboard with the healty bit, though she is right.
She is a beautiful young lady. Why not show it off?

Mornings with Mika!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticalBiker (Reply #111)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 04:23 PM

113. I agree that when Joe is not there, that show is much better ... but ...

Mika is weak when Joe is there. And she should not need to act like a Fox News blonde just to get air time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #113)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 03:41 PM

136. Agreed

Joe needs to take his noisy, talk-over, RINO ass over to Faux Snooze where I'm sure he would be much more comfortable.
Mika needs to be much more assertive when Joe is there. She is smart and asks good questions... aside from being a hottie.
Mika Mornings sans Joe has my vote!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:46 AM

8. She's pathetic.

I really can't stand her. I can't decide between her and the scab as to who the bigger dumbass is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #8)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:29 PM

39. She's a sell-out.

It enrages me how she puts up with the abuse heaped on her. She's treated worse than a doormat ... and puts up with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TahitiNut (Reply #39)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:42 PM

47. I can only stomach a few minutes of

the scab show at a time.

I find her to be a bit empty headed. I don't really have any respect at all for her.

I don't know about the doormat stuff. If that's true, it's within her power to change that. If she doesn't, that's her problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TahitiNut (Reply #39)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 02:22 PM

92. "She's a sell-out."

Not if you consider that her dad is a major player over at the Trilateral Commission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:47 AM

9. K&R

It is past time for women to stop turning a blind eye to this dominance game, or believing it can't be changed. It can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #9)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:49 AM

28. It absolutely can change for women. Ironically, change

starts with people who are co-chairing news programs, such as herself.

Also ironic, isn't it, that she bucked the show's producers that time when they wanted to her focus on Paris Hilton, and despite that, here she is, dollying herself up, yet again.

I don't know, maybe she's just a simple narcissist. ??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #28)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:03 PM

32. It's complicated. We don't always recognize it.

I said elsewhere that if it was a liberal or democratic woman posing this way the reactions might be very different from people here. Defending her right to choose to dress and pose this way.

This thread about internalized sexism examines the different types of reactions women have to the myriad messages about women.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125510963

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #32)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:11 PM

57. And you know, I was trying to place where I'd seen

this specific pose before, since it seemed familiar.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #57)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:22 PM

69. Then there's always this:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #69)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:41 PM

80. LOLOL - too funny!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:11 AM

11. The real question is, why does anyone watch that show?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dash87 (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:38 AM

20. I don't

I watch CURRENT in the morning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:18 AM

12. It's sad, she could have inherited a halfway decent brain.

And certainly had every opportunity to make something of herself intellectually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:21 AM

13. creepy.

Why in hell would anyone in her position agree to participate in such a demeaning photo?

So glad I don't watch teevee, other than Doc Martin and the occasional Nova...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:30 AM

14. The Vanity Fair that had Lebron James as King Kong

on the cover in gorilla pose clutching a blonde? What a surprise!!!!

http://harryallen.info/?p=363

Fashion is an untouched bastion of institutional racism and sexism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:31 AM

15. Growwl, I am SO exotic (not)

New low, even for Mika. What a horrible role in life--pole dancer to Joe Scabro.

The worst politics show on MSNBC.

They need a good morning show but who can stomach this act? I've never been able to watch it for more than 15 minutes. When Mike does her little flirty pouty simpering act it's OVA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:34 AM

16. Mika is an embarrassment to herself, IMO.

And it's such a self-evident thing to say. When Vanity Fair takes note, it's been going on for WAY too long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:34 AM

17. Mika is MSNBC's version of . . .

. . . Alan Colmes, when he was Sean Hannity's whipping boy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:36 AM

18. Yes, this photo adds to the "WTF" over the title of her book...

which I don't intend to read.

But seriously..."Know your Worth"...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tosh (Reply #18)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:43 AM

25. I did not know that.

Wow. indeed.

Ahhh. I found it. "Knowing Your Value".

Ummm.... OK Mika. Thanks for the role-modeling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:37 AM

19. I imagine her Dad has a degree of disappointment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:39 AM

21. such a stupid looking pose.

 

whatever.

I measure that kind of stupidity by reversing things. Imagine Joe on that desk and Mika sitting there.

yah. it's stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:39 AM

22. A slob in the chair and an airhead on the table. Their show is garbage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlinPA (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:07 PM

35. That "show" is right out of Mad Man. He is Don Draper and she his devoted secretary.

I tuned in once but tuned out as soon as I saw Mika's demeaner -constantly deferred to the "man's" opinions and was simply chair candy. I was embarassed for her and for all women.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peregrine Took (Reply #35)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:13 PM

38. I sometimes think of her as Alice Kramden. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:39 AM

23. right on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:40 AM

24. So much wrong with this....where to start?

Author of "Knowing Your Value".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to livetohike (Reply #24)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:50 AM

29. Subtitled

"Women, Money, and Getting What You're Worth".

Mmmmm-kay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:44 AM

26. This is pathetic. Also, Mika may be the least likable person on TV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:45 AM

27. I'm not a big fan of Mika regarding her commentary...but I find her to be incredibly gorgeous!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:58 AM

31. Did she have a gun to her head?

I'm guessing not, so this is her showing who she is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gold Metal Flake (Reply #31)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:36 PM

43. And this is us saying we don't want this "tart-like" behavior

out of someone who is supposed to be providing us with news.

Women (and men) want news anchors we can trust. We want someone who has a head on her shoulders, not her legs in the air.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #43)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 01:03 PM

120. They are not "news anchors." Not even close.

The program is a "morning" show with a heavy dose of politics, but it is not a "news" show--one that provides just the facts, no opinions. The program is a personality-driven enterprise, such as it is. The entertainers on the show are NOT journalists.

That said, it's an awful thing. It's not at all good, it's not even tolerable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #120)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 01:21 PM

123. True. We should adopt the British term for them...

"News READERS."

They certainly aren't journalists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #123)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 01:36 PM

127. They aren't even readers or presenters--they usually cut away to someone else who delivers the

straight-up/no bullshit news.

They USE the news as a vehicle to have conversations and express opinions. It's a chat show--like a "drive-time" radio show, only for people who are either staying at home or who are sitting in the back seat in a carpool!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:04 PM

34. The old saying, is apt

in this case...Pretty isn't everything. We all know someone, male or female who used sex appeal as a short cut to get what they want at school or work.
Pretty is as pretty does, and trading on your looks is a sure sign you are not confident in your ability. Not a good image for young girls to look up to is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:12 PM

37. Don't complain, then, when people don't take you seriously.

She should be ashamed. Look for that shot to appear along with the other glamor shots they use when they go to commercial.

That is so disgusting, and is an insult to all women, not just those in the media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:31 PM

41. She has nice legs.

However, I wish someone in her position would spend as much time working out on her journalistic skills as on her body.

Also, the irony of the photog being able to coax her to do that. They do try to bring out the personality of their subjects. I guess we know what hers really is now. Apparently, she's in the wrong job. She should be hoofing for the Rockettes instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #41)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:40 PM

46. lols...agree. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #41)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:07 PM

55. She does have nice legs.

I never watch the crappy cable nooze shows.

If I want integrity, I'll watch Amy Goodman (and I do so religiously.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:35 PM

42. She's a female Alan Colmes.

She is ineffectual and clearly has no brains.

There are ways to show charm without such a display.

I really question how these people get these jobs. Between her and Krystal Ball I have a huge ??????????????????????????????????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:36 PM

44. Didn't Joe's dead intern fall off such a table and break her neck?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:40 PM

45. Gonna disagree with most people here

I think it is great that a woman can be a professional and have sex appeal and also flaunt it. If she wants to strike a pose, it is her choice. I really see nothing wrong with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to berni_mccoy (Reply #45)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:51 PM

49. seriously? you think she actually set up the photo shoot?

and sorry, no one takes her seriously. she's gone along with being a silly little trinket. this is a disgusting and alarming display of the most grotesque kind of sexism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #49)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:15 PM

97. Do you think it was not consensual?

 

That she didn't choose to do it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to berni_mccoy (Reply #45)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:03 PM

53. If she was doing a photo shoot by herself...

but this photo has her looking like a love slave for Scab.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to berni_mccoy (Reply #45)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:11 PM

58. What about Joe flaunting his sex appeal?

The problem is that this is not a solo shoot.

Joe is sitting there grinning like a dope and she's looking over to him with her leg all flailed up in the air. The body language and layout of the photo is all wrong for "sexy professional" and perfect for "desperate sidekick".

Do you think Diane Sawyer would have taken a picture like this? There are a number of good looking women in the news, and I think very few of them would be on a table throwing their bare leg up in the air preening for some dude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tjdee (Reply #58)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:13 PM

61. ^^^ THIS ^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tjdee (Reply #58)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:26 PM

72. There are two sides to sexuality.

Whether she did it solo looking at some imaginary man in the camera or at a person in frame, I really see no difference. Sexuality is not necessarily about dominance of one over the other but a partnership. Any heterosexual female is likely to be preening for "some dude", regardless of who that "dude" is, in order to fulfill her role in it. Would the image have been received differently if it were another man than Joe? I think it would have here because people don't like him and have a hard time seeing any woman preen for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to berni_mccoy (Reply #72)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:30 PM

74. wtf? "any heterosexual female is likely to be preening for "some" dude"

yeah, at times, if she's in a sexual relationship or if she wants one. In any case, in that photo, it's all about the dominance of the man. She has no dignity in that photo what so fucking ever. And there are appropriate times for sexual "preening" and inappropriate ones.

your take on this is sexist I feel ill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to berni_mccoy (Reply #72)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:35 PM

78. Wrong.

Women do not have a "role" to fulfill that involves anything depicted in that picture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to berni_mccoy (Reply #72)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 02:01 PM

85. WTF does sexuality have to do w/essential journalism, anyway?

Sheezus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #85)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 01:20 PM

122. Neither Mika nor Joe are journalists--that's what people aren't getting, here.

They are entertainers who discuss politics on their chat show. They have opinions, and they express them. You don't hear Diane Sawyer or Scott Pelley saying the sort of shit those two say on a regular basis.

The show sucks. The picture is ghastly. But "Morning Joe" is not a news program, even though they do impart current events and chat about them. "The View" imparts current events and the co-hosts chat about them, too, but I don't know a soul who would call Whoopie Goldberg or Joy Behar journalists or "The View" a news show--about the only one who ever held that role (and who does not, anymore) on that program is Barbara Walters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #122)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 01:29 PM

125. Mika was a CBS News correspondent early in her career.

I guess that means she considers herself a journalist, and she's held out to viewers as a journalist.

She performs and entertains viewers today as a co-host on her current gig, but this soft porn centerfold schtick she's doing here is really over-the-top, even as an info-tainer that she is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #125)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 01:34 PM

126. Barbara Walters used to give us the nightly news, too--but that's not what she does on THE VIEW.

She'll sell shit for Disney or flog a book for an author or ask a Kardashian about their fatty body parts--whatever it takes to keep the show hopping.

Mika B is not working as a journalist, and neither is Joe Scarborough. The second they say "I think..." (and they do that all morning long) they are OPINING--this is a morning chat show about current events, with an emphasis on politics.

It is NOT a "news" show.

It is what it is. The problem of "Morning Joe" can be solved with a single click of the remote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to berni_mccoy (Reply #72)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:11 PM

96. Wow. Also, I don't dislike Joe.

Sexuality is not always about submission either. Her position in that picture is not strong, nor is it professional. Whether it is sexy is a matter of opinion but the message this picture sends is not a good one for her if she wants to be taken seriously as anything other than Joe's chick sidekick.

I can't believe that you think that "any heterosexual female is likely to be preening for some dude". That says it all for your opinion, *shrug*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tjdee (Reply #96)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:31 PM

101. I was using the words of the person I responded to.

That person says it is a submissive posture. I am saying that it isn't necessarily submissive but what people do when they are sexually attracted to someone. Men do it too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tjdee (Reply #58)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:55 PM

109. Mika is not in the same sphere as Diane Sawyer nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cash__whatiwant (Reply #109)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 01:57 PM

129. Mika is NOT in ANY category that Diane Sawyer is in....One has class and

LOTS OF IT and it ain't Mika.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tjdee (Reply #58)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 01:14 PM

121. Zbiggy's daughter is NOT a journalist. Comparing her to Diane Sawyer is NOT appropriate.

Compare her to Kelly Ripa or Kathy Lee, perhaps, but not to Diane Sawyer. Diane Sawyer's career began in the White House press office, under, of all presidents, Richard Nixon. She worked her way up the career ladder by doing things that people interested in journalism do.

Mika is not a journalist--she's a "co-host." She's Michael Strayhan to the now "top dog" Kelly Ripa.

Joe Scarborough is not a journalist, either. He's a former congressman hosting a morning talk/chat show that uses politics as a hook. He's like Anus Imus in the Morning, talking politics with no suggestion of lack of bias. It's a personality-driven program, not a "news" show.

It's unfortunate that so many people think that just because some assholes sit behind a desk and pontificate, that the people presenting the information are "journalists." These people are entertainers who use the events of the day--and their opinions of those events--as material for their show.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:44 PM

48. She's such an ass. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:58 PM

51. Unreal...

she is a lovely woman and all, but why would she objectify herself Ike this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:01 PM

52. Hard to take her seriously, now. This morning she was wearing a porno-type dress....

It had black bands around the sleeveless arms, going up over the breasts. The area covering the breasts was a shiny dark gray. The effect was to give the appearance of accentuating the breasts (like those cowboy stirrups do for men, or Bush Jr. flight suit straps).

She has also gone from golden blonde to platinum blonde.

It's hard to take someone seriously when they make an effort to be viewed as a sex object. Sex objects are fine, but when you want to promote the idea that you're a smart co-host and have keen political insights and opinions, that's probably not the way to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Obamamite (Reply #52)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:15 PM

62. I've never taken her seriously. How can you when she does nothing but bat her eyes,

avert her gaze shyly, and say.. Hmmmm.

She's worse than Alan Colmes was with Hannity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:04 PM

54. I keep picturing Andrea Mitchell in that pose--not the same erotic effect--at all!

the dictator's bodyguards keep dragging her off

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #54)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:12 PM

59. I would never picture Andrea Mitchell in that pose.

I'm not into masochism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #54)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:12 PM

60. Oh dear.

That is quite a mental image, isn't it?

I keep picturing what this would look like if Joe and Mika's roles were reversed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #60)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:31 PM

75. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #60)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 02:27 PM

93. I hope he shaves his legs first. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #54)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:27 PM

73. Not quite the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:17 PM

63. I don't think I've ever seen more than 5 seconds of this show

That's how long it takes for the channel to change when I'm channel surfing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:18 PM

65. That's a really inappropriate shot.

Not professional at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:19 PM

66. Mika has done things like that more than once.

I'm afraid it has caused me not to take her seriously as a journalist. Further, she defers to Joe S. way, way too much. They are not on the program as equals. She's the glamorous sidekick and not much more. I don't like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #66)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 01:24 PM

124. She is NOT a journalist.

Is Kelly Ripa a journalist?

She's a co-host of a morning chat show. They talk politics and the news of the day, and they OPINE about them.

She's no more a "journalist" than Don Imus...or one of Don Imus's sidekicks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #124)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 03:18 PM

132. I was using the term loosely. It has

changed somewhat in its meaning in ordinary speech. That has happened more than once in the history of the word's use.

Originally, it was used mainly to describe people who wrote essays in newspapers, the "journals" of their day. Most journalists in the original sense of the word wrote commentary. The word has come full circle, it seems, and today's commentators and editorial writers are frequently called "journalists." What they most certainly are not is reporters, the writers who report what happens without commentary or analysis. We have too few reporters, the people I consider to be journalists, and too many of the commentators, who actually do meet the original meaning of the word. Language changes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #132)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 03:25 PM

134. Journalists do not "opine" in the course of delivering the news of the evening (or the morning).

She is not Scott Pelley, she's not Diane Sawyer, she's not Brian Williams.

She is a co-host of a chat show ABOUT the news, with an emphasis on politics, but silly stuff/shenanigans are not off-limits.

Huge distinction--and a difference, too. No language change there, at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:21 PM

68. How long do you think it took ALL of them to adjust her "dress" so it would cover her panties

...assuming she had any on. Pouty wips teetering pose gaze at Mr. Uninterested, legs crossed, in control, smirking at the audience. Suggestive porn ... typical Republicans.

This is our Media?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:23 PM

70. Not really as pornographic as Republicans running a guy with hidden Swiss bank accounts

The kids are just having fun. If flashin' the beavs brings in the ratings for Fox, it doesn't bother or surprise me if the MSNBC crew copies them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #70)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:31 PM

76. which has shit to do with the topic at hand.

your sexist response is disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:26 PM

71. Oh to be a fly on the wall....

in Barbra Walter's dressing room.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:33 PM

77. Devastatingly pathetic... The more things change, the more they stay the same....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:41 PM

81. The only people calling her names & diminishing her worth are the ones "outraged" by the picture.

Another wonderful example of "you're only allowed to make the choices WE THINK YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE!"

She's a grown-up. If this is what she likes to do, how she wants to be photographed, people should get over it.

I don't personally think it's a very big deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #81)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 02:02 PM

86. Not quite.

Of course she is free to choose to do whatever she wants. And the rest of us are free to choose to criticize it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #86)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 02:09 PM

90. Certainly. But I think it's reprehensible to call a woman names or diminish her worth

because of what she chooses to do with her body.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #90)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:45 PM

105. I don't see much in the way of name calling here.

(Refreshingly, because I kind of anticipated it would go there.)

Lots of criticism, for sure.

I actually basically agree with your statement "I think it's reprehensible to call a woman names or diminish her worth because of what she chooses to do with her body."

The way I see it, a person makes a choice.

Other people evaluate that choice against their own internal code of right/wrong: "Good choice? Bad choice? Irrelevant choice?"

Societal "worth" is established by how a community views you. If a lot of people view a person's choice as being a bad choice, then that person's worth/standing in the community is possibly diminished because of that choice.

I don't think her personal worth as a human being is diminished in any way by this choice.

I think, from a societal perspective, it wasn't a great choice if she wants to be taken seriously and not viewed as Joe's irrelevant accessory.

In the end, it's just a picture, and isn't really going to make much difference one way or another.

I just thought it was an interesting, and curious, choice for a woman in her position to make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #105)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 04:58 PM

114. Isn't there an element of irony in pillorying someone for something on the obstensible grounds

that the thing they're doing makes themselves look bad?

At the very least there is a hermetic, sort of tautological pretzel logic at play.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #114)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 05:18 PM

116. Sure, I can see irony there. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #86)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:18 PM

98. Do you think it's right to label women "airheads"

 

based solely on how they choose to present themselves?

/wasn't there something recently about slut-shaming and how we . . .um shouldn't do that. You know, denigrate women for the way they choose to express their sexuality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #98)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:47 PM

107. No I don't think that's right. I don't think we should call people names.

I think critiquing and discussing people's choices -- including the societal repercussions of those choices -- is fair game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #107)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:51 PM

108. Ok but phrases like air-head, tart, grotesque, saying that she can't be taken seriously

 

and that her dad should/would be ashamed of her, that's not acceptable right?

Would you call out such people with the same vigor as you've recently called out other people you felt were treating women inappropriately?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:49 PM

82. I know it's awful to say, but ... she DOES look pretty hot ...

There. I said it. Nice legs.





Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #82)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 02:03 PM

87. Not really. She's old now and a bit plump.

IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #87)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 02:28 PM

94. Plump? What do you like, skeletons? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #82)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:39 PM

103. She does have nice legs - she's a runner and very fit overall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 02:07 PM

88. The only thing that separates Mika from the female anchors on FOX...

is the panel discussion table on the set of Morning Joe. If it weren't for that prop Mika would be pulling the same short dress/crossed legs frontal shot routine seen on FOX.

In truth, I'll give the FOX anchors credit in that they get a chance to express their opinion (ill-informed as it may be). Mika's sole function appears to be eye-candy for male viewers who see Morning Joe as a more intellectual morning news program.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 02:18 PM

91. What is the point of Morning Joe?

To get people to watch the show so they can sell time on the show for people selling their products.

Nothing more, nothing less.

What is the point of Al Sharpton's show? Bill O'Reilly? The Jersey Shore? Any show?

Get people interested somehow then keep their interest.

This show clearly has many, many people watching the show that frequent this board. Why? They find it interesting - good or bad.

This is just another way to get people interested in the show.

Look at the threads around here - there are many about how pundit X destroyed candidate Y on Z show - or variations on that theme.


People clearly are interested.

If one is going to be a mark, be a smart mark. Realize when people are playing with your emotions and making you care about something. If you agree with what someone is saying - be aware. Are they just confirming a prejudice or opinion you already had?






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:01 PM

95. brought to you by Conservative value: misogyny.

Do liberals and progressives share such values? Actually we are products of our culture, each and every one of us. That said, I believe when acceptance of inequality is found within our character, especially cultural ingrained acceptance of inequality, we who understand the wrongness of it seek to purge it from ourselves.

A personal example:
I once fully supported Larry Flynt. His magazines were a bit over the top for me but I loved his efforts to unmask hypocritical politicians. It was here in the DU a few years ago that I was educated to the fact that sexism is racism in different garb. If I don't support racism, how could I possibly support a man who made his considerable fortune promoting racism, regardless of his good works elsewhere? Well I would not, nor will I support this man for promoting sexism either!

Today, I get it, Larry Flynt made his fortunes in the porn industry, an industry which promotes sexism. That same industry promotes a cultural sickness that has brought about millions upon millions of events-oftentimes horrible events women of all ages have suffered through. All too often that suffering is one they carry with then throughout their lives as memories. All too often that suffering directly caused them to die.

Would anyone here want their sister, mother, daughter, wife or female friends scarred for life-scarred by having to endure acts of racism? Well neither should we accept this scarring when the word racism is changed to sexism. Acts of sexism are no different than acts of racism and they leave behind the same
scars.

So Mr. Flynt, your work unmasking hypocrits deserves my thank you but it will never balance out the horror you have promoted! What you did/do 'is' legal. It IS also product of a sick culture we are all imersed in. That does NOT make it right, not even remotely.

The photo in the OP, supports sexism. PERIOD. When sexism is seen for what it is, a form of racism, those of us who don't call ourselves Conservative, seek to change our personal paradigms. That photo only adds to a culture of sexism and misogyny, a culture that does not understand the nightmare it creates downstream for women of all ages.

Next time you see children playing, think about this, ask yourself if you want those children, both the boys and the girls to grow up in a culture that accepts and promotes racism or its ugly brother sexism? If you have a heart that beats in your chest, you know that you want to protect them from such a fate. YOU. KNOW. IT.

Here, take another look at that photo,see it through the eyes of the millions upon millions of women of all ages who have suffered.



We are products of our culture, Mika is, Joe is, the photographer who shot the image is, each and every one of us is. It is how we change ourselves when we become aware of the negative aspects within our culture that define us. Conservatives of all nationalities seek to preserve such negative aspects, for them it is an acceptable part of life. For those of us who call ourselves progressive or liberal, we seek change.

Thank you for reading my rant. Those children I asked you to consider thank you too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl (Reply #95)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 04:21 PM

112. Outstanding. That should be an OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl (Reply #95)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 05:26 PM

117. With due respect to Larry Flynt

I actually find Hustler a lot more honest and less damaging than this.

OK, put down the rocks and lend me your ears, please.

Most people realize that the odd stuff in Hustler is no more real than Mickey Mouse. Hell, most men know the ladies in them are airburushed, as are the guys in Lady Hustler and Gay Hustler. Unlike Hugh Hefner, that sought to make his publication "respectable" with articles written by serious writers, Flynt never tried to pretend to be respectable. Even when he got into the poltical satire, he never tried to wrap himself in any cloak of artistic integrity.

Now, contrast this. This is not posing for Playboy, something that has gotten respectable enough that Hillary Clinton could do it and get praised for it. Come now, many Duers, male and female, would buy that issue

No, this is Mika, presenting this as a statement of who SHE IS, and her RELATION to Joe. This is not even advertised as being supposedly sexy, but perhaps humor? Honestly, I find myself even unclear on what the point of this is. It is one thing to act silly on Saturday Night Live, but is THIS the image you want for NEWS? By it's very nature, it is confusing, awkard, and it sends a message, that even when you are supposedly a respectable female professional, you better be prepared to show some skin.

In contrast to porn, where a Fortune 500 CEO like Jenna Jameson can be frank and demand that even when you are doing stupid things for the camera, you keep a professional line drawn; in the porn industry, males are actually the low people on the totem pole, because people like Jenna know their name is what makes the money. Since stars like Jenna bought the companies they used for work for, they can make sure the male colleague behaves. Many people who watched her as porn actress were shocked when she showed behind the scenes footage, where the porn actors are actually very, very strict, and she ran a tight ship, because the actors and actresses know if they are not courteous and professional, they will NOT work in the industry, period! Simply put, if Mika and Joe were working for Jenna, Joe would be walking on eggshells, and Mika would be the star.

This is not to praise porn, but to show a point that rarely comes in. There used to be an idea of professionalism. It had exceptions, but it was always deferred to. Now, thanks to people like Joe, the Fox news crew, etc, you can have people act is throughly stupid ways and STILL HAVE THE RESPECTABILITY WE USED TO RESERVE FOR PEOPLE WHO USED COMMON SENSE. That is why this photo is worse than anything Hugh or Larry could ever do, because it is a LIE disguised as reality! It says that even the people who are supposed to be respected in their profession are not, nor should they be.

For what it is worth, as far as newcasters go, I fine Stephanie Miller much more sexy, mostly because she has a wit and brains to match. Until I watched current, I had no idea what she even looked like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #117)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:16 PM

118. Simple question

Is it worth it? With all this objectifying, with all this treating women as something less than men because they are .....well... not men. Considering how women, ALL women face being oogled and hit on against their will, considering all the rapes, many if not most go unreported.... considering all the cultures who use religion as their tool to argue that women are less than MAN.... considering the little girls, some barely teenagers being bought and sold worldwide to satisfy a sick need.... and lest we forget the little boys who keep quiet about being molested... Is it worth it.

Perhaps this is too tough question to ask. Being a part of a culture makes it hard to see ourselves through the eyes of someone outside of our culture. Try looking into the happy faces of children at play. Is there anything on this planet more beautiful than that? Come at my question to you from that perspective. Don't you want to protect those children from the sickness of racism and sexism in our culture? Of course you do, we all do. If we have to give up something, why not give up the promoting of sexism? Can we not do this thing, if not for ourselves then for those children!

This planet has accepted sexism far too long. Any promotion of sexism or mysogeny regardless of how innocent and harmless it may seem brings about unacceptable harm to women-to ALL OF US downstream. Until we as a culture wake up to the fact that sexism is a form of racism, then everyone will continue to suffer. Our culture IS waking up and we progressives are best suited to be leading the way.

No, I'll not throw rocks. I understand that it is hard to get the connection that sexism and racism are two sides of the same coin. I have difficulty debating the point but I DO now get it. Just as Mitt Romney likely feels fully justified in his actions that got him so wealthy, both Larry Flynt and Jenny Jameson also feel justified... but ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, was it worth it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl (Reply #118)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 12:18 AM

119. here is your answer

For the porn that exploits children, or any unwilling person whatsoever, it must go. No wiggle room, no "yes but". However, the folks like the Jenna Jamesons have done more to drain that swamp than any of the people who simply think Porn can be banned. Porn of that nature is a managed vice,willing particpants, healthy people with real paychecks, and everyone knows that areno more real than star wars. What makes the culture of sexism and racism is that people cannot admit what they are doing, they are trying to satisfy an urge using a shell of morality. They cannot admit that they are no less animals than the slugs, so they put on moral airs, which of course, requires judgements, good guys, bad guys, violence, and domination. To quote the S and M community, keep it "safe, sane and consentual." Reglion and Morality, well they are not sane, they are not safe, and therefor almost never care about the consent of the partner. Am I saying that most systems of religon/morality do not show the due care and restaint that any dominatrix worth her salt should?, yes that is EXACTLY what I am saying. The reason I dislike the cenor is not that I do not see what they want to do, it is because, in the name of all the good they wish to accomplish, they wind up doing a lot of collateral damage, and they reinforce the idea that sex is something not to be talked about openly, not to be examined or celebrated, which of course, reinforcesthe same culture people were trying to get rid of in the first place.

Whether it is Cannabis or Guns, the only thing demonizing and making things illegal achieve is to drive the buisness undergorund,where people DO get hurt, and rather badly, because no one takes RESPONSIBILITY. That is what will kill the people you want to protect, the dishonesty, the demonizing, the shame at the sexuality that they will grow up with, that they willhave to deal with, and, as they become adults, should NOT have to keep shoved in the closet because some people want to shame them. For all the porn made here (which is tame compared to more sexually sophisticated countries France or Japan) no nation demonizes sex like America. You spoke of children that kept quiet about being molested, well, have you considered the fact that because we have made sex so damned shameful, that is why the veil is to thick?

Indeed, this taboo, this fear of sexual expression, is why we have crap like what Mika did, because we cannot be honest enough to say we like sex, no, we have to do this mock burlesque like in the photo, where we are pretending to pretend not to see Mika as a sex object. If you mean sexism to mean the idea that woman should be degraded, then you will see that what Mika did, and indeed, the soft sex, the dishonest porn, is much more harmful than when Jenna Jameson directs a movie. Mika and Joe are promoting sexism because they are pretending that A) they are serious journalists and B) that this is proper for journalists to be.

So, as far as my answer yes sexism is ugly, as is racism, as is the idea of anybody that people who fit xyz are sub human and therefore your tools. However, the way to actually drain that swamp is not to slam the people who are being honest about what they do, that they are doign play with sex. The rightful target opf the ire are the people who do not admit they are just getting off, because they will reinforce the isms, the racism, the sexism, the wealthism, that they think will keep them safe; in other words, if Morning Joe and Mika were not trying to put on airs, if they were not saying "we are innocent and harmless", they would not be as dangerous, but they are doing the harm..

And yes, I do want to protect those children from the Puritanical bull that will turn them into people fearful of themselves, which IS why I make my stand. A duer once said "I would rather catch my kid with Porn than a bible", because the ideas in the Bible will do more damage than the worst porn. If you want to protect the children, focus less on the porn, and more on the churches, because they will rob those kids of the very brain they will need to protect themselves from predators of all kinds.

I do not doubt your good intentions,I merely point out that we all know what road is paved using them for material, and when Porn becomes something that is not in the closet, the amatuers and imbeciles like Mika and Joe can sooner be shown the front door, to make way for people who actually want to be journalists, as opposed to celebrities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #119)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 01:54 PM

128. Not actually demonizing anyone, we agree on much, here is where i come from:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1363696

Above is a link to a DU 1 thread. It discusses Larry Flynt and his impending release of incriminating information about a hypocritical republican. I joined into this thread about half way down (post #105), singing the praises Mr. Flynt, comparing him to Jon Conyers who then was fighting the Republicanws openly enough to be called hero by many of us DUers back then. I got challenged by fellow DUer noamnety. Our discussion is lengthy but by its end, my paradigm had shifted. To this day I am grateful for that.

Before reading that, (should you choose to do so that is and I STRONGLY advise you to do so in order to continue our discussion), understand this about me. I have never been prudish when it comes to sex. To each their own is my motto. For decades I was privileged to work with and photograph musicians at work. One of those bands featured the Queen Mother of all Dominatrixes, Gen of GENITORTURERS. She and her merry band of kinksters tour the country teaching any who would attend their shows that throwing off cultural shackles can indeed open up some of the best sex ever. I agree. I like their music too. Below is one of my favorite songs by them 'Cum Junkie'. It starts out blurry but once the music starts it gets better and rocks out just fine

http://m.youtube.com/watch?.feature=related&v=mGIx3B7stds

Below is a link to their homepage, be advised they are not everyone's cup of tea.

http://www.genitorturers.com/home.html

I am not advocating stopping the porn industry. What I seek is a cultural paradigm shift when it comes to how our culture views sex. I am no grand philosopher on this topic but after my discussion with noamnety in the above link, I came to understand how the objectifying of women has turned America into nightmare of misogyny and sexism. I now see how sexism is the other side of the same coin called racism. I subscribe to neither.

Can an end to racism, sexism or misogyny ever happen? This we can not know of course but we can control it within ourselves individually . We do it best by understanding its root causes within ourselves, we understand it best when we see life through the eyes of others and we see it even better yet when we take off our cultural blinders. noamnety and the the Genitorturers BOTH helped me to see this problem from a whole different perspective.

When it comes to resolving what our society is suffering due to our cultural repression of sex, there has to be another way. It is possible you and I are actually far closer in our thinking than it seems. We both want to see an end to the suffering without repressing the exploration and enjoyment of all things sexual. This is the liberal or Progressive way. I understand that the Conservative or repressive solution is not advocated here by either of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl (Reply #128)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 02:38 PM

131. bookmarking to read this later, when not busy. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #131)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 03:43 PM

137. It basically documents a learning experience for me.

Last edited Thu Sep 20, 2012, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)

I suck at debate so it is not in my nature to even try to change someone's views through that means.

I can not know for sure that I am changing anyone's perspectives with my above post but it is important to me that my response paints me as I truly am.

Part of my personal paradigm was shifted by a fellow DUer. I am sincere in my gratitude to her for doing that. The DU1 link in that response leads to the very debate that brought about my paradigm shift. Because of her efforts, I was able to take a ghostly walk through her shoes! Perhaps what she did for me will be helpful for a fellow DUer, perhaps not.

My feelings about adult sex have not changed, I am not a prude either. As pointed out, the band Genitorturers opened my eyes to a whole other world. Some might argue that they are sexist! Nothing could be further from the truth, if anything they are the antithesis of sexism! (Definitely the antithesis of sexual prudery too!) .

This and the above post is more about me and how I arrived at my thinkings when it comes to our cultural sickness known as sexism.
There is nothing profound here, I am actually embarrassed that you bookmarked it.

The post you bookmarked is nothing more than a defense-a redefinition of who I am on the topic of sexism in America. I hope to any and all Gods out there that my posting that DU-1 link is in no way offensive to fellow DUer noamnety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl (Reply #128)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 07:53 PM

138. Pleasant surprise

I never got to talk to Gen personally, but I have seen her, as her band is based in Central Florida. I remember when she played a lot in Tampa, with her then opening act, a small geek poser from Tampa named Brian Warner, who called himself Marilyn Manson.

Just as you are not advocating stopping the porn industry, I am not advocating promoting it. However, I still do feel that a Mika and Joe doing amatuer porn and than saying "we are only kidding" as a lot worse than anything Gen does. Unliek most people who flame each other on the internet, it looks like we both paused, both got honest, and found out that yes , we are far closer in our thinking.

Side note: now you have me thinking that I would love to see Gen put Joe through his paces. Of course, a lot of people who eat the soft porn think they could handle that, until Gen takes out the scapels and starts sewing their mouths shut. I may go to Hell for this, but Morning Joe really could use a mouth sewing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #138)

Fri Sep 21, 2012, 12:59 PM

139. Last few times i saw her she wasn't sewing mouths

Re: Genitorturers, I first saw them on tv when their first album came out. When they came up here I made it a point to go see them. I don't think Racci Shay was with them that time but it was he who helped me the next time I saw them in Seattle. I saw them a few more times, never really worked with them but they did let me shoot them, no big deal considering that they let everybody else who wanted to shoot them shoot them too. Gen seemed to like my stuff fine but Racci was always easier to talk to.

Gen otoh was VERY business like the two times I talked with her. Truth be told she reminds me of a strict boss of all things Genitorturers. I suspect she IS that band and they all work for her.

I need to get away from this heart to heart about bands. There is something I find important, VERY important that I am trying to communicate here. I wanted you to understand where my head was at in all of this. Now that you know that I am no prudish religious extremist seeking to inflict this or that Godsent notion perhaps I can better communicate what I think.

I believe the Genitorturers are not promoting violent sexism, they instead promote healthy sex albeit in forms many within our culture would find bizarre.

Our culture has its notions about sex screwed up badly. It is arguable that our culture is repressive about sex, the battles that the LGBT community struggle with daily is proof enough of that. The very fact that a band like the Genitorturers could shock the hell out of half the membership of the DU proves that even those who call themselves liberal are subject themselves to a culture of sexual suppression.

I am utterly no expert on these things I speak to you about but what I speak of feel accurate enough to me.
I think sexual suppression has led to its share of the sexism that is rampant in this culture. We can look to the Catholic Priesthood to see far too many sick examples of that.

Is sexual suppression within our culture THE root of all the myriad forms of sexism women face day to day here in America? I don't have that answer but in my heart I just do not think so, I think it goes deeper than that.

I think our biggest issues when it comes to sexism are culturally induced. I feel that America's racism was culturally induced too. I say this because kids have to learn both sexism and racism, it just ain't there in children. What can be learned can imo be unlearned

Where once the use of the 'N' word could hardly raise an eyebrow it is now fairly become taboo among most within our culture. This is just one item, one feature of American racism that we can see has changed. It is an example of a learned behavior that our culture is 'unlearning'.

No, it does not mean that racism itself has been unlearned, it is still ongoing, perhaps arguably swept under a rug. No but it is one example where a feature of racism in American culture is becoming taboo, a feature plain to see especially by us liberals or progressives.

One can not say the same about Conservatives for the most part. It would not surprise me to find out that the first three issues they have with our President is that he is black. Due to our slow cultural shift away from racism we shall not be holding our breaths waiting for any conservative to admit this fact.

When I think about American racism I think of its features. I have pointed out one but to delve deeper into it I examine what it is I hate about it.

First and foremost I hate the way my fellow humans have had to endure racism! Not getting into our nightmarish history, even today there are features of racism our fellow Americans have to endure. Not always getting equal treatment when seeking education for their children, not being on an equal footing all the time when seeking a house to rent or own, not being equal when it comes to finding employment, these are features of racism today within our culture that our victims simply endure. This daily enduring goes on for the most part silently. A black man simply accepts in silence that odds are he will get pulled over for driving while black. It ain't fair and he silently endures this while we who are not black drive the same roads for the most part simply unaware.

Looked at metaphorically: While we white guys reach for another drink to quench our thirst, there are those standing right next to us equally thirsty who know that they should not even bother to ask for that extra bit of water. Because of their skin color, that little extra water just ain't there for them. This they watch silently this they silently endure.

I HATE THAT INEQUALITY worst of all. This silent inequality that some within our culture simply endure. These are victims of a culture of acceptance, they accept this victimization and we don't even perceive it unless it is deliberately brought to our attention by our victims.

Sexism is no different, some of the features females endure are lesser and some are greater than those endured due to racism but for the most part they are all there. I can only guess that non-white females get to suffer even worse than white women but being neither I am just speculating there.

This is cultural! If sexism is equally bad to racism why on earth isn't it equally despised? I certainly can find no example where one is easier to endure. Historically both have brought about substantial mental anguish, often times maiming the victims with mental forms of PTSD as well as physically maiming them. Worse yet how many many many needless deaths can be attributed to racism and yes even sexism throughout America's shameful history? We both are rightfully repulsed and sickened when we look at racism and sexism through this lense.

So if we can look at the features of racism, from the subtle to the nightmarish and witness through history to now how things are changing, so if we can see that there is the glimmering of HOPE that one day racism will be greatly diminished within American culture, why can we not say the same for sexism?

I actually argue that there is change going on on that front too. That said, the change going on when it comes to sexism in our American culture is slower than the change going on with racism within that same culture. Why this is I can not say....perhaps you may have an answer for this.

Yes this is lengthy but each paragraph has been germain to where I have been all along with what I have said in each of my posts in this thread.
1. Women are enduring sexism, women are suffering from sexism.
2. Sexism is just as bad as racism.
3. We have a culture of accepting sexism (moreso than racism), and this culture needs changing.
4. This isn't about sex, or types of sex, it is about sexism.. (The Genitorturers are about sex and opening minds to (for some people) whole new worlds of sex. This is likely a good thing.
5. Larry Flint has earned his wealth through OBJECTIFICATION OF WOMEN! This is a bad thing. It PROMOTES sexism. Had he tried to do the same objectifying this or that race instead of a single gender we would not know the name Larry Flint!
6. For every racist magazine you can name, you can easily name three times that many magazines objectifying women.
7. Sexism needs to be taken just as seriously as racism in our culture if we are to diminish it to much much more lower, (and even then intolerable) levels.
8.Women in our culture are enduring sexism. Women in our culture are suffering from sexism. This bore repeating because it is not only true but it is more widespread than we males want to believe.

Lastly, we as individuals within our culture can only make changes within ourselves if we see the need to do so. Conservatives by definition fear change, Progressives by definition seek out change. The Progressive women of DU, especially those who frequent our History of Feminism group will eagerly teach anyone who will listen about this fact.

The women of our American culture are suffering from our sexism. A large part of this is due the fact that we males do not see the suffering, or we do not realize the extent of the suffering or worse, that sexism is not near as bad as racism. Have you ever noticed that at no time is it required for us guys to look over our shoulders to see who may be nearby behind us before telling a 'dumb blonde joke?

Summing up, you now know where my head is at, you likely can figure out my feelings about how porn in all its forms generally objectifies women. Furthermore you should now see that I do not feel that the good, if any that comes from porn balances out even remotely the nightmare shame our culture has put itself through so far. Instead of porn leading our culture, let us change our culture to lead our porn.

As a side note to all of this. I wonder if a forum in the DU dedicated to progressives who have suffered from the effects of racism would be as large as a forum dedicated to members who have suffered from sexism. If there were such a forum about racism, there would be much we could ALL learn about our racism.

Otoh we do have a forum, a Progressives forum full of female teachers who are very aware of the suffering our cultural acceptance of sexism has caused. We are all products of that culture, we are all victims of that culture. Their goal is and should be to change that culture, one victim at a time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl (Reply #139)

Fri Sep 21, 2012, 11:24 PM

141. I understand

I just had to put my local perspective as both her and Manson wer elocal bands before they hit the national scene. Both have left, but the culture that spawned them is still alive in Tampa, which is one of many reasons that did you NOT see GOP running around Downtown Tampa during the convention. I am not trying to avoid your point, but when you saw half of Tampa shrouded, but "gentleman's clubs" like Thee Dollhouse did record buisness, it cannot help but be a fine example of exactly what you are talking about.

Let me elaborate: Tampa is of course home to many strip clubs. Indeed, our local version of Occupy Wall street literally had an entire privately owned park loaned to them so that the cops could nopt kick them out, done by none other than perpetual libertarian, openly gay, third party candidate for just about any Tampa office Joe Redner. Now, on the one hand, I love what he did for Occupy Tampa. The fact the cops had to shut up and let Occupy Tampa be was a highlight of the convention, but on the other hand, we all knew it was funded by titty bars, especially the ones raking in major bucks during this convention. Those same gentleman's clubs, even though Joe genuinely hated the GOP, were a means for the sexist bastards to get their private jollies, instead of having to go Downtown where they would get caught on the street. Tampa was hidden throughout the whole convention: downtown and Ybor city merchants had record low buisness, and the only part of Tampa anyone could remember was the bloody "st pete times forum." The coverage did not help, I bet none of the reporters know we locals cal lit the "ice Palace", which was it's orginal name. Tampa was carved up and parceled out to insiders, so that the GOP people would not have to take risks, and sadly, Joe became part of that process, albeit a small one compared to the outright obscene amount of imported catering and fake, disposable kiosks that replaced actuall community and buisness.

Here lies the paradox. On the one hand,many of the women who work for Joe are not pushovers in any way. Many of them simply felt they could get a good wage doing their theater rather than have to deal with the dimwits male boss that will treat them like shit. Of course, the fact that many of these strippers felt they were treated in a more degrading manner in a white collar office then in a strip club and titty bar says a mile about the true state of sexual relations in the nation. The culture is the problem, and both racism and sexism are the fruits...not even the causes, but the symptoms of a belief that a prequesite to order is to let a certain echelon of men set the tone in everything, and all others most follow suit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #141)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 01:42 PM

142. We Are Indeed On The Same Wavelength.

Yep, you had it right all along: you and I were coming at the same conclusions from differing perspectives. Sorry for my lengthy posts, I suck at getting my notions out concisely.. btw I looked online and found no photos of the Genitorturers shot by me. I did find an old DU-1 OP of mine from the photography forum which included photos of Gen and her merry band. They were shot over a decade ago I think. Here is link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=280x31221

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl (Reply #95)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 02:33 PM

130. i would have missed this excellent post if not for an alert on the OP. you are truly awesome. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:21 PM

99. A woman's professional and mental abilities really ought to be judged by her appearance

 

how she chooses to express her sexuality, dress, pose and the like.

If she doesn't dress and act appropriately she should be publicly shamed, have her ethics and competency called in to question, and generally dismissed as intellectually inferior.

This message brought to you by every religious fundamentalist ever.

/oh and except for the last line that is sarcasm on my part if that needed to be spelled out (jurors I am not actually making this argument). But that does seem to be the basic argument a great many responders are using.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:22 PM

100. That article sums up everything I thought when I saw that photo.

Bad idea, particularly for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:36 PM

102. Mika said that her father and husband don't approve of that picture...

...but she clearly does things - and says little of consequence - so that the men around her take notice.

She writes books about strong women but doesn't seem to live what she writes - and the producers do her no favors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:44 PM

104. Not a fan of the show, or Mika, but...

A bit uncomfortable with the tone of some of the criticism. The phrase slut-shaming comes to mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:47 PM

106. um...



honestly, when did this show get to be so important now that its worthy of Vanity Fair profiles and analysis and hosts thinking theyre important enough nationally to run for president...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:58 PM

110. Profoundly silly photo, IMO.

She looks foolish. Joe, as always, looks like a smug asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 05:02 PM

115. She looks really good and works very hard to keep herself up.

I would rather watch their show rather hear lie after lie on faux. Her father can deliver more useful information in 15 minutes than others can working all day. MSNBC does a good job getting out the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 03:19 PM

133. That's all she's good for and that's all that conservative men think we women are good for.

She's beautiful but she is not a smart or thoughtful woman at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Original post)

Fri Sep 21, 2012, 02:24 PM

140. Good thing that in these dire times progressives of all stripes can come together and give some slut

 

a proper shaming.

Slut-shaming is the act of making someone, usually a woman, feel guilty or inferior for having strong sexual desires, having "too many" sex partners, or acting or dressing in a way that is deemed excessively sexual, often by calling them a "slut" or other derogatory terms, sometimes just by implying that a person's sexual "standards" are "too low" (i.e. that they are too sexually available). Slut-shaming is based on the idea that there is something wrong with being sexually promiscuous. Slut-shaming can occur privately or publicly, between people in all types of relationships.


As several have already asked: what would here daddy think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread