Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
who is your favourite?
Fired eh? Or have they crushed your soul already?
So the latter I guess
We'd be worse off without them.
not an ironic answer, he's a cool cat. An all-time dog, even.
I think that its become a thing, which in a way, is good, a site can never have too many 'characters'
fewer characters, more people posting with their pants up is the order of the day
Empty desk Dave?
Cripes, you're right!
annoying / amusing / the epitome of this issue.
Like they think it's sexist to chat woemen up / fancy girls. Yes, I can actually think of people I know like that. No, it's no-one on DIS.
rather than D.I.S.
Is that what you mean? Not sure what you're getting at Dude.
apologist is the opposite of what you meant there
just for future reference
no-one should be called a slut.
But he's allowed to find her fit. That's the point.
i can see moker's point.
or rather, they do and they shouldn't
so if you and moker want your opinions tested you'd be better off sounding out some non-male opinions on the subject
there are many to be found
The dividing line between finding someone sexually attractive (often harmless) and reducing someone to their sexual attractiveness (often harmful) isn't always a clear one.
you just haven't thought it through
Look, pinpointing the line between finding someone sexually attractive and reducing someone to their sexual attractiveness (assuming you agree that the latter is what objectification is) is far from being an exact science. It can be difficult to figure out on a case-by-case basis (if you’re inclined to do so), and it’s kind of impossible to figure out as a kind of one-size-fits-all rule. It can be as difficult as trying to figure out the difference between concepts like love, lust, passion, infatuation, etc. Sometimes one comes disguised as another.
And I think, ultimately, even the most well-intentioned people are guilty of objectification at some point or another. Like, for instance, if I fancy a Hollywood actress, but I also find her personality fairly abhorrent, I’m reducing a human being to the way she looks, in a way that I don’t necessarily have a huge amount of control over. Of course, that’s something we all do that from time-to-time, so it’s not really anything to be majorly ashamed or apologetic about. But, at the other end of the scale, yelling ‘nice arse’ at a stranger definitely is.
But anyway, it’s difficult. Stop pretending it’s easy.
He just seems to have missed the point of the post he was responding to.
you're meant to find the glamour model attractive. That's the point of her job.
Calling her a nice slut isn't necessarily sexism (although it probably is based on choice of words) but moreover, it's cuntish. One love man.
I don't really understand the phrase "males don't get to set the objectification boundaries" - at least in terms of a glamour model. She's doing it to be looked at and lusted over. That's the entire point. It's just sex man. It's all cool.
The way I see it, is that all your attitudes should come from a "one love" perspective. Calling a girl a slut: Not one love. finding a woman who chooses to get her kit off to look attractive, attractive, well that's all gravy.
Idk, people seem to want to get offended / complicate everything. Surely treating everyone as equal is the simplest thing in the world. People just want beef.
"Calling her a nice slut isn't necessarily sexism (although it probably is based on choice of words) but moreover, it's cuntish. One love man."
It is necessarily sexism. Especially as you think it's 'cuntish' (which is in itself a form of sexism, implying that the worst thing in the world to be compared to are ladyparts, but hey ho) because you obviously see it's nasty, and it's nasty because we definitely see calling a woman a 'slut' as a very bad thing. We see it as a bad thing because of the sexism in our culture that implies women shouldn't 'sleep around', etc.
"She's doing it to be looked at and lusted over. That's the entire point. It's just sex man. It's all cool."
Is it all cool, though? Maybe she's doing it because she spent years with society implying strongly to her that she should go down that route? Dunno, maybe she's really poor and needs the money. Let's go back to Linda Lovelace telling everyone (long after the fact) that if you watched her in Deep Throat you were watching her getting raped. People do a lot of things for a lot of reasons.
Let's go back to Women's Suffrage. There definitely wasn't 100% support for this from women at the time. Do you think that's because women not having the vote was a choice those women made and it was 'all cool' or would you say objectively that they'd accepted a load of bullshit conditioning by the society they lived in?
And wait, I'm not allowed to call someone a cunt?! Now that's looking for sexism where it isn't. What about if I call them a prick?
Also, maybe "society" did tell her to take her clothes off (although I don't know what this really means, how can that be quantified?) or maybe she actually wanted to and saying that she was "manipulated" by the "patriarchy" just because she's a woman is equally insulting.
I was looking at some twitter feed of a Nuts/Zoo model the other day and she'd posted some thing about supporting "lads mags" and saying it's her right to do what she wants. Just blaming everything on "society implying" isn't really a solid argument in the face of people declaring it's their free will.
In fact, it's positively insulting to imply otherwise.
Like I said, calling someone a slut: There's a problem. Finding sexy girls trying to be sexy, sexy: not a problem. Even if people personally find it offensive.
Re: the vote argument, you know that's different. It's Non-comparable. It's an equality issue. This isn't. It's a lifestyle choice. If women want to pose, then cool. If not, cool. The vote was about inequality on a massive scale enforced by law.
Like I said, I really think people want to get offended by stuff. And I say, knock yourselves out.
And just to say, there's a trillion men out there who proclaim to hate lads mags and page 3 but all of them, every single one, wanks over porn, so it's hypocritical.
No offence to anyone. I'd really like it if this doesn't cause a lot of people gnashing teeth or whatever. It's just a political view on a political issue.
you've still not grasped the difference here have you?
I thought it they're just both insults.
So fair enough, I might be wrong. I mean, no-one is right about everything so all of us must be wrong about something. Else we'd be the most correct people on earth.
What I'm trying to say is that's my view and you probably have yours. It's all coolio.
to use a part of the female anatomy to describe someone being the worst possible person is therefor a problem in a way that using a part of the male anatomy isn't.
do you disagree with any of this?
I'm not gonna get into a big ruck about it. I disagree but that's cool.
You say potato, I say pomme de terre.
Let's just both enjoy the starchy goodness.
because it seems to me completely undeniable
You know, new leaf and all that.
Ok, so I'm gonna say this, you reply if you like but we're not gonna go any further. Let's spread the harmony (http://bit.ly/1fQbYpn).
Basically, the highlight of my view is that cunt/twat/knob/arsehole/fuckface/prick/dick/bollocks: they're all just swearwords. Women don't feel / aren't suppressed by someone using the word twat anymore than men are when someone uses the insult bellend. I don't think it has any sexist connotation at all.
I could be wrong. That's my logic.
Sautee sweet potatoes.
do you disagree that "women have been systematically oppressed throughout almost all of history"?
Come on alcxxk, you wanna be mates really.
Join me and we can rule the galaxy together as father and son.
Yes, women have been unequal, of course, it's just not relevant when you call someone a twat, or a cunt. Or a tit.
But let's agree to disagree. That's the best thing about life. Variety (not the cereal packs, but they were ace too).
and just disconnect to jump to whatever opinion you already had and allows you to be comfortable?
We've done this lots. It's cool to have different opinions, no?
I guess you're finding it frustrating because you don't agree or I don't understand. I'm happy to accept that that's my fault.
"paki" and angrily calling a british person "a brit"?
you realise that this isn't an argument? it's me asking you questions and trying to understand how you can honestly think how you do for any reason other than avoiding having to actually think about your views
Perhaps I'm not avoiding thinking about my views, perhaps I'm trying to avoid bickering on the internet. So tired of bickering.
Why does it upset you so much that I have a different view to you? Why do you persist? Do you feel you need to educate me? Seriously bro, I'm cool.
OK, what do you want me to answer? I'll answer anything then.
Do I think that there's sexism calling a bloke a twat or a cunt? No.
Do I think that calling someone a paki is different to caling them a Brit? Yes, of course.
I'll happily talk about this if you want to but you better hurry up as shit is getting squeeeeezed in this thread.
you say that there's no difference between "prick" and "cunt", but that there is a difference between "paki" and "brit".
generally in england, "cunt" doesn't have as heavily sexist connotations as it does in america, but it still means something different when used to talk about women than men. how many times have you called a female friend a "cunt" in a jokey way, compared to with men?
with that in mind, why is the relationship between "prick" and "cunt" different to that between "brit" and "paki"?
for the record, sometimes i use the word "cunt". sometimes i think i can defend its use, but generally it's just that i've failed to use a better word, which sucks.
It's the last taboo of swearwords. I however do try not to say it around women and I am pretty much certain I've never called a woman a cunt to her face (well who I didn't go out with. Hey ladies!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpa4eaLS30A
I don't think that it's because it's about the vagina though. I'd call a girl a twat to her face if the situation warranted it. I'd say she was being a fanny. It's just the last swearword that's still got some gravitas.
The Brit/Paki thing is totally different. They're both words but that means nothing. The N word for example is completely different to the word "shit". Or "Brit". I can't see how a racist slur would relate to the use of the word cunt or twat.
To me, it's a separate issue and those words can be used very differently, so it is a different issue. I can't square the circle on that comparison. Life isn't that directly comparable. And of course, with language, context is EVERYTHING.
Does this help? Or am I being a cunt you twat? :D
cos you wouldn't call a white person it as an insult in the same way that a man would be called a cunt.
i'd say that it's still a swearword of a sort, and one that's considerably more taboo (at least among people i know) than "cunt".
they're both words that make particular groups of people particularly offended, though, that's the context. brit and paki are, on one level, just abbreviations of nationalities, but crucially one has been used as a hateful racist slur against a group that's prejudiced against. this is what started this conversation - you saying "And wait, I'm not allowed to call someone a cunt?! Now that's looking for sexism where it isn't. What about if I call them a prick?"
also, yes, "cunt" has a unique status, but i think it'd be pretty myopic to not consider whether or not that status comes from its use against women
Language has power, though, right? Or maybe you don't believe that? Do you think 'political correctness' is bollocks? I don't, it's the same thing. If someone at school consistently called you an idiot for a number of years do you think it was negatively effect you?
This is an extension of that thinking. If men and women were equal in society then dick, cock, prick, fanny, cunt, twat etc. would all just be insults. But different words have different power in different contexts. If you called a black guy the N-word you would definitely expect a much harsher reaction than using the word cunt. And, moreover, you know full well that 'cunt' is worse than 'prick'.
Anyway, I'm not having a big, "moker you're such a sexist" go at you for using 'cuntish', I'm pointing out that it's a facet of what we're discussing and suggesting you consider where a lot of language comes from.
And yes, we honestly don't know if she's a glamour model because she's always wanted to be objectified by men or not. Again, I'm asking you to realise there are a lot of complexities out there, that not everything is that straightforward.
Of course guys are almost all turned on by pornographic images of one sort or another. There could be hypocrisy, or maybe a lot of guys who now object to this sort of stuff have also stopped looking at porn. People can change and they can learn.
You've moaned about your old school mates not being sympathetic to leftist view points. This is the same sort of thing, though.
I hear ya. Fair enough.
The thing that I always thing is arguing about the semantics of words only makes the whole thing more myopic and irrelevant. But I do see what you're sying but we probably have different views on how relevant it is.
The general meat and potatoes of the argument is the same. We both have the same chip on our shoulders about inequality.
I don't want to mash together other issues pointlessly. It boils down to the same thing.
In conclusion: Potato.
Well, moker, I'm actually building a structure/agency quantification machine and the pilot study involved imputing hundreds of thousands of data points based on discourse analysis and interviews with glamour models (as well as some participant observation which involved me having pose topless for the student paper, which I couldn't actually use in the end because of their No More Page 3 policy as well as having to jump through hoops for the ethics committee). Still need to sort out a few technical issues but I should have the result in the next few days.
but yeah I can send you the preliminary analysis reports when I get them. it shouldn't be too wordy, it'll give a number/percentage which is a good estimation of how much structure (as in 'caused by society' rather than the individual) is the key determinant in decisions to work in glamour modelling. My guess is that it's going to be somewhere in the region of the Berger and Luckmann hypothesis (67%)
it's 82% with a 4% margin of error (at a 95% confidence interval). so basically, we can say with almost certainty that for about 80% of glamour models in the uk and ireland, 'social' factors are more important than individual choice. so things like, what their parents do, expectations of earnings, attitudes to sexuality, self esteem, influence of partners, role models, types of media they've been exposed to, level of educational attainment. this isn't exhaustive and there were about 60 such categories used in the study.
that's not to say that for the other 20% none of these things played a part in their decision making. it just wasn't the sole or main determining factor.
I'm not hear to read stats. I want to see the results*
*Every senior manager ever.
But as someone who studied statistics, I’m really dubious of applying such firm %s to such nuanced subjects (i.e. most subjects). To me at least, the apparent mathematical certainty you've given just leads me to doubt the wider insight.
I'm on my phone so can't go into much more detail right now but would be happy to email the final draft to anyone who wants to see it. I'll have to present it to a research seminar too so any comments would be welcome :)
I retract all my doubts about your stats.
Hoping to play around with it a bit more to present it in a slightly more interesting way but I'm pretty proud of how rigorous the findings are. Actually writing some press releases this week and hopefully getting a bit of media coverage. Caroline Lucas has said she might raise it in parliament too which would be amazing.
Guardian Society section and the Mail's Sidebar of Shame.
With any luck, you could be the next Samantha Brick.
calling someone a slut is complicated, because at surface level it's an insult, and insulting someone is mean. but it's also tied into *drum roll* misogyny, because it's supposed to shame someone based on them not conforming to someone else's values.
this dude saying "nice slut" and claiming it was a compliment is some fucking inception-level nonsense though.
also, i don't believe there's anyone in the world who thinks being attracted to someone or chatting someone up (in the abstract) is sexist. these people don't exist. a lot of they ways people approach chatting someone up are probably based on sexist bullshit though.
i apologise for my penis. it's a bad penis and i should not have it. *bows*
(is that sexist?)
The phrase *check your privilege”. I know the principle hasn’t got anywhere, but those three words really suddenly disappeared.
Re: the op, ar we talking about people who genuinely get offended, or those who pretend to, to get laid? If the latter than defo Fidel_catsro
Are you trying to say Fidel has? That is very offensive marckee, you should apologise.
There's no "y"
just ended up with everyone shouting at each other to 'check your x privilege'
Still occasionally use it as a joke like saying 'check your burger privelege' if someone's eating a burger but I don't think it was that funny to begin with and its definitely getting old now. Still gonna do it though.
you are all vile, disgusting people
That said: imagine the energy you could get into a hate fuck straight after question time. Filed for future reference.
Probably you lot.
your turn (sorry yours was at the point where it was funny, I am merely being purile)
that from your position, it is much easier to observe and make announcements that will automatically be 'superior' to anything that the rest of us 'wrestling in the filth in the DIS pig sty' will be able to come up with
for using "people" instead of "men" in the thread title. Bad form.
Middle-class white people getting offended on behalf of others
and I'm a fella so count me in.
I think he's talking about when they're offended by the gays?
otherwise working or upper is applicable too.
about issues that don't effect their lives or are on their doorstep or don't raise taxes.
But I suspect, rather than ‘Middle-class white people who get offended on behalf of others’, Verbal means something like ‘bullish, self-serving sanctimonious people who insert themselves into (often imagined) moral quandaries, not because of any empathy with the unfortunate, but because they get off on presenting themselves as white knights, while embracing the opportunity to bully people with different opinions to theirs’. Because those people are insufferable.
Though, having said that, people who come out with semi-nonsensical phrases like “if I was gay, I’d be pretty offended by that” can be a bit fucking tedious too.
MCWP seem to be the main participants in this particularly activity, though. Plus, it gave it an added trolling angle.
to drive more sales, or the Daily Mail pretending to hate pedophiles while objectifying teenage girls and things like that, I suppose.
For a start, many newspapers and magazines (on the left and on the right) tap into that mindset to push up their ad revenue. Subsequently, permanently outraged columnists like Richard Littlejohn and Bidisha have more influence over public opinion than proper responsible journalists like Nick Davies and Ramita Navai.
And that’s concerning as well as annoying. It also seems to me that, for many people, furthering the aims and buzzwords of their own ideological clique takes a much higher priority than just adopting a compassionate outlook towards people.
"bullish, self-serving sanctimonious people who insert themselves into (often imagined) moral quandaries, not because of any empathy with the unfortunate, but because they get off on presenting themselves as white knights, while embracing the opportunity to bully people with different opinions to theirs".
It's what MotherShabubu said it is.
I like the name though. Sounds like a Stoner Rock album.
I just thought what you wrote was ace.
If this high standard of posting doesn't continue, I'm gonna be pretty disappointed.
We all will be.
Guess I'm gonna have to ask you to explain that.
Just love how you intersperse your serious opinions with silly asides and 'random' comments to try and put across how uninvested you are. It's adorable.
It was meant to be lighthearted.
I can't win on here. If I argue, I'm going "full moker" and if I consistently say I don't want to argue (see above for xtensive evidence)
if I consistently say I don't want to argue (see above for extensive evidence) and just have FUCKING FUNNY POTATO THEMED JOKE then sudden'y I'm on the back foot.
Maybe I just don't want to ruck BRO.
they're trying to stop you running away whenever anyone suggests you need to think about what you believe
Seriously now. Use your brain.
I don't want to be rude to strangers but seriously man. Way to be a shit. Read the entire discourse above.
If I don't want to argue I'm not on the back foot, I'm not refusing to "think". Maybe you should think before being a wanker and writing that I need to be educated you patronising boner.
but your post is exactly my point about being snookered no matter what I say or do.
i mean the way that you try to leave a discussion because you don't want an argument is the problem because you actually have the ability to leave the discussion. you never *need* to think about any of this (those stars are obnoxious but i want to emphasise that) but generally when you get into a discussion on here it's because you're expressing an opinion on something the affected parties can't just leave.
adding 'it's all cool man' in every couple of lines doesn't make it cool.
You attack me, I reply and I'm now being too "defensive" and it's "frustrating".
This was also nice: "adding 'it's all cool man' in every couple of lines doesn't make it cool."
Did you even read the conversation above? I said I disagreed but said it's cool to have different views. Or should I have raged, then you can say I'm being mental? Or should I have joked and you could say I'm refusing to "think about what I believe"?
Even this post you can throw your hands up in the air and go "look! You're replying so this means X".
Whatever the case, the fact is you're gonna think whatever you fancy, no matter what I do or say, so knock yourself out with that.
it really is not cool to just say you have different views and then leave the discussion. it's not a conversation about a film or a song or whatever. this is people's lives.
is an incredibly useful phrase; as soon as someone utters it, you know you can disregard everything they say, because they're an utter dolt.
I've seen the term used fairly frequently in various contexts (business news, TV reviews, feminist-leaning articles, etc). But please, elaborate on why you think I'm an utter dolt.
Fine. I'll remember not to take you seriously.
you white knight pillock
I've been fretting for three days now about whether your time had been wasted or not.
but I think you people miss a lot of the best bits of dis in your scoffing.
These kinds of threads are the worst bits of dis to me. I always leave them bored akd with a sense of deja vu and disappointment in the lack of wit or original thought and overwhelming pop politics blinkeredness. Anyway, back to my level- the chocolate bar thread.
When people remember not to take themselves seriously
don't you realise dis is the model UN.
I hope you realise my comment is not directed at you individually, personally but, to borrow your language, 'you people'. (I think you are great). Can somebody bring me one of those hot towels but really cold please? Still really glad I've not read this thread.
Oh you <3 x
Although not obvious to me from what you said (admittedly from only thread skimming, so my fault.) Also anyone who says 'you people' under one of my posts is getting it.
I took this thread a tiny bit more seriously than I probably should've done.
I was being generic in my assassination because I've not properly read the thread, and i was flippant. For what it's worth I don't think I've ever read any post of yours without nodding along and wondering who the hell you are. (In a vg way- you're either an interesting new poster or a returner that I don't know). So, not specifically you, but just *sigh* at a repetitive pattern that I knew i had to skip over or else get grumpy. Not sure if this makes sense, which is why I normally I avoid these threads wholesale