HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » LUV capitalism!!! Study ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:29 PM

LUV capitalism!!! Study shows hyper-sexualization of women by the media has increased 10 fold...



Study Finds Marked Rise in Intensely Sexualized Images of Women, not Men

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- A study by University at Buffalo sociologists has found that the portrayal of women in the popular media over the last several decades has become increasingly sexualized, even "pornified." The same is not true of the portrayal of men.

After analyzing more than 1,000 images of men and women on Rolling Stone covers over the course of 43 years, the authors came to several conclusions. First, representations of both women and men have indeed become more sexualized over time; and, second, women continue to be more frequently sexualized than men. Their most striking finding, however, was the CHANGE in how intensely sexualized images of women -- but not men -- have become.

In the 1960s they found that 11 percent of men and 44 percent of women on the covers of Rolling Stone were sexualized. In the 2000s, 17 percent of men were sexualized (an increase of 55 percent from the 1960s), and 83 percent of women were sexualized (an increase of 89 percent). Among those images that were sexualized, 2 percent of men and 61 percent of women were hypersexualized. "In the 2000s," Hatton says, "there were 10 TIMES more HYPERSEXUALIZED IMAGES OF WOMEN than men, and 11 TIMES MORE NON-SEXUALIZED IMAGES OF MEN than of women."

More at link: http://www.buffalo.edu/news/12769

418 replies, 106901 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 418 replies Author Time Post
Reply LUV capitalism!!! Study shows hyper-sexualization of women by the media has increased 10 fold... (Original post)
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 OP
Brickbat Dec 2011 #1
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #13
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #165
Bucky Dec 2011 #194
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #211
sendero Dec 2011 #254
Hissyspit Dec 2011 #266
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #294
antigone382 Dec 2011 #332
getdown Dec 2011 #338
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #347
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #346
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #369
getdown Dec 2011 #374
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #380
getdown Dec 2011 #385
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #399
Kingofalldems Dec 2011 #2
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #6
lapislzi Dec 2011 #17
whathehell Dec 2011 #132
seabeyond Dec 2011 #134
whathehell Dec 2011 #139
seabeyond Dec 2011 #142
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #163
seabeyond Dec 2011 #167
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #168
seabeyond Dec 2011 #176
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #182
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #184
seabeyond Dec 2011 #189
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #192
seabeyond Dec 2011 #198
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #201
seabeyond Dec 2011 #204
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #205
seabeyond Dec 2011 #206
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #208
seabeyond Dec 2011 #215
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #216
seabeyond Dec 2011 #217
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #219
seabeyond Dec 2011 #221
whathehell Dec 2011 #232
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #243
whathehell Dec 2011 #227
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #195
seabeyond Dec 2011 #197
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #199
PhoenixAbove Dec 2011 #256
getdown Dec 2011 #335
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #348
getdown Dec 2011 #357
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #362
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #368
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #164
whathehell Dec 2011 #186
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #193
whathehell Dec 2011 #210
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #213
whathehell Dec 2011 #223
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #242
whathehell Dec 2011 #264
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #311
getdown Dec 2011 #229
whathehell Dec 2011 #231
getdown Dec 2011 #234
whathehell Dec 2011 #239
getdown Dec 2011 #276
whathehell Dec 2011 #355
getdown Dec 2011 #358
whathehell Dec 2011 #367
getdown Dec 2011 #370
whathehell Dec 2011 #378
getdown Dec 2011 #379
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #381
getdown Dec 2011 #388
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #396
whathehell Dec 2011 #384
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #166
randome Dec 2011 #3
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #12
boppers Dec 2011 #230
JustAnotherGen Dec 2011 #4
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #8
JustAnotherGen Dec 2011 #11
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #14
JustAnotherGen Dec 2011 #70
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #74
JustAnotherGen Dec 2011 #95
MineralMan Dec 2011 #36
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #37
BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2011 #88
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #136
BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2011 #141
cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #5
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #9
cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #18
Gormy Cuss Dec 2011 #50
lapislzi Dec 2011 #7
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #10
JustAnotherGen Dec 2011 #15
seabeyond Dec 2011 #21
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #26
seabeyond Dec 2011 #30
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #51
Snake Alchemist Dec 2011 #102
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #107
Snake Alchemist Dec 2011 #130
whathehell Dec 2011 #121
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #123
whathehell Dec 2011 #188
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #196
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #209
whathehell Dec 2011 #214
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #218
whathehell Dec 2011 #224
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #260
whathehell Dec 2011 #263
ceile Dec 2011 #153
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #155
Control-Z Dec 2011 #222
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #262
JHB Dec 2011 #99
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #117
JHB Dec 2011 #140
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #251
JHB Dec 2011 #267
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #158
getdown Dec 2011 #233
Hissyspit Dec 2011 #235
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #240
Hissyspit Dec 2011 #252
getdown Dec 2011 #279
getdown Dec 2011 #278
seabeyond Dec 2011 #16
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #20
seabeyond Dec 2011 #24
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #53
seabeyond Dec 2011 #56
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #67
Zorra Dec 2011 #238
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #259
Zorra Dec 2011 #281
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #282
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #302
riverwalker Dec 2011 #19
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #22
The Straight Story Dec 2011 #28
PeaceNikki Dec 2011 #23
seabeyond Dec 2011 #27
PeaceNikki Dec 2011 #33
seabeyond Dec 2011 #44
whathehell Dec 2011 #125
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #46
The Straight Story Dec 2011 #25
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #32
wryter2000 Dec 2011 #78
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #79
wryter2000 Dec 2011 #81
lapislzi Dec 2011 #34
The Straight Story Dec 2011 #43
lapislzi Dec 2011 #47
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #115
whathehell Dec 2011 #126
maggiesfarmer Dec 2011 #29
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #35
maggiesfarmer Dec 2011 #59
seabeyond Dec 2011 #38
lapislzi Dec 2011 #31
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #40
lapislzi Dec 2011 #48
Shandris Dec 2011 #87
lapislzi Dec 2011 #103
Shandris Dec 2011 #173
Delphinus Dec 2011 #110
bemildred Dec 2011 #39
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #42
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #171
bemildred Dec 2011 #271
MuseRider Dec 2011 #41
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #45
MuseRider Dec 2011 #58
seabeyond Dec 2011 #61
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #62
seabeyond Dec 2011 #66
MuseRider Dec 2011 #72
NashVegas Dec 2011 #49
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #52
NYC_SKP Dec 2011 #60
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #63
lapislzi Dec 2011 #68
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #77
LanternWaste Dec 2011 #54
lapislzi Dec 2011 #64
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #69
lapislzi Dec 2011 #85
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #90
seabeyond Dec 2011 #93
Tumbulu Dec 2011 #246
BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2011 #97
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #147
Tumbulu Dec 2011 #247
LanternWaste Dec 2011 #116
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #65
seabeyond Dec 2011 #73
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #75
seabeyond Dec 2011 #76
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #82
seabeyond Dec 2011 #83
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #203
getdown Dec 2011 #237
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #241
Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #275
getdown Dec 2011 #277
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #295
getdown Dec 2011 #298
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #299
getdown Dec 2011 #303
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #300
getdown Dec 2011 #304
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #307
getdown Dec 2011 #310
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #312
getdown Dec 2011 #318
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #322
getdown Dec 2011 #324
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #327
getdown Dec 2011 #333
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #345
seabeyond Dec 2011 #313
getdown Dec 2011 #316
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #323
getdown Dec 2011 #325
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #326
seabeyond Dec 2011 #328
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #329
seabeyond Dec 2011 #331
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #349
seabeyond Dec 2011 #350
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #351
seabeyond Dec 2011 #352
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #353
seabeyond Dec 2011 #354
getdown Dec 2011 #330
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #344
getdown Dec 2011 #356
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #361
getdown Dec 2011 #359
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #360
getdown Dec 2011 #363
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #364
getdown Dec 2011 #365
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #366
getdown Dec 2011 #371
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #372
getdown Dec 2011 #373
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #382
getdown Dec 2011 #386
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #397
Delphinus Dec 2011 #111
slackmaster Dec 2011 #55
seabeyond Dec 2011 #57
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #71
chrisa Dec 2011 #80
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #84
BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2011 #86
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #98
lapislzi Dec 2011 #106
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #135
Occulus Dec 2011 #341
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #170
marzipanni Dec 2011 #305
seabeyond Dec 2011 #306
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #309
seabeyond Dec 2011 #315
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #317
getdown Dec 2011 #376
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #383
getdown Dec 2011 #387
seabeyond Dec 2011 #391
getdown Dec 2011 #392
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #400
seabeyond Dec 2011 #401
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #402
seabeyond Dec 2011 #403
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #398
seabeyond Dec 2011 #404
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #405
getdown Dec 2011 #408
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #409
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #308
BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2011 #108
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #122
BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2011 #143
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #145
BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2011 #283
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #284
BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2011 #285
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #286
BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2011 #289
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #290
maggiesfarmer Dec 2011 #112
BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2011 #138
maggiesfarmer Dec 2011 #159
Quartermass Dec 2011 #89
seabeyond Dec 2011 #91
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #92
Quartermass Dec 2011 #105
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #114
seabeyond Dec 2011 #120
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #128
Quartermass Dec 2011 #129
seabeyond Dec 2011 #131
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #133
Quartermass Dec 2011 #137
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #144
Quartermass Dec 2011 #152
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #154
REP Dec 2011 #225
Quartermass Dec 2011 #226
REP Dec 2011 #228
randome Dec 2011 #94
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #104
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #169
closeupready Dec 2011 #109
randome Dec 2011 #127
NCTraveler Dec 2011 #96
Fire Walk With Me Dec 2011 #100
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #101
Fire Walk With Me Dec 2011 #148
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #149
seabeyond Dec 2011 #150
Fire Walk With Me Dec 2011 #175
Taitertots Dec 2011 #113
dawg Dec 2011 #118
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #119
seabeyond Dec 2011 #124
Soylent Brice Dec 2011 #146
Eliminator Dec 2011 #151
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #157
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #161
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #162
Jennicut Dec 2011 #183
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #190
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #156
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #160
Modern_Matthew Dec 2011 #187
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #191
Hippo_Tron Dec 2011 #406
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #407
Hippo_Tron Dec 2011 #410
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #411
Hippo_Tron Dec 2011 #412
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #413
aikoaiko Dec 2011 #172
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #181
lapislzi Dec 2011 #174
seabeyond Dec 2011 #177
lapislzi Dec 2011 #178
seabeyond Dec 2011 #180
Burma Jones Dec 2011 #179
Modern_Matthew Dec 2011 #185
Fool Count Dec 2011 #200
seabeyond Dec 2011 #207
dawg Dec 2011 #212
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #220
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #202
Under Dog Dec 2011 #236
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #258
LeftyMom Dec 2011 #244
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #245
LeftyMom Dec 2011 #248
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #249
Hissyspit Dec 2011 #255
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #293
Hissyspit Dec 2011 #253
LeftyMom Dec 2011 #270
Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #301
Tumbulu Dec 2011 #250
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #257
Tumbulu Dec 2011 #272
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #273
seabeyond Dec 2011 #274
getdown Dec 2011 #314
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #319
getdown Dec 2011 #320
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #321
flamingdem Dec 2011 #280
Scuba Dec 2011 #261
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #265
randome Dec 2011 #268
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #269
dawg Dec 2011 #287
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #288
Rex Dec 2011 #291
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #292
Rex Dec 2011 #296
getdown Dec 2011 #297
Odin2005 Dec 2011 #334
seabeyond Dec 2011 #336
getdown Dec 2011 #339
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #337
Odin2005 Dec 2011 #340
getdown Dec 2011 #342
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #343
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #395
getdown Dec 2011 #375
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #377
ensho Dec 2011 #389
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #394
proverbialwisdom Dec 2011 #390
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #393
WinkyDink Dec 2011 #414
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #418
noamnety Dec 2011 #415
seabeyond Dec 2011 #416
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #417

Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:32 PM

1. Painful and important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brickbat (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:45 PM

13. Quite. It was no surprise to me. One would have to be an idiot to not notice...

but it's good that they're actually noticing the problem and doing studies on it, and good that studies are proving what we're all seeing anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 07:00 PM

165. Why? No, seriously. Why?

I mean aside from the fact that there's nothing "scientific" about these studies that claim to validate pre-ordained subjective opinions, what is the point of commissioning studies to confirm something for people who think they "know" it already?


...to give jobs to sociology post-grads who otherwise would be working at Starbucks? That's my guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #165)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 08:55 PM

194. It's sad that some liberals don't believe in pure science research.

It's useful to study the problems of society so that good-hearted political factions can argue intelligently about the need to reform and educate the public. This isn't money-driven science, but it is social science research that can help us understand some of the roots and influences of many social problems of today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #194)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 10:02 PM

211. Phony statistical quantifications of bs terms like "hypersexualization" AREN'T 'science' at all.

this isn't about money-driven research, this is about trying to pretend that someone's subjective opinion is somehow quantifiable scientific fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #211)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 07:10 AM

254. Wow..

...we need a "study" to find that "sex sells". Well, to men at least. WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK IT??????????????

And more importantly, so what? Exactly what kinds of actions can be taken to stem this tide of "hypersexualization" that offends people so much?

The answer to that one is obvious. Nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #211)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 08:22 AM

266. Did you read the study?

Not the excerpt, not the whole news article (MSM does a notoriously shitty job of encapsulating academic and science discipline articles, in case you never noticed), but the whole study?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #266)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 05:14 PM

294. You mean the one they're charging 35 bucks to read?

No. I guess I'm just not enough of a committed anti-capitalist to pony up that much dough for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #165)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:03 PM

332. As a sociologist, I'm a little astounded by your claims.

They reveal a profound ignorance of how sociology works. It is ackowledged in the field that we are almost always working with abstract concepts--whether it's sexualization, class status, religiosity, aggression, happiness--even race is a socially constructed concept, based on common perceptions of something that has no real genetic basis. That doesn't mean it isn't critical to study those concepts and to understand their implications.

That's why sociologists working on a research project will develop precise definitions for the concepts they are studying, and the criteria and methods they are using in the study of those concepts. The data and methods are always listed in the research for other sociologists with a wide variety of perspectives to examine and challenge if they think such definitions are incomplete or inadequate, or if they think the methods are biased. It is subject to the same process of peer review as any other discipline based on the scientific methods (and yes, you generally have to pay to access the journals in which such articles are published, the same as you would for any other discipline).

If you want to challenge this study on its own merits, then do that. Condemning the field of sociology as a whole based on misperceptions of how it actually works and what it actually aims to do only weakens your argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigone382 (Reply #332)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:03 PM

338. thank you

 

"If you want to challenge this study on its own merits, then do that. Condemning the field of sociology as a whole based on misperceptions of how it actually works and what it actually aims to do only weakens your argument."

as it turns out, he knows it's a weak argument ... as someone else points out, ignoring his ignorance may allow discussion to continue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #338)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 12:56 AM

347. "As it turns out...." Um, I'm not a puppet on the end of your wrist.



So please don't presume to speak for me. Trust me, your ventriloquism skills aren't THAT good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigone382 (Reply #332)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 12:55 AM

346. I'm not condemning the whole field. As I said downthread, I think sociology is a useful lens through

which to look at cultures and people.

However, I *do* object to these particular sociologists engaging in a tired process of hyping results in a way that presents them as quantified and solidly scientific. Sorry, "hyper-sexualization" as a real concept that applies to, for instance, Rolling Stone covers, is a completely subjective label. Now, maybe as you say in the paper that costs 35 bucks to read, they acknowledge as much and present a rational case for offering some statistical analysis of what is, again, a subjective opinion.

But the problem with these "studies" is that they are piled upon each other and cross-referenced (you can see it elsewhere in this thread) to provide the basis for arguments presented as 'scientific' which are, again, no such thing.

I am not the only person to lodge this objection to this kind of thing. There is a tremendous amount of bad "science" out there, much of it agenda and ideology-driven, and everybody knows it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigone382 (Reply #332)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 07:33 PM

369. Speaking of astounding claims:

In order to measure the intensity of sexualized representations men and women, the authors developed a "scale of sexualization." An image was given "points" for being sexualized if, for example, the subject's lips were parted or his/her tongue was showing, the subject was only partially clad or naked, or the text describing the subject used explicitly sexual language.


If you're going to arbitrarily define the criteria for a word (like "hyper-sexualization" ) that you just made up, you can't pretend that you're describing ANYTHING except the presence of a totally arbitrary, subjective phenomena that you yourself went looking for. Get it? "Hyper-sexualization" and "pornification" are totally bogus constructs conveniently created for the purpose of pushing a pre-ordained agenda.

These findings may be cause for concern, the researchers say, because previous research has found sexualized images of women to have far-reaching negative consequences for both men and women.


This is COMPLETE BULLSHIT, and is a perfect example of why pseudo-scientific "studies" like this one need to be challenged. Because otherwise, they're piled one on top of each other to create a veritable edifice of bullshit, like "Mark says Ted is truthful and we know Mark is truthful" How do you know Mark is Truthful? Because "Ted says that Mark is Truthful" etc. etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #369)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 09:29 PM

374. word games

 

cmon you can see the title and use in this sentence of "the intensity of sexualized representations men and women" which they - SCIENTIFICALLY - set some criteria to measure in their study. Mkay?

you don't like their made up terms. call it what you will. you deny it?
what "pre-ordained agenda" has you so bent on this? snafu? status quo?


"After analyzing more than 1,000 images of men and women on Rolling Stone covers over the course of 43 years, the authors came to several conclusions. First, representations of both women and men have indeed become more sexualized over time; and, second, women continue to be more frequently sexualized than men. Their most striking finding, however, was the CHANGE in how intensely sexualized images of women -- but not men -- have become."

truth hurts.

"Their most striking finding, however, was the CHANGE in how intensely sexualized images of women -- but not men -- have become."

worthy of discussion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #374)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:10 AM

380. It's striking because they made up the criteria and then -surprise- found a 'striking' increse in it

understand? They completely made up the criteria. It's not science. "Worthy of discusssion"? Fine. Then they should write an op-ed saying "We're mad about all the skin and eroticism we see on the cover of Rolling Stone". But peddling it as somehow hard statistical quantifiable scientific fact, chock full of bogus psychobabble like "hypersexuality" and "pornification".. it's fucking idiotic.

And speaking of discussion, what do you honestly think is going to be achieved, here? You think you're going to arrive at some nirvana where everyone on the cover of Rolling Stone is dressed in Puritan Garb? What?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #380)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 09:45 AM

385. you claim it's "fucking idiotic"

 

"And speaking of discussion, what do you honestly think is going to be achieved, here? "

back off and find out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #385)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 05:11 PM

399. I already found out

and as always it's nice to know that my spidey-sense was right, once again.



Maybe it's because I'm an indigo child who escaped the ill effects of NASA's brutish moon bombing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:33 PM

2. The Kardashians also did their part

They seem to be everywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:39 PM

6. The Kardashians ARE part of the media. We wouldn't even know who they are without the media.

They wouldn't be making money if not for the media. They'd be some obscure family, and probably would dress more normally and not do the things they do. This is all part of the media culture, and what the media cultivates AND SELLS: the hypersexualization of females.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:47 PM

17. Media is selling sexuality as a commodity.

Women are objects to be bought and sold, for the delectation of men. That's never been in dispute since before the days of Botticelli. However, now it's in your face. That's the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 04:24 PM

132. I have only one quibble with your post

"Women are objects to be bought and sold, for the delectation of men".

Women were never "objects"...They have always been people.

I think that distinction is important....After all, African-American Slaves were "objects to be bought and sold",

may have been TREATED as such, but that was not the reality.

They, like women, were perceived as such, but the situation ended

with laws and a changing social environment.

Women's legal status as 2nd class citizens or "slaves in all but name" changed starting

with suffrage and continuing on with equal opportunity laws.

Unfortunately, the "social environment" has not changed for women, IMO,

as much as it has for minority males.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #132)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 04:30 PM

134. i think the social environment has change. significantly in last decade.

i think it has changed from barefoot and preg to dehumanized fuck. there were only "those" women in the past. now it is all women..... and girls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #134)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 04:54 PM

139. I know what you are saying....To a certain extent,

old fashioned "prudery", if you will, kept all this sexualization of women at bay, and in that sense,

at least, I think it was a "good thing".....That being said, there has to be a better way...So many

people, confuse the new "openness" with the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #139)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 05:11 PM

142. there is a better way. we had it for a little while until we went to pornification and girls/women

handed their sexuality to men/boys, instead of owning it. until the girls take it back, it will be harnful to both genders. no one can have ownership of another and be healthy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #142)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 06:50 PM

163. ***



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #163)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 07:00 PM

167. i get it. you are part of the asshole group. and you wear it with pride. i hear ya.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #167)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 07:02 PM

168. Either that, or you're mad

because I know what's really going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #168)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 07:40 PM

176. wha???? lol. ah ha. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #176)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 08:13 PM

182. It's never been the same since the indigo children bombed the moon

I think there's a folk song in there, somewhere, actually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #167)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 08:33 PM

184. Don't be mean to the man. Everything on earth exists for a reason.

He exists to make us glad we're not like him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #184)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 08:49 PM

189. hey... i am not being mean. it is a hoot. they brag, they say

they feel pride in being an asshole. i figure a person would embrace it, not see mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #189)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 08:52 PM

192. For the record, I didn't think "you" were being mean.

And yes, I put "you" in quotes on purpose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #192)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 09:20 PM

198. i dont know why you put you in quotes, but, i am glad you did not think i was being mean. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #198)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 09:46 PM

201. If I posted Denis Leary's "I'm an asshole" in the "assholes check in thread"

I think you can safely assume that I'm not going to freak out when someone says "look, you said yourself that you're an ..."


I don't take myself THAT seriously, thanks. I'm really not that easily offended.

Sort of the same reason I don't get all flappy-armed: "ZOMG!1111!!! OHNOESITSTEHENDOFCIVILIZATION111!!!!"


because of sex on the cover of Rolling Stone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #201)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 09:49 PM

204. no... not with naked women, but you sure do flappy armed if women

speak out against it.

ya, multiply by ten the number of hair on fire if a woman dare challenge this dehumanizing bullshit. and you are all over it in hysteria. flat out, in your face, hysteria, i am telling you.

"ZOMG!1111!! dont mess with my pron.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #204)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 09:51 PM

205. challenge away, I say

I will even support you buy not buying Rolling Stone unless I'm in an airport, although that's pretty much been what I've done for the past 20 years anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #205)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 09:52 PM

206. i dont give a shit what you buy. it is really not about rolling stone. but no surprise

that just totally flies over your head. wwwwooooosh, is the sound

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #206)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 09:57 PM

208. Wait. What about the Rolling Stones?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #208)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 10:08 PM

215. hey, i am sorry you can't get no... satisfaction. hey hey hey..... i know you have tried and tried

tried

but you cant get no .... no no no

satisfaction.

bah hahahaha

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #215)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 10:09 PM

216. Yes, because I'm Mick Jagger.

You found me out!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #216)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 10:10 PM

217. hey, i thought you were telling me sumthin. lol. bah hahaha. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #217)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 10:12 PM

219. each one of my words is a multi-faceted font of wisdom pearls which operates on multiple levels

verily, it is so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #219)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 10:18 PM

221. can't get no....

lmao

no no no.....

on edit... i love that song. was fun listening. and so young

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #206)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:59 AM

232. Just ignore him.

He's just disrupting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #232)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:55 AM

243. ***

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #204)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:11 AM

227. Of course he does....Typical. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #189)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 09:06 PM

195. He should embrace it! You're doing him a favor. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #195)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 09:09 PM

197. see. glass half full. accepting them for who they claim to be.

that is a good liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #184)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 09:40 PM

199. One of me is plenty, thanks.

I mean, lots of folks agree with me on a lot of various issues, but I have no need to see a whole ton of clones of myself running around spouting my opinions to feel that they're valid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #163)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 07:35 AM

256. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore

This whole sub-thread by DeMontague is nothing but an attempt to derail and trivialize the OP. Some are experts at this and you see it all the time when women post things that are relevant to women. The only way to deal with people like DeMontague is not to respond to them. Do. Not. Engage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PhoenixAbove (Reply #256)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:33 PM

335. there it is PhoenixAbove

 

well put

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #335)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 12:58 AM

348. Amazing how many people seem to have signed up for the sole purpose

of agreeing with other posters in this thread.

Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #348)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 11:21 AM

357. you are

 

remarkably self absorbed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #357)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:55 PM

362. Maybe I just don't have enough selves.

I bet the redundancy helps with the absorption rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PhoenixAbove (Reply #256)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 07:28 PM

368. La La La




More like

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #139)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 06:51 PM

164. ah, yes, the good old days of prudery.

Sticky Ricky Santorum agrees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #164)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 08:41 PM

186. I'm not for prudery or "sticky" and I think you know that...Good try, though n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #186)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 08:53 PM

193. "You" think "old fashioned prudery" was a "good thing"

I mean, funny that someone might think "you" were in favor of it, given that those were "your" words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #193)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 10:02 PM

210. Read the post again...This time with your "thinking cap" on, lol.

that remark was qualified....I said it was better in

that women were LESS exploited sexually in the media, and then added

that I wished there was a "better way"..e.g. than prudery or pornification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #210)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 10:03 PM

213. So you said it, but you qualified it.

you still said it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #213)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 11:02 PM

223. And?

Sorry, bro, not interested in playing "gotcha".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #223)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:53 AM

242. More like got y'all



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #242)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 08:09 AM

264. Funny..

how no one feels "got", lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #264)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:11 PM

311. perhaps you should take a poll


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #132)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:49 AM

229. even when they were property?

 

"Women were never "objects"...They have always been people."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #229)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:56 AM

231. No more or less than African American slaves.

or any "slaves".....Legal standing does not undo one's intrinsic humanness.

I'm not at all sure what your point here is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #231)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:09 AM

234. you think

 

slaves and "chattel" were treated as people, not as property?

what is your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #234)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:45 AM

239. Um...No....The original statement went to what they "were"

not "how they were treated".

They were treated as "objects"...In reality, they were people...Clear enough for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #239)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:33 PM

276. you may quibble

 

Clearly the poster meant women were considered objects to be bought and sold, for the delectation of men. When you are the one on the receiving end of that perception, semantic hair splitting matters not. Your "disctinction" seems only to minimize the experience of those perceived and treated as human property; comprehending that experience is relevant to the thread.

As for African Americans, most have grown up on a continent far from where they might have been if "perception" had not altered "reality." "Changing social environment" physically and in every other way.




" "Women are objects to be bought and sold, for the delectation of men".

Women were never "objects"...They have always been people.

I think that distinction is important....After all, African-American Slaves were "objects to be bought and sold",

may have been TREATED as such, but that was not the reality.

They, like women, were perceived as such, but the situation ended

with laws and a changing social environment."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #276)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 02:19 AM

355. Getdown,

I don't know how this happened, but somehow, you've misunderstood me.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough, because, far from seeking to minimize your experiences,

I understand them as I've EXPERIENCED them myself, and I know EXACTLY what you're talking about!

At certain points, perception BECOMES reality, at least as it's experienced

by the person who is incorrectly being "perceived" as an object rather than a human being.

I'm a woman and a feminist and have had more than my share of

harrassement and being viewed as "property", so I empathize completely!

I was probably being too "literal", but was only trying to emphasize women's humanity

by making a clear statement that women, and people of color certainly ARE people,

even though we've been treated otherwise.

We're definitely in agreement on this, Getdown..



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #355)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 11:22 AM

358. got it

 

thank you. well put. Happy New Year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #358)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 06:48 PM

367. Thanks, and

Happy New Year to you too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #367)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 08:54 PM

370. had a feeling

 

that was the case. your patience and diplomacy do DU proud and are appreciated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #370)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 11:43 PM

378. Wow.

That is probably the nicest thing anyone on this board

has ever said to me.....Thanks so much, getdown

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #378)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 11:45 PM

379. well

 

what the hell


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #379)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:11 AM

381. Did you see this? It's AMAZING!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #381)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 09:51 AM

388. don't play that

 

the balls too small

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #388)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 05:03 PM

396. I'm sure it's way easier if you're fielding a whole shitload of paddles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #379)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 05:45 AM

384. heh heh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 07:00 PM

166. I blame OJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:35 PM

3. Yeah, but I would question what they use as the definition of 'sexualized'.

Are these images that men find sexualized? Do they have a panel of men? A panel of women? Who makes the 'hypersexualized' diagnosis?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:44 PM

12. Here's where you will find those answers - the actual study

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:50 AM

230. Paywall.

No access to actual information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:38 PM

4. Sarah

I wish you had posted this in one of the womens' forums at DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:41 PM

8. May an article post be posted twice? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:44 PM

11. I dunno

But I'll keep my peace and observe this. . .

P.S. My Mass Comm Thesis years ago was images of women in the media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:46 PM

14. Luvin' is good lol

Was it? Your thesis? What did you conclude? Is it online?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:41 PM

70. I concluded

That soft pornographic and monarch inspired portrayals of women in print, film, t.v. (no internet really in 1994 - at least not like today) were a constant brainwash that lead women to believe they could make more money off their weight and sexuality than via education and/or trade skills. But I looked at Media from 1965 through 1995. Started with Twiggy (vapid, vacous, androgynous anorexic) and ended with The Guess Ads - think Anna Nicole Smith as a hunted submissive animal. Women are 'things' to be moved around and posed - nothing more and nothing less. Man - you can tell I'm in the same age group as Monica Lewinsky. She was very 'typical' for the early 1990's - "I'm getting bombed and hooking up women" who defied that 'doe in the cross hairs' programming. I think she's hated more for THAT than giving the President a hummer in the Oval Office. 'Good girls' (rolling eyes and groaning) don't do that. It's 'boys being boys' who are sexually aggressive. And I respect bands like Motley Crue (think the video Girls, Girls, Girls) who put it out there so blatantly far more than I do Lady Gaga with so-called empowerment. Yuck!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #70)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:53 PM

74. Seems to me like you need to either write a book on this or teach a class

I've never heard anyone provide a summary like yours on how the media has degraded women in the past few decades. If there were a course like that down here, I'd take it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #74)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 03:10 PM

95. I write

A lot of it is Ghost Writing or alias. Used to have e-zine for single women over the age of 35. You know what though? I think the book has already been written. Annnnnnnnnnd - I think you are in your mid 20's or there about correct? The Beauty Myth (Naomi Wolf - yep that one that wrote Letter To A Young Patriot and got arrested for being OWS) and Backlash - by Susan Faludi. They obviously took a much broader scope but to me - they are THE Feminist writers (along with Melissa Harris-Perry) of Generation X. They told us hard truth back in the early 90's (Wolf/Faludi).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:00 PM

36. Yes, I think so. People cross-post articles a lot.

I don't think there's any problem with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:01 PM

37. Thanks, Mineral Man! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 02:51 PM

88. Yes you may post twice. I'm GLAD you posted in GD, actually

Most women already KNOW this, the study just verifies it. If it were posted in one of the women's forums, only that small section of DU would see it.

Many MEN, however, don't appreciate the effect on women or that there is even a problem with seeing an entire half of the population as narrowed down to one tiny sliver: young and seductive.

Many women don't even appreciate the negative effect such marginalization has...Taking hits to your self esteem repeatedly, daily, with no validation that what you're experiencing is draining and insulting does damage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #88)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 04:36 PM

136. Draining and infuriating. I get pissed off when I see women pornified in magazines, TV and movies

I think: Oh for f*ck's sake, are they just filling this with pornified females because they can't manage a DECENT story, storyline, script, anything at all? It says to me that there's no frikkin' talent out there, if they have to fill magazines, TV and movies with Barbiesized, half-nude females. Is that the only way they can sell these things? Maybe they have such a small staff that they have no writers, or they can't afford good writers, or that they're in the business of TRASH. That's what it says to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #136)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 05:04 PM

141. I have the same kind of reaction

It's the one sidedness that really pisses me off most of all. As if these people that write this stuff have no sisters, no female friends, no mothers, no interactions with any women at all except on a sexualized level! Can't even imagine women as anything other than the fantasy.

I talked about the Madison Avenue thing here in this thread, this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=80868 (I don't want to copy-paste the whole post, seems obnoxious to do that)

Thanks for starting this thread, it's important!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:39 PM

5. Is Rolling Stone now a adequate scientific proxy for "the media" or "capitalism"?

This is like a study of media that only looks at Fox News or The Cooking Channel.

This OP headline is not at all an accurate reflection of the study or its findings.

The linked article headline is better, but incomplete. I should be:

Study Finds Marked Rise in Intensely Sexualized Images of Women, not Men on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:43 PM

9. Here - read the study

Since I know you like to read studies, how they're organized, set up, carried out.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k722255851qh46u8

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:49 PM

18. The methodological fine points are irrelevant to this particular objection

A study, no matter how excellent, limited to covers of a niche-market magazine with a series of individual humans as art director is not a useful proxy for the media, let alone for capitalism.

A study of whether fruit in grocery stores is tainted that studies one lime is of limited meaning no matter how brilliantly that one lime is studied.

The actual study has a perfectly good headline: Equal Opportunity Objectification? The Sexualization of Men and Women on the Cover of Rolling Stone.

The article about the study has a less useful headline.

And the OP has a very un-useful headline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:11 PM

50. I agree.

The headlines are sensational. The study title is precise. This is a common problem with the way media reports such studies, and far too often even the text of media reports fails to describe the study appropriately.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:40 PM

7. Having trouble with this

Because the terms are subjective and ill-defined. After reading the Buffalo article, I am no closer to understanding what a "hypersexualized" image would look like (and no, I am not after pictures; I am merely trying to understand the criteria being applied). The article mentions "parted lips" (may or may not be sexual, depending on the context) and nudity, both partial and total.

How this adds up on the sexualization scale is not fully explained.

I'm not trying to start an argument or deny the truth of it, but vague language doesn't help to make the case.

Suggested reading for people interested in the topic of the objectification/fetishization of the female body: "Ways of Seeing" by Jon Berger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:44 PM

10. I'm going to help you...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:46 PM

15. don't forget

Monarch Programming . . . I believe it exists. My father believed it exists. And it's why people shrug shoulders regardless of where the woman is hypersexualized. Enslaved. Submissive. It's why people people The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is 'empowering'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:50 PM

21. not only empowering, but an excitement and titillation at seeing 2 hour and 45 minute of violence

against women.

a phenomena like i have yet to see, except the movie passion of christ with fundamentalists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:53 PM

26. I'm embarrassed at my ignorance but I don't know what The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is about...

However, it's out in theaters, so I'd better get out there and find out quick.

Now that you've mentioned it, I'm going to watch the movie. Perhaps read the book. It's a saga, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:56 PM

30. why give them the money empowering hollywood to use explicit graphic drawn out rape of women as

further entertainment value? it was a line crossed into bring porn to mainstream movies and a nation of people excited and embracing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:12 PM

51. I seldom watch American movies because they lend themselves to the degradation of women...

I tend to watch foreign movies at theaters and at home.

My most recent one was an Italian one, Mid-August Lunch. BEAUTIFUL movie about a man who lives with his elderly mom (taking care of her) and gets 'stuck" with a slew of older ladies when sons drop them off at his house. Funny and awesome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 03:20 PM

102. Yes. European movies such as the "Irreversible" or "Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down" show rape the right way

 

Long, graphic, and brutal. Why can't more American movies show this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #102)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 03:32 PM

107. You assume I watch everything. However, Hollywood's plastic, surgically-altered idiotic female

characters are king in the film world industry for portraying females like complete braindead, sexual idiots. Nothing quite compares with Hollywood's pornification of females. Hollywood's women are, for the most part, Barbies who say stupid things which we are supposed to interpret as 'funny,' spread their legs at the blink of an eye, and show their implants. Little else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #107)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 04:22 PM

130. That Erin Brokovitch was a real hussy. n/t.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 04:11 PM

121. American independent movies?....Not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #121)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 04:12 PM

123. Indy movies are wonderful! And they use actors that are not the typical Barbie-cookie-cutter

I love indy movies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #123)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 08:43 PM

188. Yes, exactly...

I tend to like British stuff as well...n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #188)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 09:06 PM

196. British stuff is wonderful. Love Britcoms. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #196)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 10:00 PM

209. No, no sex in Britain, that's for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #196)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 10:05 PM

214. I love the dramas....Spooks, Waking the Dead, etc.

My husband and I became so enamoured of them that we

bought a multi-directional dvd player so that we could order

them directly from the UK instead of waiting for them to

come to America, either on television directly, or on Amazon.com

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #214)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 10:11 PM

218. What is a multi-directional DVD player? I've got to have one if it can get all

that from the UK!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #218)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 11:11 PM

224. Oh, yes!...Glad to help out..A mult-directional DVD player will play DVDs

from all over the world!....I didn't realize it until I tried

to send a friend in Europe an American DVD

and found that it wouldn't play on his player....Sooo,

I checked it out and found that

dvds and videos from Europe and elsewhere

won't play on American DVD players -- and vice versa.

For reasons unknown, different parts of the globe are

broken up into "regions", such as Region One (USA..maybe Canada)

Region Two (Europe) and so on, so only a "multi-directional"

DVD will play "all" zones.

You can go to Amazon.com and buy one....They're not

very expensive...Ours cost about a hundred bucks,

plus shipping......So good luck!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #224)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 07:48 AM

260. That's going to be my own personal Xmas gift to myself...

thanks!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #260)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 08:03 AM

263. Good for you!....Enjoy. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 06:04 PM

153. Yes, it is a saga-3 books.

Brilliantly written and the Swedish movies are terrific. Not sure I'll go see the Hollywood version- they tend to ruin things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ceile (Reply #153)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 06:09 PM

155. Yes, Hollywood does ruin things. I recently took my niece - she's 11 - to see Breaking Dawn, the

new Twilight movie in the series.

She was SO DISAPPOINTED!!! She said they 'embellished' everything, changed the whole story around, and what I noticed was that all the vampires were made out to look typically Hollywoodish. She wanted to see the book on film, and it wasn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #155)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 10:52 PM

222. Is that the one where the girl

gives up her life to birth the vampire's baby? My 18 YO told me that it was a far cry from the first two movies and wondered how shocked and pissed off a parent might be after taking their 13 YO to see it expecting it to be like the first two. She said it was sexually intense and vulgar with a terrible message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Control-Z (Reply #222)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 07:51 AM

262. Vulgar, and not at all like the book. I'm not saying the book was a classic...

but hey, if you want to make the movie rendition of the book, for chrissakes, don't f**** go changing the whole damned story. And they changed the thing, put in fights that didn't exist in the book (I guess so males going to see it would be happy and all), and I sure as hell hate it when Hollywood does that shit.

Makes me livid when they re-write books, stories, etc. to sell more tickets at the box office. Or at least because some idiot THINKS it will sell them more tickets.

Capitalism can kiss my ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 03:14 PM

99. Are you aware that there is a charge for that article?

Sexuality & Culture is not an Open Access journal.
Unless you are a subscriber (personally or through some other entity), the charge for access to the article is US$34.95.

That limits the helpfulness of the link somewhat. Without coughing up the cash, we can only discuss what is said in the press release, not the paper itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHB (Reply #99)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 04:02 PM

117. It's not an article. It's the complete, published study, if you desire to examine it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #117)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 04:56 PM

140. It is a research journal article...

...which is why SpringerLink tells me:

Buy Online Access to this Article
Buy Online Access to this Article
Individual Article (Electronic Only)
USD 34.95


The use of the term "article"in this context is appropriate, and does not imply that it is not a complete study. My point was that examining it requires a commitment of a nontrivial amount of cash for anyone who does not already have access to the journal.

Did you not have this access problem when you read the full study?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHB (Reply #140)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:37 AM

251. Wait. They're charging 35 bucks to read the whole thing?

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick. A year subscription to Rolling Stone itself is only twenty.

I take it back about sociologists not understanding how to function in the real world. Kinda makes the anti-"capitalism" screed in the OP a little ironic, tho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #251)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:18 AM

267. That pricing is not unusual for academic journals

They aren't mass-market items, so it's not like they make their revenue on volume or with extensive advertising.

And that's a single-article fee. Subscribers to the full quarterly journal have a lower per-article price, and since most subscribers would be institutions (academic libraries, research groups), each subscription would be used by multiple people.

My issue was with the way the link was presented, as if critics hadn't bothered to look at the article itself with no acknowledgment of that barrier to self-investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 06:14 PM

158. So someone who has defined "sexualization" and "objectification"- two totally subjective, bs terms-

has (surprise!) found an "increase" in these bogus, subjective terms. Well, since I'm concerned about the proliferation of floogleshmitzes in public horgflattzery, I have comissioned a study, and since I have defined floogleshmitzes and horgflattzery to my satisfaction, I am eminently surprised when I can write authoritative-sounding "scientific" papers that clearly demonstrate a rising problem with 'em, never mind that they're completely fucking meaningless.



Among other reasons, this is why American jobs are in trouble. We keep churning out degrees in crap like "sociology" when we should be teaching students math, science and engineering. This sort of idiotic navel gazing doesn't produce anything except perennial outrage on the part of people who were outraged already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #158)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:05 AM

233. you would not be confused by

 

the meaning of "objectification" if you were female, the subject of objectification in media and real life.

"This sort of idiotic navel gazing doesn't produce anything except perennial outrage on the part of people who were outraged already."

you and some others "who were outraged already" are bothered by a discussion of a study of an actual cultural phenomenon.

imagine the "math, science and engineering" graduate subjected to objectification, surrounded by cohorts accustomed to extreme, disproportionate hyper-sexualization of females ... imagine that was you or someone you care about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #158)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:17 AM

235. " We keep churning out degrees in crap like "sociology" when we should be teaching students math"

Nice right-wing nonsense talking point there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #235)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:49 AM

240. Yeah, the right wing just LOVES science.

Look, those are the facts. I'm sorry reality makes you (and, I guess, pretty much everyone else worked into a froth over the topic in the OP) so mad.

Engineers and people with math and science degrees are the people who are going to develop, for instance, the renewable energy technology which this planet needs in the coming century. Sociology majors are going to develop authoritative-sounding papers hand-wringing over bikini wearing women on Rolling Stone covers-- useful to nothing and no one except perhaps sociology professors teaching sociology students who hope, then, to become sociology professors themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #240)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 07:05 AM

252. Utter nonsense. You prove my point.

Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 08:17 AM - Edit history (4)

Complete ignorance of how culture, higher education and knowledge interact and work.

The right wing loves science when they think it can be exploited to make money.
And I'm not worked up in a froth over the OP. You got that wrong, too. I didn't say a damn thing about it. I am responding specifically to your comments on sociology degrees.

Yes, it's a right-wing talking point. Picking up where the Bush administration left off:

http://htpolitics.com/2011/10/10/rick-scott-wants-to-shift-university-funding-away-from-some-majors/

Rick Scott wants to shift university funding away from some degrees

By Zac Anderson, Herald-Tribune
Monday, October 10, 2011
Rick Scott's daughter has anthropology degree

- snip -

Leading Scott’s list of changes: Shifting funding to degrees that have the best job prospects, weeding out unproductive professors and rethinking the system that offers faculty job security.

- snip -

Scott said Monday that he hopes to shift more funding to science, technology, engineering and math departments, the so-called “STEM” disciplines. The big losers: Programs like psychology and anthropology and potentially schools like New College in Sarasota that emphasize a liberal arts curriculum.

“If I’m going to take money from a citizen to put into education then I’m going to take that money to create jobs,” Scott said. “So I want that money to go to degrees where people can get jobs in this state.” “Is it a vital interest of the state to have more anthropologists? I don’t think so.”

Top leaders in the Republican-controlled Legislature have expressed strong support for university reforms.

- snip -

ALLY TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2011 AT 6:16 AM
Rick Scott’s effort to stifle the study of anthropology reminds me of Chairman Mao’s policy to forbid the study of this subject in Communist China. What subject will be on the chopping block next? Mao also forbade the studies of psychology, sociology, and economics so new generations of students wouldn’t be educated enough to critique

MORE AT LINK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #252)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:41 PM

279. yup

 



he's the one with the agenda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #240)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:40 PM

278. froth away

 

really this is silly

and you ignored my comment, which points out the relevance to women and those who care about them. Do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:46 PM

16. "pornified."says it all. this is what we do to our women and girls today. and IF

a woman dare challenge the audacity of society to pornify her, she is attacked with no shame, almost always attack her sexuality.

neat little trick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:49 PM

20. Yeah, don't you love it? Automatically 2 or 3 guys that love the pornification of women cry and

start whining that we're being mean feminists and hurting their feelings.

Not one thought forms in those 3 guys' brains to the effect that it's harmful, AND that unbridled capitalism is to blame. Not 1 thought about their daughters. They just want to pornify women, and by golly, they're going to demand it! End of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:52 PM

24. yup. AND

you know what is very special about you and i? we can so adamantly disagree on one thread, and respectfully agree and discuss on another, with no hard feelings. THAT is special .... to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:15 PM

53. Yup!

Isn't it good?

I've always been that way. I hold no grudges except with two exceptions:

(1) Anyone that hurts or insults my family;
(2) Right wingnuts (they don't stand a chance).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:18 PM

56. i dont much indulge in grudges, either.

total waste of time and energy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #56)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:40 PM

67. Absolutely. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:27 AM

238. You know, Sarah,

It's just hopeless in some cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #238)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 07:47 AM

259. Sometimes it sure seems that way.

But I'm a very energetic female, and I just don't quit trying. My bf says I can be a pest about things when I don't get my way. So, I go through life instructing people about these topics, whether they like it or not. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #259)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:50 PM

281. I totally understand.

It often takes insistent, consistent, and repetitious instruction to get points about equality, objectification, and related issues across to many people.

Homophobia and misogyny seem to have common roots, and they are similarly enculturated in many societies.

They are so enculturated that homophobia and misogyny are somewhat an acceptable norm in many societies.

That seems to be why there are is a substantial number of people out there who are homophobic or misogynistic, and don't have a clue as to how they are being homophobic or misogynistic when they express these tendencies.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #281)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 03:05 PM

282. I never thought about it, that homophobia and sexism could go hand in hand. I suppose the same

people who are homophobes probably hate women too.

I like to tell anti-feminist males that they hate women so much, they may as well seek their sexual pleasure from men. I know, I'm bad, but I like to make people like that mad. Maybe getting angry might reboot their brain. Who knows?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #282)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 07:12 PM

302. and I think the people who get all angry over depictions of hetero sex are bugged by gay sex too.

Scratch a censor, you'll find -most likely- a religious fundamentalist, even if they're juggling their concepts to pretend that's not what's pushing them on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:49 PM

19. two words

"Toddlers & Tiaras" not the cause, certainly, but the symptom. I have 3 granddaughters. Try to walk through a department store without silky nighties, bras for 6 year olds, black low cut cocktail dresses for 9 year olds, stuffed in your face. The "Brat" dolls, pouty spoiled shallow superficial icons. The turn this culture has taken is frightening, and dangerous. Too many Neanderthal pedophiles take it to the next level.
Women need to take our culture back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverwalker (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:51 PM

22. Toddlers and tiaras takes the pornification to women all the way to the level of little girls - sick

The media makes it available, and you know there's always going to be a pervert willing to do that to a little girl.

Toddlers and Tiaras is every pedophile's dream come true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverwalker (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:53 PM

28. Yeah, that's a pretty sick show (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:52 PM

23. K&R.

After watching Miss Representation and following the work of PBG and SPARK, I am 100% convinced that we need to step it up and stop this madness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:53 PM

27. with ya.... sistaaaah. i won't shut up, if you dont. lol

hell, on edit.... i wont shut up regardless if you do or not, lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:59 PM

33. No, I will not shut up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:06 PM

44. damn that is good. i was listening to a poster saying women leave the house to be looked at.

Last edited Wed Dec 28, 2011, 04:16 PM - Edit history (1)

i thought, no.... not really. many times, i get ready in the morning without any interest at being looked at. my appearance is solely for me. yet, inevitably there is the repetitive checking out. even now.... getting old. i am so god damn tired of men thinking i am on display for them.

because i brush my hair does not mean i am brushing my hair to attract some man. and i haven't for a couple decades.

thanks for the article. it is kick ass and i am gonna have to get in that thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 04:13 PM

125. These would probably be the same people who think women BREATHE for them. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:08 PM

46. PeaceNikki, I'm with you too. You're right. This bullshit needs to be stopped.

I actually bring this up in conversation. Often, I get the deer-in-the-headlights look from others who are off in la-la land and accepting like Biblical Truth whatever crap the media puts out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:53 PM

25. Well, two things. It is Rolling stone and women have more sexual parts than men

Two generally for guys and 4 for women, so the ratio sounds about right (topless man not sexualized, topless women are).

The mag target may also be more male oriented hence the difference numbers - they should take a look at Elle, 17, etc which is targeted towards women (and guessing they will find those sexualize women more than rolling stone (and I am guessing playboy does it even more so....just a hunch).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:59 PM

32. Okay now...

I didn't do a study (I swear I didn't), but Rollingstone is not a man's magazine. It began as a magazine about music.

Playboy, Maxim, Men's Health, GQ, Esquire, Men's Fitness, Men's Journal, and Sports Illustrated (where women are shown in swimsuits, which is hardly a sport), are men's magazine.

Rollingstone has a basis in music, and has some kick-butt articles on politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 02:05 PM

78. Men's Journal

I'm a woman and a feminist and as outraged by all this hypersexualization of women.

I have to say that Men's Journal is outstanding at showing women as people. Yes, they may show up in swimsuits but in articles and ads about swimming and usually with men in swimsuits. The women are young and healthy (as well as slender), but so are the men. Occasionally, you'll see an ad with woman as object, but it's very rare.

I started reading my husband's Men's Journals after the dh died. I was astonished and very pleasantly at the respect the magazine shows toward women. I never expected that from a men's magazine.

And yes, I read it for the articles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wryter2000 (Reply #78)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 02:07 PM

79. In many ways, capitalism has made women's magazines even more nefarious since they are propaganda

And teens get started early nowadays in reading and viewing that crap.

If I listed articles in here from women's magazines, we'd all soon be puking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #79)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 02:14 PM

81. You are so right about women's magazines

The covers down-thread are horrifying. "Am I normal 'down there'?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:00 PM

34. ?? You puzzle me.

First off, any part can be sexual if treated the right way. Heck, the Victorians swooned if they saw a woman's ankle.

And, all you have to do is look at an Abercrombie ad to witness the sexualization of the male chest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:04 PM

43. I didn't write the study about what is/is not sexual

From what I was able to view of the study (have to pay to read it all) and the pics they used it is going along the 'traditional' sex lines (how someone is looking, how few clothes they have on and exposing 'parts', etc).

Perhaps women are actually more liberated now and not hiding their bodies in victorian gowns - is that a bad thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #43)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:09 PM

47. That was my whole problem with the fragment of the article

I don't know how they work their sliding scale of "sexualization-hypersexualization-pornification."

I don't take well to essays that don't define their terms at the get-go.

BTW, this woman thinks guy butts can be very sexual, and I think the media also treats them as such...if HBO is anything to go by.

And, the "liberated" women who are displaying their bodies tend to conform to the western idea of what is "beautiful." I betcha there are no fat/old/disable people shedding their clothes on the cover of Rolling Stone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #43)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 04:01 PM

115. I'm going to post about that. :) Are women who run around half naked, surgically-altered, and

live only to please men with sex, more or less liberated. It should be a very fun post.

What do YOU think? Is that liberation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 04:16 PM

126. Bullshit.....Sarah I. is correct....Rolling Stone is about MUSIC, it's not a "men's magazine". n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:55 PM

29. is this a surprise?

follow the logic:

1. >90% of American's are heterosexual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States)
2. American men make more money than American women, suggesting they have more buying power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States)
3. many 'experts' seem to agree that men respond more to visual stimulation than women (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/)

so, if we know that most of the money is controlled by heterosexual men, and we know that men respond to visual stimulation, is there any wonder at why marketing departments would head in this direction?

apologies for citing wikipedia -- I wasn't trying to author a formal opinion piece, rather give anyone who wanted to check my info a starting point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maggiesfarmer (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:00 PM

35. Oops! You didn't read the post or the article....

"1. >90% of American's are heterosexual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States) "

The above has nothing to do with the fact that women have been hypersexualized 10-fold in the past decade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:27 PM

59. correct, you have to follow the rest of my points as well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maggiesfarmer (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:01 PM

38. 1 study in the 80's with questionairre proved that out hence, it becomes fact. NOT reality.

when a nonbias study was performed in 2009, they found the opposite to be true. not only are women as sexually stimulated visually, but they will be sexually stimulated with any sex. where as a man will only be sexually stimulated with perferred gender. not that we will ever get beyond the reasoning that men are more visual, hence their continued need to pornify women




t is considered an almost forgone conclusion across research disciplines, among pop psychologists of all stripes, and in the general population that men are more “visual” than women when it comes to the way they get turned on. Men, we’re told, are visually aroused, whereas women just need a good sense of humor, and possibly a strong jaw, and they're on board.

This misguided, but pervasive belief can be linked to a host of other gender stereotypes which are further complicated by sexual politics and differences in social power. So arguments which should be challenged, such as the “fact” that men leer more than women do, that they objectify women’s bodies more than women do men’s bodies, and that they just can’t stop watching porn, are explained as somehow being related to a mix of genetics, patriarchy, and simple mindedness.

Challenging these ideas can be a monumental task. Researcher bias being what it is, science rarely offers support for these "counter-intuitive" ideas. What's worse, when research does start to complicate matters, the media, and even smart bloggers who should know better, distort the findings beyond recognition.

Nonetheless, a recent study published in the journal Brain Research is offering the first preliminary but important evidence to dispel the age old myth that visual imagery is more important to men than it is to women. And it's worth considering without hyperbole.

http://sexuality.about.com/b/2006/06/19/new-brain-research-challenges-the-myth-that-men-are-more-visual-than-women.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 12:57 PM

31. Despite my problems with the article, Sarah has the right of it.

Women = property is unique to capitalist society.

If one looks at representational art (I'm an art history MA, so this is easy for me), you will find the earliest sexualized depictions of women early in the Italian Renaissance, seat of the merchant states.

Subjects from mythology and the Bible became vehicles to portray women as objects for the delectation of the male. Suddenly, the Rape of the Sabine Women became a favorite of artists, as did a reclining nude Bathsheba, and a shamed Eve. I could go on, tying the subject matter to notions of chattel slavery that persisted well into the 20th century, but I think I'll stop here.

What we see today in the media is just the latest flowering of this trend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:02 PM

40. Thanks, lapislzi. Capitalism is the culprit here. It sells everything, people's lives, people's

souls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:10 PM

48. Always enjoy your posts, Sarah

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 02:51 PM

87. Wait a moment. I can't let this one stand.

Women = property is unique to capitalist society.

...what? Did I miss a typo or something? Or are you considering anything that isn't communism to be capitalism?

You HAVE to have some qualifications for this statement, because on it's outside it's...non-sensical?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shandris (Reply #87)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 03:23 PM

103. I actually qualify downthread

It's more about patriarchy than capitalism. Feudal society was patriarchical and treated women as chattel. True, as it was in many other pre-capitalist societies. Women as property is ancient. I should have been more clear.

It's capitalism that accelerated the objectification and fetishization of woman, as it did with so many other "objects." That, and the subsequent conflation of objectification and sexualization--woman as object for delectation of the male.

There was a paradigm shift around the time capitalism began to take hold in the west wherein women's roles shifted from strictly being brood mares to being sexual objects. This was a top-down phenomenon, beginning with the moneyed classes, filtering down to where you find it in every strata of western society today.

As well as art history, my background is in theoretical Marxism. So I apologize for my philosophical bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #103)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 07:20 PM

173. Okay, yah, now it makes much more sense.

That was the disconnect I was having. Thanks for the clarification.

FWIW, I do agree with your assessment about the switch/acceleration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 03:43 PM

110. That's really informative.

Something to ponder (the Bible, as well as the early Italian art). Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:02 PM

39. A race to the bottom, in all it's obscene glory.

(no pun intended.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:03 PM

42. It's always the bottom line, and increasing profits till they blow up into the stratosphere. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 07:17 PM

171. I know! Rolling Stone used to be such a family-oriented magazine.

I'll tell you, Hunter S. Thompson is outraged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #171)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:47 AM

271. LOL.

Good job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:02 PM

41. Thank you for the article Sarah.

This has been bugging me for a long time. Of course this is not news to women but always good to know others notice and study it. Will it help? Nope, not one bit. Money talks and women are a big sell.

The backlash has been spectacular.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MuseRider (Reply #41)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:06 PM

45. Thanks, MuseRider. It might not make a huge difference now, but if all of us start to mention this

and point it out, soon it will be seen for what it is, selling even women's self-esteem and self-respect. What's at the bottom of women's degradation is always only money and the control and acquisition of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:25 PM

58. My experience with this

has been that most men really don't care. Many say they do but they prove otherwise. Some are absolute friends who work with us and trustworthy. Sadly it seems than many women don't care either. They will but by then they will have to refight all the battles we have already fought. I have been continually surprised at how successful the war against us became. Must be naive because I thought we had gained enough to move forward from that point. It is apparent to me that they will stop at nothing to bring us back to our knees. The good thing is that there are many of us who will never go back there. Again, thanks for your continual effort. Women like you keep us going.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MuseRider (Reply #58)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:29 PM

61. i couldnt agree more with the whole of your post. absolutely. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MuseRider (Reply #58)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:33 PM

62. Muse, I get very frustrated too. It's hard to discuss something that is so pervasive, and be told

that there's nothing wrong with it, particularly when the person saying there's nothing wrong with it doesn't have to live it. It makes me seethe sometimes.

That said, I have discussed this at length with 1 guy who explained to me that if I hadn't laid it all out in detail, he wouldn't have known BECAUSE no other woman had ever explained it, AND no other woman seemed upset by it.

The truth is, most people go blindly through life, noticing nothing, reducing themselves to nothingness, going along with the sheep. Am I wrong in this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #62)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:39 PM

66. my husband said the same to me. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #62)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:45 PM

72. No you are not wrong.

What you do is the only real weapon we have. Your last line is the why it continues and that seems to be the reason for most if not all of the problems we face in this day and age.

Striving for individuality is not exactly something thought about much these days. Neither is caring about being respected as a human, most just assume they will be passed over or used most of their lives and the best way to deal is to forget that it makes any difference.

Keep going. We can never let it slide. Most of my efforts are in a different area but this is one I truly support and involve myself in. I just find it so much harder to discuss and deal with on a person to person level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:11 PM

49. Rolling Stones Cover Descent Started In the Early 1990s

 

When more women suddenly came to the forefront of the rock world, Rolling Stone responded by shooting every woman that made it to their cover nude, partially nude, or in lingerie.

With one exception: Mellissa Etheridge got to wear a leather dress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashVegas (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:13 PM

52. Rolling Stone was used in this study, but honestly, they could've taken any magazine at all...

even women's magazines are encouraging degrading bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #52)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:28 PM

60. "even" womens' magazines or "especially" womens' magazines...

The media is that nefarious, I think you'll agree.



?d8bc3b

Interestingly, a scan of several Good Housekeeping covers indicates a recurring message: "You're FAT" (weight loss a common theme)



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #60)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:37 PM

63. Oh yes. Myriad articles telling women "how to give him better orgasms" and "how to look like a Ho"

Meanwhile guys get articles on politics and stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #63)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:41 PM

68. Women's mags (Cosmo, etc.) discuss female orgasm

But in the context of the woman being responsible for either teaching her partner how to pleasure her, or for doing the job herself, the by-product of which is, you guessed it: delectation of the male.

Sub-text: even in the course of your relationship, you are on display at all times. Look the part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #68)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:59 PM

77. The woman as workhorse, robot, and mannequin. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:16 PM

54. I wonder if that indeed is a cause or an effect of Madison Avenue's branding

These threads often seem to bring out some deep-rooted need for a poster or two to either a) equate a fictional parallel between the objectification of the sexes, or b) minimize both the cause and the effect of objectifying women.

I wonder if that indeed is a cause or an effect of Madison Avenue's branding of the woman's body in today's cycle of consumerism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #54)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:38 PM

64. The female body was branded centuries ago

It's embedded in the bedrock of patriarchy and reaches its fullest flowering in capitalist fetishization of woman-as-object.

Don't blame Madison Avenue for trying to make a buck off a fundamental tenet of western culture. Don't get me wrong; I wouldn't try to defend Madison Avenue for any of its practices, but they're just riding the wave.

To some extent, there is objectification of young males for both hetero and homoerotic delectation (Madison Avenue doesn't miss a trick), but nowhere near on the scale of sexualization of the female.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #64)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:41 PM

69. That's exactly it, and capitalism is raking in the dough now by degrading women. On the other hand

Capitalism has no soul, is amoral, and has only one goal, and that goal is not noble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #69)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 02:29 PM

85. Now, HERE'S a cart-and-horse question:

How does one connect patriarchy (which I think is the bigger problem) to capitalism? We can see how capitalism feeds off patriarchy. But how is the reverse also true, and why?

Historically, in matricentri societies, one doesn't encounter male enslavement or objectification. Matricentric societies without exception are pre-capitalist. But not all pre-capitalist societies are matricentric.

(I use "matricentric" rather than "matriarchal" because I am specifically excluding power relations from my discussion--power is part of the problem)

In your post above, can the word "patriarchy" be substituted for "capitalism" and still mean the same thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #85)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 02:57 PM

90. Hmm... good question! I think what's going on right now is unbridled capitalism

Capitalism capitalizes on anything and everything, and that certainly doesn't exclude things that are negative, criminal, wicked, degrading, humiliating, destructive, etc.

No question that the awful things were there to begin with, but capitalism catapults them into the stratosphere - for $$$$$$$

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #90)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 03:00 PM

93. i think another part of the equation is in the 70's and 80's

Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:19 AM - Edit history (1)

women were really coming into their own, and as a whole women may not have handled that perfectly, making male feel irrelevant or less. that never works. i think this is a backlash with man taking ownership again. they can not win by putting woman back into the kitchen. that just is not going to fly. but i think there is a very concerted effort to gain dominance with the dehumanizing and pornifying of women to this extent and the accessibility to porn only allows it to manifest much faster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #93)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:08 AM

246. well said (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #64)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 03:12 PM

97. yep, objectification of the attractive female form is embedded deeply. Madison Avenue is made up

of people....mostly men, or at least in decision making/creative positions, though more women are entering that industry now. It is not the institution itself that continues the attitude, but the people functioning within the institution.

Attitudes inculcated early, without question, take many long years to change, and the change can only be seen as enough individual people change perspective to approach a critical mass.

Women also buy into the representation, as it is one of the few (only?) ways women achieve power in this society. "A woman's looks are her fortune" is an old cliche and carries much truth. I remember the powerful feeling I had when I was younger and fit the seductive look. Gave me a sense of control, power of being noticeable and important. I'd venture to say I'm not the only female who knows what that feels like, and who enjoyed it.

Girls need to be represented as powerful, valuable, in control and appreciated for many more qualities than merely this appeal to male desire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #97)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 05:43 PM

147. Yes, absolutely, to the suggestion that women are pushed to triumph only via their looks

It's horrific.

Here's a thought I had about that. Not only are there mostly men in Madison Avenue and in practically all fields, but there's another problem. As women entered the workforce, they had to ADAPT to a male-designed workforce, and that's the sort of workforce we have today, one in which women can succeed, sure, but only by inculcating within themselves the ideas of the male workforce - ruthless competition, disrespect hidden behind a neat and clean office, and, of course, women still have the albatross of having to look 'sexy' or they're treated 'differently' since women, even if they're smart, are measured by the 'are you Barbie or are you homely' stick by men.

I always found it bizarre that female CEOs go out at night, on dates, and to parties and have to have huge slits up the side, their breasts displayed openly, girdles (let's face it, they may have new names but what the hell else are they?), and that they still fight out there at the Macy's counter looking for that magical cream that will make them really good looking to men.

I don't think women and men have to be bookends, but neither should women have to struggle and climb an uphill battle to look like Barbie in order to be considered acceptable according to the dictates of what the media and Madison Avenue have said men should look for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #147)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:11 AM

247. agree!!! (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #64)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 04:01 PM

116. The elder branding does not deny the new branding... :

The elder branding does not deny the new branding...

And actually, I'll blame anyone for trying to make an amoral buck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #54)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:38 PM

65. It makes money. If you put a naked woman in front of a man, he'll spend money on it...

Never mind that it degrades the other gender, as long as corporations are raking in the dough, VIVA CAPITALISM!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:51 PM

73. it is pretty damn degrading to men, too. most just do not get the insult. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #73)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:54 PM

75. It is. As long as men have sperm, they will be creating daughters, and it'd be good if they were

conscious of what's done to them by the media - for money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #75)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:56 PM

76. but what it does to men is take them away from their authentic self and creates a caricature

of who a man is. it is not a pretty picture. nor does it lead or provide a healthy, balanced life.

it also has to do with yes.... this is a daughter, wife, sister, friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #76)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 02:17 PM

82. That's true too. It draws them as a mindless penis. Men are beautiful souls and capitalism gives

them a bad rap too. It's the money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 02:22 PM

83. agreed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 09:48 PM

203. Sorry, "Mindless Penis" is my band name, and I have trademarked its usage.

If you want to use mindless penis™, you must pay royalties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #203)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:22 AM

237. oxymoron

 

or redundant?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #237)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:50 AM

241. Redundant Oxymoron is my OTHER band name.

I hate to break it to you guys, but this is gonna get expensive for ya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #241)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:31 PM

275. Ha ha ha.

That's an instant classic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #241)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:35 PM

277. rilly?

 

you are the one wasting your time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #277)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 05:19 PM

295. rilly trooly.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #295)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 06:19 PM

298. for what reasons

 

is it so important to you to derail this topic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #298)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 07:06 PM

299. I'm not derailing anything. I'm objecting to the quantification of so-called "hyper-sexualization"

as if it is a piece of hard science that can be definitively measured.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #299)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 07:14 PM

303. no one claimed that

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #298)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 07:07 PM

300. Oh, and I work for Rolling Stone, and I'm terrifed that objections from a few DU members

may damage our numbers for 2012.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #300)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 07:15 PM

304. are you interested

 

in culture and its effects at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #304)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 08:57 PM

307. "effects" like "I am harmed by the presence of a semi-naked human on a magazine cover"?

no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #307)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:08 PM

310. it's an honest question

 

generally those interested in the effects of culture have some awareness that others are affected and theirs is not the only - or most correct - point of view.

oversimplifying the topic and pretending that's what is being said here, raises the question of why you're here at all.

you have no interest, you refuse to consider the actual topic or its importance to others, intentionally misread what they are saying and your mind is closed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #310)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:15 PM

312. and can you consider that this is yet another exercise in 'Merkin moral panic

rebranded, perhaps, but at the core not so different from Billy Sunday slamming the tent pulpit over knee-high skirts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #312)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:22 PM

318. moral?

 

hmmmm, is it?

this has more to do with marketing than morals, i reckon

messaging in the media, wallpapering brains with images that, yes, do harm - and not only to women.




as stated in the first paragraphs at the OP link, which is free to read

"A study by University at Buffalo sociologists has found that the portrayal of women in the popular media over the last several decades has become increasingly sexualized, even "pornified." The same is not true of the portrayal of men.

"These findings may be cause for concern, the researchers say, because previous research has found sexualized images of women to have far-reaching negative consequences for both men and women."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #318)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:37 PM

322. right. And that 'research' is even more bullshit than this is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #322)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:45 PM

324. congratulations

 

on having the courage to step toward conversation and dip a toe in

sorry it's too deep for ya

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #324)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:51 PM

327. how about you post a link to the 'science' showing 'harm' from erotic images

I'll wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #327)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:04 PM

333. do you ever consider what it's like for someone beside yourself?

 

or maybe you have been harmed by this and don't acknowledge it, part of your need to shut down even thinking about it.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=83392

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #333)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 12:50 AM

345. No, that's a link to another post by you.

I said a link to the actual science showing how people are harmed by images.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #310)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:18 PM

313. he is afraid you may want to take his porn away

and i see you are new. welcome to du

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #313)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:20 PM

316. this seems to be his porn

 



and thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #313)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:39 PM

323. look, we get that pictures of nudity and sex make you mad

but don't try to pass it off as 'science'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #323)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:47 PM

325. look, we that the topic of gender inequality make you mad

 

but don't try to twist the concepts around to suit your agenda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #325)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:49 PM

326. you mean like arguing that 'pornification' makes breastfeeding less acceptable

despite the fact that breastfeeding rates are at a statistical high, that kind of concept-twisting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #326)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:53 PM

328. that would be lying on your part. you leave out the issue of that thread. PUBLIC

breastfeeding.

blatant lying for your argument? because it is not like i didnt make that clarification to you more than once on the other thread.

right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #328)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:54 PM

329. and where's the data showing less PUBLIC breastfeeding?

I'll wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #329)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:56 PM

331. where is your acknowledgment of you post misrepresenting what i posted nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #331)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:05 AM

349. You're not going to get it, because I'm right.

Your goofy "I know what I know, namely that pornification and sexualization of the breast is interfering with breastfeeding" point is indicative of EXACTLY what I'm objecting to in the larger op- namely, trying to pass off opinion ---based on nothing more than a personal axe to grind--- as science and quantifiable fact pertaining to reality, irrespective of not just a total lack of data backing the point up, but even a large amount of data directly CONTRADICTING it.

Your point was totally fucking goofy, and it's clearly contraindicated by the facts- the so-called pornification you decry has come at the same time as an increase in breastfeeding. To argue that, somehow, all this breastfeeding is taking place indoors because pornification has made it MORE difficult for women to breastfeed outside... I mean, come on... to say you're grasping at straws is to be generous.

I can see why you'd want to change the subject, because your goofy assertion is being flatly refuted- but let me state again that there is NO evidence of decreased tolerance for breastfeeding, public or otherwise, breastfeeding rates are up, and if porn and sexy Rolling Stone covers have somehow interfered with ANYONE breastfeeding anywhere, it is NOT indicated in any available statistical analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #349)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:32 AM

350. passing that off as a quote of mine? you quote it, put it in italics? that is beyond what i expect

even out of you. that is so fuckin in the face dishonest. you really had the audacity to make up a quote.

wow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #350)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:39 AM

351. no, that's a paraphrase.

nice try, again, at changing the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #351)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:45 AM

352. quotes and italics is a paraphrase to you? and it was not a parahrase. it was made up and wrong

at that.

dont take responsibility for your lies either. no surprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #352)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:52 AM

353. aint that the pots calling the kettle black.

Anyway, (sigh) here we go again: quotation marks can also be used to paraphrase, summarize, or convey tone.

However, lest there be any confusion, I am hereby stating that that was NOT a direct quote, nor was it intended to be, nor given the context of the post is it reasonable to think that anyone WOULD imagine that to be a direct quote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #353)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:53 AM

354. ya. right. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #326)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:56 PM

330. ah, another dip of the toe?

 

the effects of intensified sexualization of women in media compared to men, could include some folks having twisted ideas about bodies and natural processes, like birth and breastfeeding or women's rights to feed their children naturally when they need to.

couldn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #330)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 12:35 AM

344. it could, but there's no evidence it does. Because we are complex creatures who can walk & chew gum.

Otherwise, Male Ob-Gyns would become incapable of viewing their wives naked without thinking of them as patients.

Beyond that, as I have REPEATEDLY pointed out- increased levels of breastfeeding, increased LEGAL protections for breastfeeding, AND, yes, increased cultural acceptance of PUBLIC breastfeeding have ALL increased in recent decades, right along with the so-called "pornification" of society.

Sort of like how, despite much huffing-and-puffing about 'porn causes violence', rates for ALL violent crime are down in recent decades, as the availability of porn has increased.

Now, correlation isn't causation, but these statistical FACTS sure do poke a hole in the giant goofy balloons you guys are trying to float.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #344)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 11:17 AM

356. funny. every time you see a "giant goofy balloon"

 

you want to poke it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #356)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:54 PM

361. what can I say

he turns me on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #344)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 11:27 AM

359. no evidence. really.

 

yes it is a link to a point you overlooked:



you wouldn't be confused about the meaning of "objectification" if you were female, the subject of objectification in media and real life.

imagine the "math, science and engineering" graduate subjected to objectification, surrounded by cohorts accustomed to extreme, disproportionate hyper-sexualization of females ... imagine that was you or someone you care about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #359)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:49 PM

360. No, that's something you wrote.

I asked for links to scientific studies proving harm from erotic images, and you sent me to another post containing more of your opinion.

I realize that you think your opinion here is just so brilliance laden that you want to offer it as a reference source, but honestly, you can just type it again and not pretend that it's an entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #360)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 04:01 PM

363. you can find

 

the studies if you want to view them.

you can also consider the experience of those subjected to this cultural reality and find evidence there. Including men who are influenced by hyper-sexualization of females in media, even if they don't realize it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #363)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 04:06 PM

364. Ah, the old "go find it yourself". Bullshit. The "studies" are bogus "science" which is then used to

prop up more bogus pseudo-science like the attempt at quantifying completely subjective opinionated criteria, here in the OP.

The fact is, there is NO hard scientific evidence showing that, for instance, pictures of naked people fucking somehow cause "harm". Zero.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #364)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 04:19 PM

365. you don't seem really interested

 

esp because you intentionally misrepesent what is being said

waste of time ::

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #365)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 04:50 PM

366. I'm very interested.

Again, post a link to the scientific studies you're repeatedly referenced, and I promise I will take a look at them.

Otherwise, though, you got nothin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #366)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 09:00 PM

371. um

 

what?

"Again, post a link to the scientific studies you're repeatedly referenced," makes no sense, since I haven't

you don't need studies, you need to study some basic classes in gender studies, media studies. pretending there are no cultural impacts from media messagin is silly.

but preventing discussion of cultural interest is bullshit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #371)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 09:10 PM

372. Right. Again, another case of "I know what I know, because I know it"... except that's not science.

You want to reference the "previous research" that "has shown sexualized images of women to have far-reaching negative consequences for both men and women", fine- then let's see it. The RESEARCH. No, not a Womens Studies Class that says "this is bad because we say its bad and we all know it's bad"-- that's, again, subjective opinion. Not SCIENCE.

The "study" in the OP is being presented as SCIENCE. It's not. If it was being presented as what it is -again, subjective opinion- there wouldn't be an issue.

You can't show me scientific proof that, for instance, nude pictures cause "harm", because it's NOT THERE. "A Consensus at the Smith College Womens Studies Department Says So" doesn't constitute scientific proof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #372)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 09:17 PM

373. i'm sorry

 

wasn't it presented as social science? documentation of a period of cultural study?

it documents an increase in a particular media portrayal of females compared to males.

what insane claims are you protesteth too much?

Your challenge is interesting. but how do you back up your insistence that there is no effect? you can't?

and you know better. So why bother (others)?

What's the deal, bub?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #373)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:19 AM

382. The onus is on you to back up the claim. You can't.

You referenced it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=87737

and now you're backpedaling. Sort of like desperate creationists, saying "okay, well, prove we weren't intelligently designed".

No, that's not how science works.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #382)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 09:47 AM

386. total

 

bs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #386)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 05:06 PM

397. exactly.

thank you for finally agreeing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #76)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 03:48 PM

111. Agree strongly.

Excellent point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:18 PM

55. Mexican TV channels were way ahead of the curve on this

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #55)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:20 PM

57. it is also way ahead of the curve in a patriarchal misogynist society. so? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #55)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:43 PM

71. Mexico is what I view as a perfect capitalistic society - anything goes - mass poverty, mega-wealthy

decaying towns and cities, so much crime it's dangerous to set one foot outside the home, etc. Perfect capitalistic society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #71)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 02:09 PM

80. Yup, and the honest businessmen put more food for the birds

in the middle of the desert every day - usually by decapitation or multiple gun shot wounds.

Welcome to Ron Paul's rugged society that emphasizes 'the individualistic American spirit.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chrisa (Reply #80)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 02:23 PM

84. Exactly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 02:43 PM

86. I stopped buying Rolling Stone YEARS ago, because of their brazen imbalance

So sick of women being visible and valued solely as seen through male sexual interest.

Men can not understand what it feels like to be invisible except as a young, hot receptacle.

This pornification/dehumanization of women directly ties to hatred and violence against women, and women's own self-loathing problems.

Is it any wonder that "the CHANGE in how intensely sexualized images of women -- but not men -- have become" over the last several decades coincides with the startling increase in misogynistic crimes against women?

I'm so sick of yelling about it for years and never being heard. I've reduced my response rate to this subject when it gets brought up here at DU, because I'm so sick of beating my head against a wall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #86)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 03:12 PM

98. Let me ask you a question. Have you noticed an increase in shows about women tortured to death?

I don't think it's just me, but there's been a vertiginous jump in shows about sociopaths (CSI, Criminal Minds, etc. etc. ad nauseam), and I'd wager to say 99 % of the shows are about how women are kidnapped, raped, tortured, their skin peeled off, etc. etc.

I know this has nothing to do with the topic at hand of how capitalistic it is to present women pornified in the media, but I think (like you said) directly related.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #98)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 03:31 PM

106. We could start a whole new discussion thread about the link between porn and violence*

I don't watch those shows, but I'm aware of the trend. Even the clips are nauseating.

And guess what? Companies buy advertising on those shows.

*We'd start a flame fest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #106)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 04:31 PM

135. Yes! It would get crazy. the same 3 or 4 guys would be all nervous and jittery, proclaiming we are

man-haters!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #135)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:10 PM

341. Well when you say things like

"If you put a naked woman in front of a man, he'll spend money on it"

all of us guys, heterosexual and homosexual, who would not do so see that as a pretty sexist statement- the sort a man-hater would use.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #106)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 07:09 PM

170. sort of like how people would freak out over a thread saying abortion=breast cancer

either because people are uptight and like flame fests, or because like "porn=violence" the claim is utter bullshit.



People are so intolerant of unscientific, agenda-driven bullshit. Why is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #170)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 07:15 PM

305. Breastfeeding=less breast cancer

But...
<snip>
The LESS women breastfeed, the LESS people get to see the real purpose of breasts. At the same time media everywhere touts the view of female breasts as sexual. That in turn makes it harder for women to breastfeed, since many of the reasons for not breastfeeding are linked to the sexualization of breasts.

So the less women breastfeed, the harder it becomes for women to breastfeed. We have a cycle that self-promotes the view that the main purpose of female breasts is for something else than feeding babies!

http://www.007b.com/breast_obsession.php

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marzipanni (Reply #305)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 07:35 PM

306. as the race driver said... nasty. think when a woman sticks tits out for him, he is saying nasty?

not even.

you are right.

in the 60's and 70's i often came upon a mom breastfeeding. talking to my father, he can remember back to the 40's and 50's the same. this was the time of all this uptight prudery so many on the board go on about. yet, breastfeeding was nothing. just nature. what women did. and no one made a stink about it.

today, in all our progression, it is .... nasty.

man has even taken ownership of the breast, from the babies....

that in and of itself says something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #306)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:06 PM

309. funny, I'm in favor of breastfeeding AND I'm not mad about sex in magazines

I'm also not a homophobe-- despite the fact that I disagree with the premise of this thread.

Lotta straw men romping around these parts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #309)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:19 PM

315. funny, ... then i am not addressing you, am i? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #315)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:20 PM

317. guess not, huh.

there you go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #317)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 09:52 PM

376. Come back when

 

you find a male version of this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #376)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:22 AM

383. wait... Phish are coming back?







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #383)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 09:49 AM

387. nice try

 

where's the other dude and the ice cream?


thanks for proving the point of the OP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #387)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 10:23 AM

391. hubby and i went thru this thread this morning. got a chuckle at some of it.

used the picture you provided as an example. easy enough for hubby to get it.

tells me not really that hard, in the obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #391)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 10:45 AM

392. yes

 

that pic also a reminder that Rolling Stone usedta be about music and musicians mainly and that's what was on the cover, not cheesy TV stars or manufactured pop stars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #391)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 05:12 PM

400. must be tough having a "hubby" who can't use the internet himself.

still, nice that he's got you to share his opinions for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #400)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 06:22 PM

401. as a matter of fact,this morning i asked if he wanted to check out du. there are forums he would

find interesting. he isn't interested. he isn't into social internet communities. not his thing

and he is a computer tech that just recently sold his computer company, so i hardly think he is dependent on me to navigate the net

nice insult, jab and totally wrong and off base. go figure. like that is a surprise.

but he did get a chuckle from your lack of satisfaction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #401)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 06:26 PM

402. I bet

no, really, I bet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #402)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 06:29 PM

403. hm... well, if you ever got out of the sex threads, you would hear plenty over the years

me discussing his computer business, his computer knowledge and my total lack of computer ability.

hide yourself in only sex threads and you will be limited in knowledge. what can i say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #387)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 05:08 PM

398. Ah, so "sexualization" and "pornification" is only constituted by a picture of 2 people eating ice

cream.

And not, for instance, Justin Timberlake shirtless and nearly revealing his, ah, timber.

Thanks for proving the point that these criteria are totally fucking arbitrary and created by the people behind the study, for the express purpose of finding the phenomena they want to find.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #398)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 06:31 PM

404. did the study suggest they never sexualize men? i think not. i believe your argument is a strawman

further, you are arguing, passionately, something you have argued against this whole thread, lmfao. focus warren. really, focus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #404)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 06:36 PM

405. My point is the same as it's always been: i.e. the criteria are arbitrary.

And totally subjective, "pornification" and "hyper-sexuality" are made-up, subjective labels, and this "study" tries to present agenda-driven opinion as somehow quantifiable science.

We can have all sorts of silly new names filling this thread up with 400 more posts, any my point will STILL remain the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #398)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 07:37 PM

408. you go

 

in circles

from the OP
"First, representations of both women and men have indeed become more sexualized over time; and, second, women continue to be more frequently sexualized than men. Their most striking finding, however, was the CHANGE in how intensely sexualized images of women -- but not men -- have become. "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #408)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 08:15 PM

409. I'm still waiting for the link to the "previous research" that has

"found sexualized images of women to have far-reaching negative consequences for both men and women."


Anyway, like they say, "keep coming back".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marzipanni (Reply #305)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:02 PM

308. "many of the reasons for not breastfeeding are linked to the sexualization of breasts" - um, ok

and this authoritative-sounding statement is backedup with what data? and according to whom?

How about this for hard statistical science- rates of breastfeeding are WAY up from 40 years ago... a trend that dovetails nicely with the alleged "hypersexualization" and "pornification" of society that has so many in such a tizzy.

So how does that work, exactly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #98)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 03:36 PM

108. yes, I have.

I must admit, I like those shows, some of them anyway...I suppose that's highly hypocritical of me.....but some of them are usually very well written and genuinely suspenseful........

Anyway, aside from that bit of self-disclosure......

Yes. I think that showing females as the de facto victim reinforces a blase attitude towards violence against women, general contempt towards us, and an expectation that females are victimizable, that females are less human. Actually, imagery or text that automatically conflates objecthod with femaleness, and victimhood with femaleness are far more numerous than just TV crime shows. For one example that I saw recently, I went into a store that is sponsored by the local organization that supports developmentally disabled adults and children. The walls featured many photos of kids and adults who benefit from their enrichment programs. I found it interesting that of approx. 20 photos, all except one were of disabled girls gazing winsomely into the camera. Not doing anything, merely sitting passively, guaged to pull our heartstrings. The one picture of a young man with Down's Syndrome showed him not looking into the camera, but at his hand as he played guitar, obviously enjoying himself and his sense of pride in accomplishment.

Quite a difference, eh? I see this dichotomy all the time---girls/women shown as passive objects, nothing intererstnig or engaging about them EXCEPT their cuteness/winsomeness/prettiness/sad victimhood playing on our emotions. Compare to imagery of boys/men, who are shown as persons. Guys involved, active, engaged...to be viewed and admired as impactful human beings.

Marginalizing women in this way implants a notion that we are fair game for projections of aggression. Look at so-called gender neutral discussion boards, particularly ones popular with teen to twenty year olds. The hatred directed against girls is very noticeable. Popular memes exhibit a typical contempt and singular sexualization for anything female as well---look at UrbanDictionary.com for examples of what I mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #108)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 04:11 PM

122. Marginalization and contempt toward anything female is a good way to put it.

Thank you for explaining this so well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #122)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 05:12 PM

143. thanks for all your excellent replies here!

my major hot button topic!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #143)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 05:33 PM

145. Same to you! I think you must be an instructor on the topic, or a writer! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #145)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 03:16 PM

283. Awww, thanks!

no, I'm not. I'm a Sign Language Interpreter at a college, so I'm in the academic environment. I guess I'm a frustrated academe!

I just like big words, and analyzing stuff--and I've had radar on for sexism in media since I was 5!! Wooo, that's a good 49 years ago, now. Guess that makes me an expert. Or an ex-spurt. However you prefer.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #283)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 03:23 PM

284. Sign language interpreters rock. I attended a wedding with a sign language interpreter.

Up in Rochester. The 2nd biggest community of the deaf, I believe.

Groom was deaf, bride was hearing. LOVELY!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #284)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 03:33 PM

285. Wow wow wow!! I AM in Roch!

that's where I work! Rochester Institute of Technology!

We're da biggest, now, I think

Wouldn't be surprised if I knew the interpreter or or some of the Deaf people there.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #285)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 03:39 PM

286. OH MY GOD. NO WAY.

The priest was a deaf guy, short guy in his 50s, tiny bit on the heavy side. VERY funny!!! Rochester is awesome. Wish I lived there. (sigh)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #286)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 04:12 PM

289. YES WAY!! That would be Father Ray!

Wow, haven't seen him in a long time. He IS hilarious!!! I LOVE him!

I've lived about an hour away from work for years, so I've lost touch with a lot of friends, including my Deaf friends. Gotten out of touch with the Deaf community in general, actually...

Roch is pretty good, yeah ....the winter is always a caveat, but this winter is so MILD, it's been a lot easier to deal with.

Probably less insane than Florida...... (I don't mean the weather )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #289)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 04:54 PM

290. Father Ray is a sweetiepie! Everyone feels good around him.

Love Rochester. Yes, the winters are brutal, but it's a really nice area, and APPLE country!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #86)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 03:50 PM

112. Blanche, please explain and cite your source

"the CHANGE in how intensely sexualized images of women -- but not men -- have become" over the last several decades coincides with the startling increase in misogynistic crimes against women"

the article that Sarah cited refers to a trend over 50 years of women becoming increasingly sexualized. I'm not aware of an 'increase in misogynistic crimes against women' over the same time frame. actually, I was under the impression that violent crime (including those against women) was trending down over the last 30 years. Certainly the numbers suggest this is the case for forcible rape. I'm open minded enough to realize that many more crimes than rape could fall under that umbrella -- help me out here -- which ones show a rise over the last 50 years?

note: I'm pulling data from here (http://www.lowtechcombat.com/2010/12/50-year-trends-in-violent-crime-in-us.html). the webpage author claims that his info came from here (http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/index.cfm), but I didn't vet that.

TIA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink