My troubles with the preaching atheist
Offline Over at Skepchick there was a recent thread about "Photography and Sexism in the Skeptical Movement" and in particular, the controversy over Brian Dunning's "sexist" photo:
Everyone has the right to their opinion as to whether this photo is sexist or not. Per Dunning, it was meant to be a parody of Fleetwood Mac's Rumors album cover. What got my panties tied in a knot was the vitriol unleashed upon those who did not find the photo sexist and they were labelled as misogynist concern trolls (myself included even though I conceded that the photo from a certain POV can be construed as sexist). And when I pointed out that Skepchick failed to call out Christopher Hitchens' sexism (in addition to all the praise they have showered on him), there was nothing but silence among these skeptic gals. Oh! My apologies for using a sexist slang word "gals" which I'm sure has offended atheist women worldwide.
I keep hearing this ad nauseam about the sexism of atheist/skeptic men from those who preach from a high horse and fail to point fingers at themselves. I completely believe in freedom of speech. I believe in the freedom to offend and also to be offended. But what I find to be a crock of shit are those atheists who preach about equality and diversity like a fucking finger pointing priest.
If a few women get offended by a sex joke at an atheist convention, then atheists as a whole get branded as a misogynist all boys club. And in fact, atheist men are likely to be the least sexist in society. And those who disagree with the alleged racism and sexism in the atheist community, they are branded as racist and sexist.
As I have said before, I couldn't care less if the vast majority of atheists were white men. I couldn't even care less if a large segment were white supremacist neo-Nazis (being facetious here). Simply put, atheism is about the INDIVIDUAL coming to grips with his or her unbelief which has absolutely nothing to do with race, gender, class, etc.. It doesn't necessarily mean that atheists don't have their faults. There are racist and sexist atheists out there. They have nothing to do with me and my unbelief. Why should I care about them? My unbelief has nothing to do with another's unbelief. And if you find a group to be sexist, then go find another group you feel comfortable with. But please don't preach to me about diversity and how sexist atheist men are and then expect everyone to agree with you.
- Login to post comments
Yes, the photo is sexist. It is also juvenile.
I feel most sexist/racist/etc statements are juvenile. Every teen aged boy's wet dream - a shapely naked white woman kneeling at their feet. Grow up.
Does this mean all atheists are sexist? No, many people are sexist. There are more male atheists than female - which means there will be more sexist atheist men than sexist atheist women - big whoop.
You don't think it is sexist. Okay, imagine the opposite. A good looking woman in a business suit. One foot on the amp - naked good looking young man kneeling at her feet. I think that would be sexist. And silly. Two women? Two men? Still silly. Maybe not sexist, depends on whether their sexuality was emphasized.
So, do I think someone is a bad person because they don't think it is a sexist photo? No. Am I being PC? Nope, just a cranky old woman who is largely unimpressed by young men who appear to think they are hot shit.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Actually CJ, my juvenile wet dream would be the reverse ie. me being on my knees being overpowered by a sexy dominatrix in a business suit. Heh! Heh!
But all kidding aside, if you find something sexist or not, it is entirely subjective. I don't find the following sexist at all:
In fact, I find Manet's painting incredibly hot and sexy. Yet there are many who see patriarchy written all over this because only the women are naked or that they appear as mere playthings while the men appear to be carrying on an intellectual discussion. That is a point of view I disagree with. C'est la vie!!!
We can all be collegial atheists and agree to disagree.
I don't think the photo is sexist at all. Was she physically forced to pose in that picture? No. And if it were the opposite I wouldn't find that sexist either. I don't think you are being PC though. I simply think you are simply not into photos that have a sexual content.
And if you think it is sexist, they damned sure wouldn't have had me with my missing teeth and scrawny body as the guy. Or me as the opposite, naked. Some people are more attractive than others, that is not sexist, that is part of the range humans are.
A lot of people are turned off both male an female to content of this nature.I simply think it amounts to comfort and personal taste.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
It's not necessarily the presence of nudes, but the suggestion of something lewd in the subject matter that's the source of scandal. I think it would be a mistake to interpret the painting that way for several reasons. The group has so formal a pose that it's difficult to defend the belief there was an intent to depict an actual event. Beyond that it's known to have a classical source. It was inspired by Marcantonio Raimondi's The judgment of Paris.
Also the nudity is "explained" by the contrast of the warm flesh tones against the cool ones of the men's attire, and the fact that they are bathing. In that context the painting seems rather inoffensive. There might be some defense for the photo but to me it just looks kind of obnoxious.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I knew I should have kept my mouth shut, cause this is going to be a long post.
It is sexist, but not because the woman is nude. It would be sexist if the woman was in the same position and wearing a burqa. It is the implied position of power. And, yes, ragdish, if it was the man in the kneeling position, that would also be sexist.
When sex is not a partnership, but an expression of power over another person, it is sexist. I am certain the young woman was a willing participant and may have been paid and may have had some input on the amount of air brushing. She is still in a position that is obviously subservient to the man. It is not a bad picture, it is not an immoral picture. It is just sexist.
Manet's painting - I don't see that particular painting as being overtly sexist. There is no stated power struggle - for all we know the men could be talking about tits, legs, and/or opera dancers. My impression of that era is that male nudity was only acceptable if the subjects were biblical or mythological. It was scandalous that the women were nude, it may have gotten him tarred and feathered if the men were also nude. Women didn't have the vote, they couldn't own property, they couldn't enter into contracts. Of course, the paintings of that time will reflect those attitudes. I don't feel it is proper to judge any art that is not contemporary by contemporary standards.
I also don't view this picture as pornography. Sexist does not necessarily mean pornographic. It may not be anyone else's definition of pornography, but I think of pornography as people having or about to have sex. Or someone enticing someone else to have sex - singly or in groups of two or more. So, for me, pornographic depends on the purpose of the picture, painting, statue, video, podcast, whatever. By my definition, not the picture, nor Manet's painting, nor Marcantonio's painting are pornography. The picture is sexist, Manet's might be sexist depending on the painter's intentions, and Marcantonio's is about a competition that was sexist but the actual painting is not.
I'm sure no one will agree with me.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
the whole idea of sexism is overrated when it comes to erotic imagery. everybody dreams of either dominating or being dominated, often both intermittently, when it comes to sex. i can't think of anything more tortuously boring than sex where both partners are vertical and at eye level. i like to throw the girl on the bed and take her from behind then 5 minutes later get slammed on my back and have her pin my arms down and take the whole thing out of my control.
i don't say this to be lewd or juvenile, i say it because i think this is a typical form of sexual experience (and a very tame one at that) for most people. someone always has to be submissive. this is sex. thus, this should also be a part of erotic imagery. a young girl with lingering traces of her recent adolescence kneeling before a man in a position of power--i can't think of a more archetypal erotic image that strikes sexual chords on so many levels, for both the male and the female (often along blurred lines, i might add). the very thought of what might lie in the girl's heart toward the man is just as much of a turn-on for me as identifying with what the man must be feeling, particularly the possibility that her submission might actually be a method of domination.
in other words, it is fucking hot, and most people who say it isn't are fucking liars. i say it as a responsible and faithful husband, homeowner, and dedicated educator. there's nothing juvenile about it. i am grown up. i accept all facets of healthy sexuality as just that--healthy. this is not a picture of rape. this is not a picture of abuse. in fact, this is not even a picture clearly implying a sexual relationship between the two.
in fact, it's pretty much fucking nothing. girls submit to boys. boys submit to girls. often within the space of minutes. if we were all equal all the time, we'd all be equally douchebags.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Don't worry about it. This is just more evidence of how insane radical femi-Nazis are. They're really just angry from the repressed jealousy they have over how much better the woman in the pic looks than they do. I shutter at the thought of what they must look like.
Radical feminism is really just another form of religious fundamentalism. You don't have to believe in a god to be a religious fundamentalist.
Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical
I am not jealous of her looks - her youth, maybe. It would be nice to be able to get into that pose again. My knees don't bend that way anymore.
A naked woman kneeling at your feet while you take the pose of mighty hunter? This is not sexist?
It is certainly juvenile.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Maybe for you that is so. The last s.o.b. who tried to get all dominant with me got dumped on the floor while I got dressed. I will not be dominated by you or anyone else. I don't like being the dominatrix, either. Not that any of this is your business, nor is your relationship any of my business. Not every person wants to swap off "who's on top".
The picture is not about sex games. If it were, I wouldn't call it sexist.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I'm with cj on this one.
It's not the girl kneeling that's the issue, is the guy with the douchebag pose that I don't like. I find it silly, and it is sexist, just because it satisfies some fantasy over who's on top doesn't make it innocent, anyone that looks at that guy and thinks 'I would stand like that with naked chick at my feet' is a fucking duchebag. I also find the picture to be hot, but that doesn't make it any less sexist.
For the record, just because I have sexual fantasies about dominating a consensual woman, doesn't make that fantasy any less sexist.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
But if you are using the term sexist that broadly, is "sexist" a bad thing? I believe that using the term sexist so broadly to include a woman apparently voluntarily playing the submissive in a sexual way weakens the term. Simply put, I don't see a problem with the picture the same way I would have a problem with a picture that appeared to support rape or abuse.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
precisely. it's all about choice. that's the problem with the idea of "sexism"--it implies a universal standard of what is right and wrong in male-female relationships. it's my opinion that anything that is 100% consenual for everyone involved is not "wrong." if you have a man and woman who both like the "sexist" way of life, then as long as they keep it between themselves, long live sexism.
btw, if you dumped a guy on the floor for trying to be dominant, then i'm sure you made it quite clear beforehand that you didn't go for that sort of thing, in which case he deserved to get dumped on the floor--not for his "sexist" fantasy, but because he tried to force them on someone who communicated that they didn't share that particular fantasy.
same thing applies to this photo. two adults agreed to be in it. there is nothing objectively "wrong" with it. the only point at which the word "sexist" or "juvenile" can be applied to it is in an individual's perception of it. if i think, "oh yeah, look at that little slut, i bet she'd love to have that guy cum all over her face," yes, that is juvenile, because none of those things are apparent. but if i think, "wow, that's really arousing," there is nothing juvenile about that.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
When people talk about sexism in the visual arts they're not always referring to discrimination or even necessarily the attitudes that underlie that discrimination. It could be inadvertent. They may be referring to stereotypical portrayals of masculinity and femininity. Conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conceptions, or images which are commonplace but not always offensive. In that sense the criticism certainly has merit. There's no subtlety in the presentation, it's blatant. That you get pleasure from looking at it is beside the point and doesn't make it less stereotypical.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Good points.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
"Sexist" is an "is" thing. Good? Bad? Indifferent?
See Gauche's post for a more coherent discussion on stereotypes.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
most people are stereotypical. that's why we can even use the term "stereotypical" to begin with. "stereotypical" does not necessarily mean "misleading" or "inaccurate," nor is it a pejorative term in and of itself.
yes, the picture does portray a psychosexual "stereotype." that's why most people, particularly men, are aroused by it, or others similar to it. again, nothing "wrong" with that.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I'm not sure that sexism in the visual arts is of a different sort. It would imply that if a hick with a stained white shit tells you his wife 'belongs in the kitchen, cuz she's a woman'; or the same hick draws a picture of a woman chained to a stove are not one and the same. The degree of subtlety is irrelevant to the classification of a message under a specific discriminatory category. Also, the way the message is conveyed should have no bearing on the meaning or intent. You can draw, sing, sign, or mime the message, it would still be sexist. A modern dance interpretation of the same message may be intellectually and aesthetically superior but if you end the dance in that same pose, you're still a douche
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Here is the album cover
(what is that dangling between his legs?)
I see similarities but, the girl in on the Rumors cove is clothed and appears to be dancing.
Okay, here's another comparison, much closer in imagery to the OP photo imo:
Substitute the naked white woman in the OP picture with the Black boy and what do you get?
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
The first pic is of John and Yoko embracing and the second is of his son Sean in an erotic embrace with a nude model. There are many feminists who love pic 1 and find pic 2 sexist. Your thoughts.
yeah it sexist women keep treated like sex objects
everywhere in media we must submit to men and get naked
look at this
i dont care if she did it willingly she still get treated like sex object and not person
Why can't women be using men as objects to get what they want?
But aren't all relationships based one party using another to get something? What is the difference between treating someone as an object and as a person?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
oh exc so just put out like a little whore sorry i rely on my wits
stop drooling over tits and get a brain
yeah people use others but not good to do it all the time once you do you viewed as whore manipulator
I remember the Yoko and John pic when it first came out. They were all into free love and doing it in the road. Their picture was done deliberately to upset conventional mores of the time. By my earlier definition, it is sexist - deliberately so. It is about ideas and stereotypes and not about foreplay. Some feminists loved it because it was intended to make people think about relationships and how they are interpreted by the parties in the relationship.
At the time, I thought it was rather heavy handed.
I haven't seen the other pic before. It looks to me to be just pornography - intended to get everyone turned on. Especially Sean. He sure is a lot older now -
But then, I am not your everyday feminist.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
An object - wham, bam, thank you mam (or sir). Sure, men can be treated as sex objects.
A person - everything else as well as the body. And women and men can treat each other as persons.
People form relationships for the feelings they receive from being in that relationship. A relationship that is one dimensional is not very satisfying. And if you have to keep score (you had one more orgasm than I did!) it is a pretty lousy relationship.
Everyone in the relationship must give as well as get. And it should not be about keeping score, but about the mutual respect and caring for each other that leads to wanting the other person to receive what they want and need from the relationship. Without burning each other out. If one party can not fulfill the needs of the other party, then the relationship will not last long. It is never a one way street. Not even abusive relationships are one way.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Way to avoid answering the questions. Attack the questioner.
So suppose I appreciate a woman for her brains instead of her body, how is that not still as you say treating her as an object to get my own pleasure? Don't you just use people for your own selfish pleasure 100% of the time?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Some people aren't wired to need extra dimensions. In every relationship people keep score include these extra emotional dimensions.
OK agreed. So 'slutty' women get attention and money from men. The men get a sexual turn on in return. They don't need any extra dimensions as you do. But why all the critisism? You get your kicks your way they get their kicks their way.
It seems like what you and the Captain are trying to do is make your 'extra dimensions' somehow holy and sacred. What is so superior about your ways? How will it provide me with more pleasure and less pain?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
If discrimination is the behavior of hindering or excluding people, I don't think a painting or photo necessarily does that.
Stereotypes may often be accurate at least superficially. That doesn't make it any less offensive. Though I'm not implicating people who like the photo in anything, except maybe bad taste.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
what is "offensive" is subjective. so is what is "sexist."
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I agree with Beyond Saving on this one.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
a person is a sex object, probably more often than they realize. those two terms are not mutually exclusive. you might rely on your wits all you want, but you have no idea how many guys might glance at you on the street and then go home and jerk off at the thought of you. you might say you're not inviting it, but they might say you are inviting it based on the outfit you were wearing--an outfit that you might find totally innocuous. it's all one big gray area. who is an object and who is a person is based totally in perception, not in objective reality.
in fact, i can look at someone as a person and as a sex object simultaneously. a woman's sex appeal for me is based on her intellect and her body type. even if i find a certain nude photo extremely hot, it's often because the model's facial expression communicates a perception of intelligence, as well as her having a delicious-looking rack. i've never found the classic nude model with deer-in-the-headlights eyes and mouth hanging open a turn-on.
i have a brain and i drool over tits. i also enjoy werner herzog films as well as pornography. i also cook a mean pot of chilli. i'm also rather shy in public, though i love performing music on stage. in other words, i'm a well-rounded person, not a one-dimensional salivating sex fiend.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Did I say any different? Of course, the total balance of give and take has to be satisfactory for all parties involved. I see people getting into problems when they start actually counting - keeping a spreadsheet - adding it up. Realistically, there are times when one partner gets more than the other. But long term it is balanced enough, the relationship endures.
pppppppppppfffffffffffffffffffff...................
You are talking to one of the 1% of the heterosexual population who has had way too many sexual partners in her life. (See http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29297?page=11 post #559)
I have had way too many 1 dimensional relationships. And I am married to someone who had the exact same number. (Yes, we counted.) Neither of us want to go back to a series of one (or two or three) night stands. For us, that is not satisfying. For us, it is much better to be comfortable with each other. For us, we are way past the stage of anyone else wanting us. And we aren't wealthy enough to purchase companionship - which is what it would have to be given our current physical realities. Maybe we were hot 30 years ago - forget it now.
Which is why a multidimensional relationship is better. If all you have is sex, when the sex sucks, the relationship ends. And the sex is going to suck at some point over the years.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
OK, so this thread starts with a pic of young people doing things that are not what older people will do. Got it.
In other news, if you fire a gold brick in my direction at 500 MPH, I will be knocked over. That and moving buses hurt when you stand in front of them.
The basic fact here is that the people in the pic were doing stuff that they were willing to be photographed doing.
Now, will not claim to have been with hundreds of women in my life (much as I wish) but of the several that I have been with, they all like when I hold their arms above their head.
=
Unless you think people should abandon subjective concern then so what. I don't see that what you and your wife do and believe addresses those concerns. If you just want to derogate or belittle those concerns that's fine but it's not much of an apology for the photo.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
the photo needs no apology. the photo has no ideology, morality, or opinions of any kind. it only expresses itself through whatever baggage people already bring with them.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
There is still, instilled by nature, a lot going on in the human psyche, we are slowly breaking it down as society progresses just give it time. For now men and women are different but we are evidently less so than we were initially. Is it good or is it bad? That is the question to consider, as we struggle against ourselves fighting with our very nature.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
A big fallacy is the notion that human nature is a social construct. No doubt we have indeed progressed as a species (ie. an end to slavery, emancipation of women, etc...). And I predict, homophobia will totally end in the future. Yet sexual attraction is one of those facets of human nature that will not disappear by altering our cultural institutions. People will always be physically sexually attracted to people. Our carnal desires may vary from one cultural epoch to another but will never disappear. And for now, most men will get sexually aroused by the picture of Katy Perry. And that carnal desire is more likely the result of innate hardwiring rather than cultural imprinting. The only way to successfully repress lust is via an Orwellian totalitarian culture and historically such societies have not yielded utopias.
reminds me of this quote:
"Actually the experience of the concentration camps does show that human beings can be transformed into specimens of the human animal, and that man's 'nature' is only 'human' insofar as it opens up to man the possibility of becoming something highly unnatural, that is, a man."
--Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Did I say human nature is a social construct? No, I said it is being altered by society. We were not originally born into a society just as we did not originate with air conditioning and vaccines.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Actually technology is rapidly making women obsolete:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVnHmWen_oo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqhQH4n5OU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAuam8iiH3Q
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Yea and im sure there are no silly pics stereotyping men as knuckle dragging apes.
Critics need apologies, especially if they will say their initial interpretation was wrong, and "shame on those who think ill of it" is a pretty bad one when what those who think ill of it believe is so conspicuous and even admitted. You said it is a stereotype so you'd be equally implicated in that, the only difference being that you happen to like it.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I have a washing basket just like that one only larger and scarier with things in it I have not seen for months. It's not folding itself and I'm not folding it. God knows when I last ironed. Years ago. No one complains. The single life has its compensations.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Maybe Mr and Mrs Battleship had a roster - we did. My big sister would never have let her brothers loll while she washed up and that was in the 1970s. If any one got off easy it was my younger sister.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I'm not an expert on art, or anything else for that matter, but it seems to me that images are meant to evoke feelings within the viewer. If that's true, then no image can be inherently sexist. Only the reaction of the viewer of the image can be sexist. Someone earlier in the thread said that you bring your own baggage to the image, and I believe that is true. It's really about intent, in my opinion. Is the intent of the photographer or painter that the image be seen as a commentary on sexuality? Even if that is the case, the person who is viewing the art could have a completely different take on it. The creator of the art cannot force their POV on the viewer, and I believe sexism is a forceful act. An artist can create an image that was intended to oppress women, for example, but any woman who views it can decide to reject the intent and go on with their lives with no harm done to them as a person. A person can view the image and decide that they agree with the intended message that women ought to be oppressed, but that still doesn't directly affect another person in any real way. It's actions that matter.
Actions are what can be truly labeled as sexist. Treating a person as subhuman on a daily basis is much more sexist and demeaning that a single still photo. Passing laws that restrict women in ways that are unfair and unequal is sexist. Unlike art, laws cannot be ignored or rejected in a real way on a day-to-day basis. I don't think that art fuels these actions, necessarily. I believe that these desires to hold yourself as superior to another is a human desire that is innate and do not necessarily need to be fueled by anything exterior.
"I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough - I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race." - Friedrich Nietzsche
CJ is right. That's all I'm going to say, and all I need to say.
Very kind. Thanks.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
So, basically, a lot of hot air between atheists about nothing of any particular relevance or importance whatsoever... wtf.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)