General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Are there women here who are not offended by the SI cover or Kate Upton's spread? [View all]BainsBane
(53,003 posts)A woman posted the thread. Objectification--which didn't exist last week--now is all the fault of women. Suddenly absurdly ahistorical excuses are proposed: objectification has always existed and always will. Advertising depends on it because ...what? Advertising has always existed. Talk about an overload of derp. Former college history professors turning in their graves.
The original thread resulted in exactly the shit storm it was intended to produce. Jeff admitted it was posted to cause offense, and it did. Only it turned out the little game backfired. People saw the complete disrespect with which certain men, including the members of your group, have treated women who objected to those threads and have said enough with the misogyny. This is not befitting of a liberal site. They have said it is hostile and want it to stop. Yet a few don't care that hundreds of people have said enough. How could our views and our lives possibly compare to what a handful of men want . They couldn't possibly go to another site to look at bikini pictures or ctually buy SI themselves but instead MUST post them in GD where they can offend as many people as possible. The whole stunt has backfired and exposed the charade that only a few feminists care about this stuff. Hundreds of DUers have said they are sick of the misogyny. Skinner locked a thread and even alerted on some posts himself. But what we do any of us matter? What a few men nostalgic for the early 1960s, before all that messy Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity law, want is far more important than what anyone else thinks. That is, after all, what privilege is about.