HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » BainsBane » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 25 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 31,042

Journal Archives

This is rape culture

and it is very much alive in America and throughout the world.

Funny, you took a completely different position here

MIRT privacy was violated to go after someone you didn't like.

Though the post he reproduced had nothing to do with an ATA post and you made a point of justifying Opiate69's use of an old thread he hunted up from months before his own MIRT term began.

And the irony of ironies:
95. The hypocrisy is typical.

Here's a hof thread about the sad they had for xulamaude being PPRed.

Now BB's mocking you in hof, which is also typical.

Once again, your clearly contradictory positions have nothing to do with principal but instead is all about petty personal vendettas and which complete stranger on the internet you decide to dislike.

It truly is remarkable that you can spend so much time reading HOF yet understand none of it.

Nathan the happy dog thinks Pharrell was robbed at the Oscars

Brazilian Carnival

(I posted this in response to another thread but decided to develop it a bit further for an OP)

Someone asked whether carnival in Rio was just an opportunity to objectify women. I answered no, that is not its purpose or primary function.

It is a period in which people relinquish the restraints of daily life to dance, party, and sometimes do what they might not other times of the year. Some have described it, along with soccer, as a sort of opiate for the masses. You should know that the images you see of carnaval in Rio are all from the Sambadromo, a stadium that one must pay to enter. It is a competition by the various samba schools for who does the best presentation. It's a complex social phenomenon that has been written about in a number of books and articles. The queen of carnval is usually a woman of mixed race, what Brazilians call a mulata. The celebration of the mulata during Carnaval belies the ongoing racism (denied by most Brazilians) that elevates whiteness the rest of the year, as evident in telenovelas and magazines where white women represent beauty.

However, carnaval de rua (of the street) is different. That is how most cariocas (residents of Rio) experience carnival. People don't wear the expensive costumes and simply go out on the street to dance, drink, and have a good time.

I have never spent carnival in Rio, but I have in Salvador. There carnival is entirely street. Bands move through the main avenues and people listen and dance free to charge. One can pay some money (nothing like the cost of Rio carnival) to dance within a carnaval bloco (like Olodum, Ile Aye, Ara Ketu, Banda Eva, etc.) but you can enjoy carnival every bit as much if not more without paying.

The other thing to understand is that Brazil is far more sexually open that the US, and women are more empowered in many ways. Certainly objectification exists, but it's different. Women who dress in ways we might consider provocative in the US are not viewed negatively as they are here. Nor is there the kind of blame attached to women who have sex that there is here, at least in urban areas. I expect rural areas are far more traditional.

Videos from carnival in Salvador.

This is from an official tourism page. While it gives a good sense of what street carnival is like, it focuses on more white faces that one would typically see. Salvador da Bahia is a city where the great majority of the population are African in ancestral origin, as the city was the economic center of sugar production and slavery in the early period of Portuguese colonial rule.

This is a link to a YouTube channel with videos of this year's carnival, from this Sunday.


Olodum, probably the best know of the Bahian blocos, from carnival 2012.

An interesting thing to observe is that recent videos show that women are now performing in Olodum, which was not the case when I was there in the 90s.

Now, one could certainly argue that the way Brazilian carnival is presented to foreign audiences objectifies women, but that is not the same as saying that is the purpose of carnival itself.

Once again we are back to the crime of besmirching the name of your favorite troll

(Thanks to the superior intellect of Opiate69 for correctly the spelling of a mere mortal.)

New Poutrage: da Bear opens da doors


Heart attack ensues:

AHHHHHH, save mankind from the matriarchy of doors!

Stolen from RBStevens

"A small group" is responsible for all that ails DU

So we are told. Reactionary men could happily live in a world where no one ever suggested to them that they should treat woman as human beings rather than mere objects of lust of rage, if only for a few radical fringe feminists on DU. How many times have we heard everything here is the fault of a "small fringe group"? The comment reveals profound self-delusion. They want to ignore key issues about equality and inclusivity to make it all about a few feminists on this site. Only they are railing against practices that have been standard in every public place for decades in this country. They act like they never before heard there was anything objectionable about posting pictures of bikini babes in public places. They act like they never heard about the concept of a hostile environment before it was raised here recently. They deceive themselves by insisting that only a few loud-mouthed feminists care about such issues, even while posting in a thread with over 177 Duers expressing disapproval of the hostile environment engendered by such pics. They do so knowing that Skinner locked one such thread and instructed the GD hosts to allow no others. Yet it's all because of HOF members, despite the fact that they couldn't get away with any of that stuff in any public space anywhere in this country and haven't been able to for decades.

So what's going on here? Why do they so resent progress? Why do they refuse to consider the concerns of anyone but themselves? Why to they respond cruely to someone who shares a hearbreaking story of repeated rape from a very young age? Why do they systematically refuse to consider the testimony of victims of child abuse, legal rulings and evidence, and repeat the lies generated by the publicity machine of a wealthy, accused pedophile? Why is it they insist on telling people of color they are just too touchy when they point out the obvious--that stereotypical meals of fried chicken and watermelon are purposefully racist and do not "honor" African American culture. To deny the voices of feminists and people of color in articulating what they find offensive represents a clear determination that some see those groups of Americans as unworthy of basic respect or the same rights afforded to white men.

The "small group" didn't post the T and A pics. A small group didn't post the callout threads and posts in GD, all placed for the explicit purpose of creating drama and belittling the views and lives of those they see as entirely without value. One member of the small group did post Dylan Farrow's testimony, and that was an outrage. To consider the views of a woman was an anathema and triggered a meltdown by one particularly angry member. Many others simply refused to read her testimony or the court record showing Woody Allen's entire story was a lie because they didn't want facts to get in the way of their determination to defend an accused pedophile, who's victim was only a girl, hardly anyone who mattered. A member here who expressed a heartfelt story of her own assault was called a liar, insulted and ridiculed, even though what she described happens to millions of girls and boys across our nation. What this small group does is raise the viewpoints of human beings whose lives some consider entirely insignificant.

The fact is we are dealing with some very angry people who hate progress more than anything else. They despise the fact that they are expected to treat others as human, that they can't insult women as b and cs at will (even though they do and juries let them get away with it). Yet the fact that someone might object to their determination to treat women as subhuman is to them an outrage. We see an increase in use of racial slurs, and now we see them attacking LGBT members as loud-mouthed "crusaders" who would be better off keeping their mouths shut. To them, the only ones entitled to speak are themselves and those who support them. Anyone who questions their privilege and suggests that equality does matter is to be attacked and deligitimated at all costs. They personalize the issues to make it about a few HOF members, a few uppity African Americans, and a few LGBT "crusaders" because they won't examine what they are really trying to establish: white, heterosexual male supremacy. They seek to establish in a little corner of the internet something that exists no where offline in the USA. They do so precisely because they so despise the progress of the past half century and they especially resent members of subaltern groups who insist that we too are full citizens entitled to all the same rights, opportunities, and respect that straight, white men enjoy. All of us they so resent on DU could disappear tonight and their lives would not improve in the slightest. They will still live in a society that seeks to expand rather than retract civil rights. They will still live in a world where they have to compete based on merit, education and experience, rather than mere accident of birth. Yet they make it all about a "small group" because they refuse to confront the issues of equality and inclusivity that they are so determined to fight against.

What a SI cover honoring women would look like

Sports Illustrated is about sports. It's in the title, right? So if the magazine wanted to honor women, they would focus on some of the great female athletes. This is what an SI cover might look like in a world without sexism, if they published for an audience that valued women for what they accomplish in sports.

Now those are some fierce women!

Most favored rapist status

It occurred to me than some accused sexual assailants enjoy most favored rapist status on this site. The obvious examples are Julian Assange and Woody Allen. Another case is James Winston, Heisman Trophy winner, who was not prosecuted despite DNA evidence, a medical exam that showed vaginal tearing and severe bruising, and the examining physician's determination that the victim had been raped. A dozen or two members insisted he too was innocent.

Those are the cases I recall by name. I thought others here might share cases they remember where people made a point of defending an accused rapist.

Lastly, I'd like to know whether you think it's a case of famous guys getting a break, or that this community, like the country in general, always believes accused rapists over victims? Certainly some accused assailants attract more defenders than usual. For some reason Woody Allen seems to be enjoying more support even than Julian Assange, and clearly far more than James Winston. So I wonder if it's a matter of some men being above the law, that people can't believe that men they admire would do such a thing, or that there is a default position of innocent until proven guilty that sexual assailants enjoy here that those accused of perpetrating other crimes do not? Or is there some other explanation? Lastly, why? Why is it that being accused of child molestation or rape elevates a person's standing above other accused perpetrators, like the guy in Florida who killed the teenager who was playing loud music?

Here I feel compelled to post a few caveats. Of course everyone is innocent until proven guilty in our justice system. That, however, does not govern discussion on DU. Nor does it explain why the "innocent until proven guilty" argument is always made for rapists but seldom for those accused of other crimes, and never for women accused of making false rape accusations. I have never seen anyone come into Weird News and say "that woman accused of injecting poop in her husband's I.V. is innocent until proven guilty." Nor have they said "Those McDonalds employees accused of selling Heroin in the Happy Meals are innocent until proven guilty." Cheney, Bush or Christie are not innocent until proven guilty. They are, according to DUers, guilty. So why should accused rapists be held in higher esteem than elected officials?

Final caveat: Of course some accused persons are innocent. Trials determine legal guilt; discussion boards do not.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 25 Next »