I am wondering if this would be considered an example of gender objectification?

[Old and In the Way]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by hrmjustin (a host of the General Discussion forum).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x8711061

Just want to make I understand community standards here.

6 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Poll closed
	Meets the standard
	0 (0%)
	Does not meet the standard
	0 (0%)
	Meets the double standard
	6 (100%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[PowerToThePeople]

2. I am wondering if I am going to trash this thread

Yup, meets the standards.

[laundry_queen]

23. +1 and it's a callout. nt

[1awake]

3. It meets the standard

but I cant claim to really care.

[gollygee]

4. Wow, it looks like that was in the lounge and not GD

back in those days, a thread like that in GD would have been locked quickly.

[Old and In the Way]

9. So the SI cover would have been OK had it been posted in the Lounge?

No real gender objectification had it been posted there, correct?

[gollygee]

10. I wouldn't have. n/t

[Fumesucker]

5. A double standard is better than no standard at all n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. It's actually worse./NT

[MannyGoldstein]

6. That's different!

As we're about to find out...

[Old and In the Way]

12. You are prescient!

See post #8!

[In_The_Wind]

18. No doubt.

Mind if I enjoy my coffee here for a while? [img][/img]

[treestar]

8. you went to a really old post in order to call out a DUer

it is not the same thing, we try, but we haven't gotten there yet.

do you think equality would be better if neither sex objectified the other? Or would you rather women learned to objectify men? It won't work until you feel insecure about your own physical differences from the top men (in the looks department).

[Old and In the Way]

11. "it is not the same thing"

"Or would you rather women learned to objectify men?"

Since I don't believe in this objectification bullshit, I'll go with "I don't care"

[treestar]

14. that's like saying it's OK for white people to complain about "racism" over affirmative action

or the BET. You're trying to pretend there was no previous repression. Really ignorant for a progressive.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. So that old post was basically righting a wrong? nt

[Old and In the Way]

20. In your mind there's some kind of equivalence,

not mine....but, to stay on the topic at hand, this is not an example of gender objectification, correct?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. I didn't see anything in the link that suggested...

I didn't see anything in the link that suggested the poster who was fetishizing hot guys was trying to make a point about repression. She was just pointing out guys that she finds hot.

[redqueen]

27. There is no point attempting to discuss it. Those who were there may remember,

and those who get it (that would of course not include the ones who participated in the equally disingenuous subthread in my OP about this issue) know what's going on.

The rest are just going to keep demonstrating their ignorance / shit stirring.

[JustAnotherGen]

31. I figured as much

Pretty obvious - huh? What just went on here.

[boston bean]

39. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=337362

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024221456

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4221211

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=337363

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023993891#post1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=337362

I really don't like dragging out old links, but I think this sheds some light on the matter.

[redqueen]

43. Ugh. Vile.

Thanks for the illuminating examples. I'm sure there is more where that came from.

[boston bean]

46. He's been flagged for review 2 times, due to two hidden posts

in a twenty four hour period, and let back on by admin each time, shortly after.

[geek tragedy]

49. misogyny creates page clicks. nt

[boston bean]

52. this type of behavior really catches my eye.

it's one of those things you don't easily forget. Especially the one about rape to RQ.

[redqueen]

65. I actually did forget he said that about rape, and his having "a happy ending".

I am good at blocking out the most triggering, hurtful things.

[Scootaloo]

151. So, just so I get this straight

A guy mocks rape, posts some shit so blatantly misogynist that DU juries actually voted to hide, and the admins brought him back in?

Well holy shit.

[boston bean]

167. yeah, aren't we lucky.

[JustAnotherGen]

51. Wow

There's enough references to uh - you know - on those posts that we could open a DU sperm bank. It's an almost morbid fascination.

[JustAnotherGen]

48. So let me ask you this

Let's have a convo around rq and the op!

Do you find it odd that the OP had to go back to 2007 to find an 'egregious' post by rq? One that objectified men that was probably posted in response to numerous posts with pictures of sex kittens?

Derailment -

And really the most egregious thing on there was a picture highlighting W's junk! Yuck. I never needed to see that.

Once again - jag is NOT helping and seabeyond is not here to laugh and tell me I'm such a girl!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. Some of the posts were over the top and I would have voted to hide them. That being said...

This whole enterprise reminds me of Jesus' admonition "not to look at the spec in your neighbor's eye when there is a log in your own."

None of us here are perfect.


My biggest problem with the cheese cake photos of men and women that some post here is this is not an appropriate forum as you are bound to offend someone.

[boston bean]

80. there was no log. the OP is flinging shit

and trying to make it stick.

from the link:

Redqueen

17. Well those aren't muscle-implants... so, fake? Dunno...


Anyway, it's not really something I seek out, but if we're going to parade one sex around like they're specimens in a dog show, then I can't help but want to provide some balance.

My personal tastes are more for character than appearance. But eye candy is eye candy.

[Old and In the Way]

94. "But eye candy is eye candy" - How true!

Did you make the same concession on Riff's thread?

[boston bean]

100. Did you read the thread?

Here about this post:

Heh.


Edited on Wed Apr-22-09 02:52 PM by redqueen

I'm attracted more to the person than the package.

I guess the gentle coaxing and playing along method of getting some to see the point didn't work. Some can be really dense, that's for sure. You are really grasping.

[Old and In the Way]

122. Yeah...that "winky" smile underscores her point, too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

99. I have no animus toward the OP or the person he was referring to.

I don't know who does and doesn't have the proverbial "log" in his or her eye but the larger point that none of us are perfect shouldn't be overlooked...

Folks like to look at other physically attractive folks be they gay, straight, or somewhere in between. The problem arises when people make physical attraction their alpha and omega.

Also, DU General is not an appropriate forum for cheese cake photos.

[boston bean]

104. the post he links to was from 2009 in the lounge.

And it is not just about posting cheesecake photos. There was more to it than that. Read the thread and see.

[redqueen]

118. "Read the thread and see."

Some people don't have any interest in understanding.

[pintobean]

70. How are intaglio and seabeyond holding up?

[geek tragedy]

72. do you do ANYTHING at DU besides pick fights with feminists?

I mean, literally, do you do anything here but throw snide comments and insults at feminists when you've decided they've gotten too uppity?

[pintobean]

78. Sometimes I post pics

[geek tragedy]

90. Okay. Anyhow, since you're in here supporting this guy, you waive any

objection to people lumping you in with his pattern of sexual harassment and bullying,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=337363

But of course, we already knew you played for that team. Because you always have their back.

[pintobean]

108. By your twisted logic

you agree with every post posted by anyone who has posted in hof, supported any womens rights, or advocated for gun control.
I'm only responsible for my posts, and you're only responsible for yours. Trying to claim otherwise is ridiculous.

Team? We have teams?

[sufrommich]

75. Wow.

[RBStevens]

93. Who needs a white night when they can have Prince Charming?

Those links literally made me ill.

[geek tragedy]

96. Skinner has TWICE looked at this guy's history and said "you know what,

yeah he's a serial sexual harasser and stalker of women here, but fuck it he can stay"

[seaglass]

116. Yep, it's obvious it's all about the clicks and we just need to face it. I've been here since 2001

and this is the worst I've seen this board. I find it embarrassing that so-called liberal, progressive, Democratic adults cannot self-moderate.

If ANYONE is under the impression that D's (incl liberals and progressives) are better than R's in how they act one on one in human relationships, I think DU proves them full of shit.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

102. Very interesting profile of the OP indeed, and he doesn't have many lib points of view, does he?

Same thing I was saying. The ones posting to make women feel like a piece of meat, for some reason simply don't have lib points of view. It seems pretty clear to me.

[NCTraveler]

150. Such a twisted fuck should not be allowed to stay here. nt.

[Old and In the Way]

170. That's not very nice. nt

[Eleanors38]

147. "women learn to objectify?" You mean they haven't yet?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. OY

14. If we're talkin eye candy, the guy's gotta be ripped IMO.

[Rex]

15. Dunno...but this thread is total META

Seems GD is overrun with META questions.

[arely staircase]

129. yeah as are about half of GD these days

just now noting that?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. My problem with the T and A threads is/was that DU is an inappropriate forum./NT

[Jesus Malverde]

19. jeeze....

That was a good find, but it's a continuation of the silliness.

Can't we all get along...

[Old and In the Way]

22. Just like bursting balloons....

what's a little shit stirring amongst friends?

[redqueen]

24. 1. I used to post those IN RESPONSE TO THREADS OBJECTIFYING WOMEN.

I was naively trying to balance the scales. Thinking that was progress.

It should have been a big red flag for me when ONE OF MY THREADS WAS LOCKED but the one about women THAT INSPIRED IT was NOT.

This was before I understood the concept of objectification - like most people here. But I never acted like a total fucking asshole about it.

2. There is no such thing as "gender objectification". Try reading. It helps.

3. This shit needs to he handled. Averting your eyes and pretending this site doesn't have a problem with misogyny is a fucking insult to women.

[Old and In the Way]

35. To recap, those (a few more I have seen)

were all educational threads, sans any mention of women objectification. But now that you understand the concept of objectification, there is no such thing as "gender objectification". OK, that's as clear as a muddle puddle in spring.

And I'm a "total fucking asshole"!

[seaglass]

25. Like I said in another thread - some people change over time and some remain stagnant. n/t

[redqueen]

28. The person who started this OP recently had a particularly nasty callout post hidden.

There is an agenda here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024467818#post33

[Electric Monk]

30. link?

[boston bean]

40. see post 39.

[seaglass]

32. Oh I know that and he has also had a time out (not the 5 hide time outs) for repeated

hides attacking HoF.

[pintobean]

44. Flagged for review?

One of your members is there now. I think it's the fourth time in less than 5 months for her.

[seaglass]

47. I have a member? Who is it? n/t

[pintobean]

59. She's also on her 3rd five-hide time-out

with 6 current hidden posts.

[seaglass]

62. Don't know what you're talking about or why you're telling me this. Very odd. n/t

[geek tragedy]

73. that poster spends every day at DU baiting feminists. all he does

note how he never objects to anything misogynist/homophobic/transphobic etc, he just lectures the women etc who object to that kind of stuff

never says anything to indicate he's on our side on any issue

[Old and In the Way]

137. For the record.

I'm pro-choice, equal pay, and believe men and women should have the right to be who they want to be. I am against authoritarians, bullies, and disruptors who want to cleave this board along gender lines. I don't like those kind of people.

[pintobean]

141. He can't answer you

he's in the house of flags.

Flagged for review

[Old and In the Way]

165. I though geek was a female....huh.

Well, as I say, you never really can tell a person's gender (or motivation) on an anonymous internet posting board.

[seaglass]

164. Your posts speak for you, no need for the disclaimer. n/t

[Old and In the Way]

74. I can only imagine how that poster would love to participate in this discussion.

I would learn so much, LOL! Fuck it!

[geek tragedy]

82. so you could sexually harass her?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=337363

Old and In the Way This message was hidden by Jury decision. Hide Response to seabeyond (Reply #26)
Wed Nov 6, 2013, 11:02 PM


43. Great, you showed up!

Finally! Fuck it, who am I kidding! We are all cum catchers....or cum pitchers. amirite?
A Jury voted 6-0 to hide this post on Wed Nov 6, 2013, 11:27 PM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

[polly7]

97. There's a story behind this.

You might want to do a search for the use of the word f*toilet here.

[Old and In the Way]

109. Thank you polly7!

Glad you showed up. Talk about "double standards"....

[polly7]

113. It's ok ... I knew right off what that post was referring to. nt.

[Old and In the Way]

106. Admit to being hammered that night...not one of my best showings on DU.

But, seriously, all I was doing was mimicking a typical post from the aforementioned. Oddly enough, though, that poster has a much bigger problem with self-control than I do. A cursory comparison of hidden posts will bear that out. I admit, when I'm posting while loaded, I can be an ass...but what is this poster's excuse?

[boston bean]

130. That is the post you are hanging your hat on to justify your behavior?

The link is usually provided, but not so much any more... wonder why?? Is it because the allegation is pure BS?

No one called any woman a Ftoilet.

Everyone read the context here for yourself:

The term "MILF" means "mom I'd like to fuck"

So yes, it did start out with the subject being the idea that women are potential fucktoilets first and foremost (and politicians, mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, ... people... second).

Seabeyond is going one step further and introducing the male member into this delightful exposition of the level of DU's tolerance for sexism.

(And it'd be nice if the one person attempting to pretend this discussion is about anything but frat boy humor would cease with the disingenuousness. Check the replies. This was not accidental, and to attempt to act as it was is frankly insulting.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=114066

[polly7]

135. Oh, it was a bit more than that ....

redqueen (99,811 posts)
128. Yes, it's usually men who get to make up the words used to degrade women.

Last edited Tue May 8, 2012, 11:29 PM USA/ET - Edit history (4)

And then only by absorbing the patriarchy's values do women start to use those words against each other (slut, bitch, etc.)

Fucktoilet was coined by a radical feminist (IIRC), to describe the way far too many women are treated by far too many men in this rape culture we're in. (During the Rape of Nanking, the soldiers did refer to the women and children they raped as public toilets, but AFAIK that isn't related.)

It seems fitting to me to use Twisty's term, and I'm glad that the naughty-word-list/anti-censorship/Lenny-Bruce-wannabe crowd finally has a term that they can at least pretend to be offended by.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=88696

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022391217

[boston bean]

136. The density it thick around here:

From your post:

Fucktoilet was coined by a radical feminist (IIRC), to describe the way far too many women are treated by far too many men in this rape culture we're in.

Again, no woman called any other woman a Ftoilet here.

[polly7]

143. She used it as a description of women.

And tried to make out that men here had done it.

Time after time after time. It was a LIE. Many of us objected to the term and yet she insisted on the right to use it, because 'the menz' think of women like that. BULLSHIT. 'Twisty', and obviously, Redqueen think that. It was introduced here as shock content while falsely claiming men on this site were responsible.

Oh .... and those of us who objected were called 6 y/o's just seeing a naughty word for the first time, naughty-word police, etc. etc. After watching thread after thread of hyper-ventilating over the word bitch, or 'girl' even.

Hypocrisy and double-standards, complete deafness to the sensibilities of some women? You bet!

Talk about density.

[boston bean]

144. She used the term to describe how some men view women.

She didn't use it to say she thought some women or any woman was an Ftoilet.

Seems it's about time you put this one to rest polly.

[polly7]

149. She tried hard to imply men 'here' had been referring to women in that disgusting way.

No-one on this site has ever referred to or described a woman as something that ugly, yet when we objected we were laughed at and told she had the right to use it whenever the hell she wanted.

Seems it's about time to stop with the double-standards and weaseling away from some of the most egregious crap that's insulted women and men you don't like.

I've been reading your posts the last few days and all those links you've dredged up from the archives to confront people with - do as I say and not as I do? I provided an explanation for the poster's remark because, on it's face ... it was pretty contentious. Don't like it, don't look.

[boston bean]

152. She was posting in a thread where the term MILF was being tossed around and joke about.

You got not problem with MILF but you got a problem with how someone describes what that actually means, when men use the term?

Give me a break and let this go. You've had a long time spouting this BS, and enough is enough.

[polly7]

154. Lmao.

I don't take orders from you.

You might want to look over your posts, regarding bringing up history.

[boston bean]

159. I see my posts probably more often than you do, because I type them out.

[polly7]

162. uhhhh .......

ok.

[Old and In the Way]

157. IOKIYAAHOF

I think you get my drift here. Amazing to see the pretzel logic and twisted panties/jockey shorts when folks are confronted with the same stuff they accuse everyone else of....

[JustAnotherGen]

36. Oh my

I started trashing the Allen threads so I missed that. Questions if we are female and if we have ever had any progressive ideas?

We really all need to start connecting IRL and away from DU. It's just easier that way rq.

[geek tragedy]

45. Funny how calling out women is a-o-k at DU3 but calling out miosgynists gets a post hidden every

time.

Amazing how that works.

[Old and In the Way]

53. Just looking for guidance from the experts on gender objectification.

Oddly enough, I'm not getting a straight answer on this question.

[geek tragedy]

56. no, you're trolling and baiting feminists, as you've done repeatedly

per the links that have been posted.

you're not fooling anyone, even those who agree with your agenda

[Old and In the Way]

60. I take it my example in the OP is not in violation of your community standards

and a pertinent example of gender objectification...am I correct in this conclusion? Not a hard question to answer.

[geek tragedy]

66. if you had an agenda other than excusing and enabling misogyny I might

play along, but since you don't I won't

toodles, last word is yours, manly man

[Old and In the Way]

79. Why so angry?

I'm simply asking for input on gender objectification. And why the "manly man" sexist insult? Aren't we trying to get past these type of labels?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

103. Not a lib, but a poseur, of which there are a few on DU.

I think it's pretty obvious what this one is. Lib, he is not.

[redqueen]

111. I agree of course, but look at all the false balance BS being pushed by some. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

117. Probably because they're unaware of what's going on and are tag-alongs to anything? Not me...

I did my research a few years ago, and when I found that some of the "DU" names that were acting strangely were actually right wingers that had signed up on DU to cause havoc, the posts of those particular individuals began to make perfect sense. The right wingers can run, but they can't hide from their own sick ideology though. It comes out sooner or later, like pus out of a wart.

[pintobean]

26. There's even a gay joke in that thread.

[Iggo]

29. No you're not.

[PassingFair]

33. The caption "Because the balance is off" CLEARLY indicates a

"this is how inappropriate these objectifying images are on a political message board" response post.

You apparently don't understand "community standards" anywhere.

[redqueen]

37. Oh no, I think the people repeatedly showing that they have no intention of engaging in thoughtful

discussion know very very well what community standards are all about.

And just like fox news, this mendacious bullshit is pushed intentionally in order to lower those standards.

[PassingFair]

41. This is starting to get on my nerves.

Shit newspapers in the UK have "page 3 girls" or whatever. They are crap newspapers and
people expect lurid sensationalism.

REAL newspapers DO NOT have regular column space devotes to nude or nearly nude women.
I have always come to DU to read political opinion and current events and for feedback and
reactions of caring democrats to the forces that buffet us.

I think the admins need to decide if they want
DU to be an on-line MAXIM or Mother Jones.

If it's to be MAXIM, I won't waste my time here.

[Old and In the Way]

38. I agree!

She was clearly educating us misogynists...like here in this post-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=8420460&mesg_id=8420572

I got plenty more of her educational work on behalf of objectification.

[PassingFair]

42. You obviously flunked Common Decency 101

Last edited Thu Feb 20, 2014, 01:13 PM - Edit history (1)

You've been held back for good reasons.

[Old and In the Way]

50. But I aced Hypocrisy Awareness! nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

105. No, you aced right wingerism. nt

[jeff47]

54. Wow. This OP is pathetic.

So you dug waaaaaaay back looking for a post to try and feel superior. And completely missed the point - objectification is bad, and objectifying men is one way to get men to understand.

This is a very petty and small post. Instead of desperately trying to justify your position, try growing from the experience. You'll feel better in the end. And as an added bonus, be a better person.

[Old and In the Way]

63. You can tell how much discussion those posts generated on the subject

of gender objectification...it was quite illuminating!

[jeff47]

67. Or you could keep being small and petty.

As is apparently your plan here.

Look, you have a chance to be a bigger person than you used to be. Stop fighting to be a small, defensive and petty person. Be better. You can do it.

[Old and In the Way]

71. What's good for the goose is good for the gawker.

Sorry, when the objectification experts tone it down, I will happily follow suit.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

107. Sure was! About what you stand for and believe. nt

[Orrex]

81. "try growing from the experience."

I see that same scolding sentiment in a lot of these threads, and it always has the same "Heed my wisdom" air to it. Other formulations include "you should think about that," "you should consider that," or "think it over first."

The unmistakable subtext in every case is that the scolder declares him or herself more wise, more thoughtful, more insightful, more empathic, or the like, thereby appointing him or herself to the position of enlightened instructor. Certainly you've decided you have the authority to dicate what constitutes "a better person."

Imagine the response if some random male poster admonished one of the HoF heavy-hitters to "think about that" or scolded her to "be a better person."

[jeff47]

86. The difference is the goal.

Imagine the response if some random male poster admonished one of the HoF heavy-hitters to "think about that" or scolded her to "be a better person."

The difference is the goal.

The goal here is to get people to stop, or at least reduce, objectifying women. Is that good or bad?

The goal in your theoretical example is to do the opposite. Is that good or bad?

[Orrex]

142. Again, you assume your own righteousness

In other words, it's okay to belittle (or, in RQ's dubiously resurrected thread, to objectify) people if the claimed goal is noble.

The goal here is to get people to stop, or at least reduce, objectifying women. Is that good or bad?

False dichotomy. Your belittling methods assume that there is only one acceptable route by which to pursue your goal of reducing the only acceptable definition of "objectification." Objectification is a spectrum phenomenon with widely varying interpretations. Why is your interpretation the best? Even here on DU, there is no consensus among women about what it means to be objectified. Do you know better than these women?

The goal in your theoretical example is to do the opposite. Is that good or bad?

Straw man. My theoretical example asks if you think it acceptable for a man to scold a woman "to be a better person." On what basis do you assume that the intent of my example is to objectify women? You also assume a false generalization, that the goal of my example (in which a very small number of women are addressed) equally applies to a monolithic assemblage of women. That's a fallacy.


In short, it's not as cut-and-dried as you would like it to be, and your opinion is not authoritative.

[Vashta Nerada]

55. Heh.

Those aren't women in bikinis so that's okay.

[Orrex]

155. Imagine how silly women would look if they posed like those men.

[Whisp]

58. If those guys had to work for less pay than their

women counterparts, and if they had to always be careful when going into dark parking lots alone or run a very high risk that their spouses will beat or murder them (especially when pregnant), if whatever they think or say will not be taken seriously because they are good looking (and if they are not great looking then they are discarded and humiliated because their only good use is for sexing) and whenever a woman interviews them for a job, or orders from them at a restaurant those women will always makes crude remarks about their bodies and stare at their crotches while ordering pancakes. They also have to be careful what they wear - they don't want to be a 'prude' for fucks sake but they also can't 'be asking for it' all the time - oh, and they'd have to watch who they drink with every minute because it would be their own damn fault if they got drunk and someone abused or assaulted them.

If some of you don't get this by now, it's because you don't want to and it's a waste of time and energy to explain.

[redqueen]

69. Thank you for trying once again to explain. nt

[geek tragedy]

76. "it's because you don't want to and it's a waste of time and energy to explain."

yep, post to educate third parties, but some folks do not want to learn

[Orrex]

85. I'm willing to bet that those male models earn substantially less than their female counterparts

The rest of your points are quite strong, but it's curious that you would lead with your weakest.

[Whisp]

92. and here we go, off the rails again... and the points zoom & whoosh. n/t

[redqueen]

114. Yep. Straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

Not exactly rocket science, seeing through this crap.

[Orrex]

146. There we go again, assuming that one point of disagreement equals wholesale rejection.

Binary much?

[The Straight Story]

61. The post itself is fine - but if you admit you liked the pics, you are objectifying a human

You cannot like others for any reason other than what they are like on the inside. If they dress nice (or not at all), wear makeup, do their hair nice, etc and you compliment them (either here or directly to them) and they didn't ask you to compliment them? You see them as an object to get off to and you hate them all.

Or some sort of weird loopy logic like that.

[JustAnotherGen]

64. W's junk/package

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

My eyes can never unsee that now.

Thanks for nothing.

[Nye Bevan]

68. Whoa.

Check out the abs on #2.

[gopiscrap]

77. Are you trying to start some crap?

[Old and In the Way]

112. Me?

Continuing it, maybe....but I certainly didn't start it.

[geek tragedy]

83. Is this post an example of a misogynist pig sexually harassing women

at DU with impunity?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=337363

[pintobean]

91. impunity

links to hidden post.

[geek tragedy]

95. and here he is, allowed to continue harassing women despite numerous examples

of that kind of garbage.

And you're cheering him on.

Which says everything about you.

Don't bother responding.

[oldhippie]

110. Funny, I had a post hidden merely for posting a link ....

.... to a hidden post. And I even posted that link in response to a request for the link by another poster to prove my point. Then they alerted on it. The jury seemed to think that was against the community standards to link to a hidden post.

Interesting, how that works.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

87. You're correct, but it's from 2009. If we go to all the suggestive posts since then...

We could count. Since 2009, how many posts would be (1) posts by women making men look like a piece of meat, and how many would be (2) posts by right wing males posing as libs in DU making women feel like a piece of meat?

(Because I sincerely believe the posts meant to make women feel like a piece of meat are being posted by right wingers posing as libs, and not by real lib males).

[Old and In the Way]

119. How about this?

(3) How many would be RW males posing as a certain type of feminist intent on cleaving this board based on gender? Could that happen? If I were a RW troll here, I would be a valued member of a certain group and I'd be accusing everyone (except members of that certain group, of course) as being the worst kind of patriachal misogynist pornifier. I've been here since 2001...my history is here for all to see. Back before the gender wars started, you can see where my focus was. It wasn't in the lounge, posting pictures of eye candy.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

127. Your obsession with "feminist" as a pejorative term, ALONE...

... tells me everything about you I need to know about you.

You don't need to go any further, really. I've also read your posts, read what you've said, and it's plenty info for me. It creates a whole new and very clear profile of what you believe, and what you stand for.

[dilby]

88. As a straight man all I have to say is:

Those guys are smoking hot.

[In_The_Wind]

98. As a straight woman, I agree with you.

[Jesus Malverde]

101. Sexuality is fluid and can't be put in boxes...

[LittleBlue]

89. You can't make this up

You just can't.

[whatchamacallit]

115. At this point I'm disgusted by everyone

Thumbs up DU!

[JVS]

121. Start a thread about it!

That seems to be the popular thing to do.

[whatchamacallit]

123. Nope, got better stuff to do n/t

[arely staircase]

125. + 1 nt

[arely staircase]

120. game, set

match.

Well played.

[arely staircase]

124. anyone posted the jury reults on this because you damn well know

Someone tried to get this hidden.

[redqueen]

126. If so it sure as shit wasn't me. He is doing a fine job. Post 39 is gold.

I'm all for people who haven't managed to grasp it yet having another opportunity to learn about my former naivete about how best to make life more fair for women when it comes to the constant objectification we are subjected to.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

131. The OP's own words (in his posts) define him, don't they? nt

[redqueen]

138. Indisputably. nt

[arely staircase]

132. uh huh. nt

[sufrommich]

134. I agree. I'm all for letting this OP stand.

If for no other reason than his hidden posts. Yikes.

[redqueen]

139. Exactly. IMO it should result in more than just increased awareness.

But a little progress is better than none.

[Old and In the Way]

148. I'm confused now. See post #24, There is no gender objectification.

Or is there? Anyways, I congratulate you on clarifying that my example of gender objectification "does not meet the standards".

[Marr]

128. I'm tired of trashing this shit, and I wish you cool kids would take it to the parking lot. /nt

[Old and In the Way]

133. Interesting....

only 1 vote for "does not meet the standard". Given some of the comments on this thread, I'd have expected a few familiar names to lend support. Perhaps later...

[GoneOffShore]

153. The Ouroboros brigade is on it's way.

[NCTraveler]

140. This shows that you have a serious personal problem.

Hunt down a thread from 2009 and try to use it as a callout. A failed callout, but a callout none the less. Your op is a 100% reflection of you, not redqueen.

[Old and In the Way]

160. "Your op is a 100% reflection of you, not redqueen."

Of course it is, I posted it. Unless you think Redqueen is my sockpuppet? Glad that you don't think beefcake photos are a violation of our community standards on gender objectification. It's all about consistency!

[NCTraveler]

168. And consistent you are....well in some areas.....well minus the two gbcw ops you started.

But in one area, you are amazingly consistent.

"hey, you can pull my pud....but, fuck it, I'm a cum insertatory!"

"Finally! Fuck it, who am I kidding! We are all cum catchers....or cum pitchers. amirite?"

"And for the record, seabeyond is a mother like I'm a sterile old woman. See ya!"



That consistency can be found in your linguistic artistry.

[NCTraveler]

156. Please keep your promise.

"12 years here and I'm sick of the BS. I'm just a cum pitcher, though...not a cum receptacle/toilet. The board has been played...bigtime. Adios and see you on the other side."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023993891#post1

[Old and In the Way]

161. I just can't quit DU.

[MineralMan]

158. I don't know about that, but this thread certainly is

a call-out of another DUer with a 5-year-old link to the old DU's Lounge. It feels like shit-stirring to me. I'd be embarrassed to put something like this up.

[Old and In the Way]

163. That's what makes us unique!

You wouldn't do it, I would. Hey, I'm just asking for clarification on gender objectification, so I don't offend the sensibilities of some people on this board.

[Whisp]

166. friggen disgraceful.

[UtahLib]

171. The stench of your bile

..must discourage people from coming within fifty feet of you.

[hrmjustin]

172. Locking- The host consensus is this is disruptive Meta.

Very sorry.