Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Political discussion here. Any reasonable opinion is welcome, but due to the sensitive nature of the topic area, please be nice and respectful to others. No flaming or trolling, please. And please keep political commentary out of the other board areas and confine it to this area. Thanks!
User avatar
Indy
Posts: 19339
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by Indy »

I'll take that as a yes P219. It's not political correctness. It's about anti-discrimination. I can't believe it isn't a big deal.
Last edited by Indy on Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 19339
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by Indy »

You really think it's that simple Dan? That meme has nothing to do with being objectified. It's about women being raped because they "asked for it" by dressing a certain way.

Phoenix219
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:13 am

Re: Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by Phoenix219 »

I don't support double standards nor anything infringing on personal freedom. Opinions are not regulated and have nothing to do with equality. No one is ever saying rape is okay, don't change the topic.

User avatar
Dan H
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:10 pm

Re: Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by Dan H »

Phoenix219 wrote:I don't support double standards nor anything infringing on personal freedom. Opinions are not regulated and have nothing to do with equality. No one is ever saying rape is okay, don't change the topic.
This. The hypocrisy in this situation is ironic because you have a movement that's been saying for years that they shouldn't be judged by the clothes they choose to wear, bullying someone en masse because they don't like the clothes he chose to wear.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 19339
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by Indy »

Dan H wrote:
Phoenix219 wrote:I don't support double standards nor anything infringing on personal freedom. Opinions are not regulated and have nothing to do with equality. No one is ever saying rape is okay, don't change the topic.
This. The hypocrisy in this situation is ironic because you have a movement that's been saying for years that they shouldn't be judged by the clothes they choose to wear, bullying someone en masse because they don't like the clothes he chose to wear.
When did they say that? They said what they wear isn't consent.

User avatar
Mori Chu
Posts: 20886
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by Mori Chu »

It's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be if the women wore clothes that demeaned and insulted men. Which they didn't.

GamerGate is not about favorable video game reviews. It's about men/boys harassing women online with horrible threats of violence, rape, death, etc. simply for giving opinions related to video games online. It's seriously scary. People have had to leave their homes and cancel public appearances due to death threats.

"Personal freedom" / "freedom of speech" does not cover discriminatory or hate speech.

User avatar
SwingMan
Posts: 1151
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:08 pm
Location: Hell's Outhouse - a.k.a. Buckeye, Az.
Contact:

Re: Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by SwingMan »

Mori Chu wrote:It's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be if the women wore clothes that demeaned and insulted men. Which they didn't.

GamerGate is not about favorable video game reviews. It's about men/boys harassing women online with horrible threats of violence, rape, death, etc. simply for giving opinions related to video games online. It's seriously scary. People have had to leave their homes and cancel public appearances due to death threats.

"Personal freedom" / "freedom of speech" does not cover discriminatory or hate speech.
The hypocrisy is demonizing men for what they wear while demanding that people not judge women for what *they* wear.

The group needs to keep their fucking mouths shut - I'll give you 3 guesses which *group* I refer to and the first 2 don't count.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 19339
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by Indy »

SwingMan wrote:
Mori Chu wrote:It's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be if the women wore clothes that demeaned and insulted men. Which they didn't.

GamerGate is not about favorable video game reviews. It's about men/boys harassing women online with horrible threats of violence, rape, death, etc. simply for giving opinions related to video games online. It's seriously scary. People have had to leave their homes and cancel public appearances due to death threats.

"Personal freedom" / "freedom of speech" does not cover discriminatory or hate speech.
The hypocrisy is demonizing men for what they wear while demanding that people not judge women for what *they* wear.

The group needs to keep their fucking mouths shut - I'll give you 3 guesses which *group* I refer to and the first 2 don't count.
Go back and read Moris post again about the point.

User avatar
Mori Chu
Posts: 20886
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by Mori Chu »

SwingMan wrote:The hypocrisy is demonizing men for what they wear while demanding that people not judge women for what *they* wear.

The group needs to keep their fucking mouths shut - I'll give you 3 guesses which *group* I refer to and the first 2 don't count.
I think this post is an excellent example of the problem, the misunderstandings and the cognitive dissonance of the situation.

The women in question are not just "demonizing men for what they wear." In general, these women do not care at all what men wear. They are upset because a particular male scientist wore a shirt that was demeaning to women while he was being interviewed for the news about an important scientific discovery. I think it is absolutely reasonable for women to be upset about this. If a white scientist wore a shirt for an interview that said, "Black people are jungle bunnies / n****rs" etc., or drew exaggerated caricatures of black people on the shirt, then black viewers would rightfully be upset about it. It's not good for people to wear demeaning or hateful clothing in an interview like that, especially if the person is a respected scientist speaking about an important discovery.

As a completely separate issue, you bring up "demanding that people not judge women for what *they* wear." In that context, it is about examining a woman's clothes and using the clothes to make judgments about the woman's promiscuity, her sexuality, her worth as a person, etc. Telling a woman she is a "slut" for wearing certain kinds of outfits. Telling her she is not "dressing sexy enough" for her waitress or bartender job. Judging her on whether she wears makeup or does her hair a certain way at the office. These are unfortunate and unnecessary kinds of judgments that many women face.

Please note that the kinds of criticisms of clothing in these two cases are completely different. One case is about wearing clothes that present the person's body in a certain way, which affects only that person themselves. The other is about wearing clothes that present demeaning images and/or messages about other people or groups of people.

I hope it's clear that it is not "hypocrisy" to ask another group to stop wearing demeaning clothes, while also wanting freedom to dress yourself in whatever reasonable (non-demeaning) fashion you like. These are not contradictory things to want. To couch both views as "telling people what to wear" grossly oversimplifies the issue and tries to make two unequal views/expressions into the same kind.

If the women in question were wearing shirts that objectified and demeaned men, but then also told the men to stop wearing shirts that demeaned women, THAT would be hypocrisy.

User avatar
SwingMan
Posts: 1151
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:08 pm
Location: Hell's Outhouse - a.k.a. Buckeye, Az.
Contact:

Re: Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by SwingMan »

Indy wrote:
SwingMan wrote:
Mori Chu wrote:It's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be if the women wore clothes that demeaned and insulted men. Which they didn't.

GamerGate is not about favorable video game reviews. It's about men/boys harassing women online with horrible threats of violence, rape, death, etc. simply for giving opinions related to video games online. It's seriously scary. People have had to leave their homes and cancel public appearances due to death threats.

"Personal freedom" / "freedom of speech" does not cover discriminatory or hate speech.
The hypocrisy is demonizing men for what they wear while demanding that people not judge women for what *they* wear.

The group needs to keep their fucking mouths shut - I'll give you 3 guesses which *group* I refer to and the first 2 don't count.
Go back and read Moris post again about the point.
Already have - no need to re-read what I already understand. Just pointing out the hypocrisy without the political correctness, is all. There's no double standards - just hypocrisy.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 19339
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by Indy »

SwingMan wrote:
Indy wrote:
SwingMan wrote:
Mori Chu wrote:It's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be if the women wore clothes that demeaned and insulted men. Which they didn't.

GamerGate is not about favorable video game reviews. It's about men/boys harassing women online with horrible threats of violence, rape, death, etc. simply for giving opinions related to video games online. It's seriously scary. People have had to leave their homes and cancel public appearances due to death threats.

"Personal freedom" / "freedom of speech" does not cover discriminatory or hate speech.
The hypocrisy is demonizing men for what they wear while demanding that people not judge women for what *they* wear.

The group needs to keep their fucking mouths shut - I'll give you 3 guesses which *group* I refer to and the first 2 don't count.
Go back and read Moris post again about the point.
Already have - no need to re-read what I already understand. Just pointing out the hypocrisy without the political correctness, is all. There's no double standards - just hypocrisy.
As he pointed out so clearly, maybe the understanding of "hypocrisy" is what you don't get.

User avatar
SwingMan
Posts: 1151
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:08 pm
Location: Hell's Outhouse - a.k.a. Buckeye, Az.
Contact:

Re: Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by SwingMan »

Indy wrote:
SwingMan wrote:
Indy wrote:
SwingMan wrote:
Mori Chu wrote:It's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be if the women wore clothes that demeaned and insulted men. Which they didn't.

GamerGate is not about favorable video game reviews. It's about men/boys harassing women online with horrible threats of violence, rape, death, etc. simply for giving opinions related to video games online. It's seriously scary. People have had to leave their homes and cancel public appearances due to death threats.

"Personal freedom" / "freedom of speech" does not cover discriminatory or hate speech.
The hypocrisy is demonizing men for what they wear while demanding that people not judge women for what *they* wear.

The group needs to keep their fucking mouths shut - I'll give you 3 guesses which *group* I refer to and the first 2 don't count.
Go back and read Moris post again about the point.
Already have - no need to re-read what I already understand. Just pointing out the hypocrisy without the political correctness, is all. There's no double standards - just hypocrisy.
As he pointed out so clearly, maybe the understanding of "hypocrisy" is what you don't get.
I know full well what "hypocrisy" means - it's doing the very thing you accuse others of doing, which could also qualify as the definition of "projection".

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 19339
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by Indy »

So why don't you see this isn't the case here, as Mori clearly laid out?

User avatar
SwingMan
Posts: 1151
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:08 pm
Location: Hell's Outhouse - a.k.a. Buckeye, Az.
Contact:

Re: Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by SwingMan »

Indy wrote:So why don't you see this isn't the case here, as Mori clearly laid out?
Because I see the women's/feminist's ploy for what it is - grievances of the WAY too easily offended, easily offended partially because of being emboldened by a bogus safety net given women in general by society. Like, how a man supposedly can't defend himself when a woman is attacking him.

No - political correctness doesn't fly one bit with me.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 19339
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by Indy »

It amazes me that you think women are more easily offended sex as a general rule, or that women are more emboldened by our society. And that you think this is all a ploy. A ploy for what?

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 19339
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by Indy »

Mori Chu wrote:
SwingMan wrote:The hypocrisy is demonizing men for what they wear while demanding that people not judge women for what *they* wear.

The group needs to keep their fucking mouths shut - I'll give you 3 guesses which *group* I refer to and the first 2 don't count.
I think this post is an excellent example of the problem, the misunderstandings and the cognitive dissonance of the situation.

The women in question are not just "demonizing men for what they wear." In general, these women do not care at all what men wear. They are upset because a particular male scientist wore a shirt that was demeaning to women while he was being interviewed for the news about an important scientific discovery. I think it is absolutely reasonable for women to be upset about this. If a white scientist wore a shirt for an interview that said, "Black people are jungle bunnies / n****rs" etc., or drew exaggerated caricatures of black people on the shirt, then black viewers would rightfully be upset about it. It's not good for people to wear demeaning or hateful clothing in an interview like that, especially if the person is a respected scientist speaking about an important discovery.

As a completely separate issue, you bring up "demanding that people not judge women for what *they* wear." In that context, it is about examining a woman's clothes and using the clothes to make judgments about the woman's promiscuity, her sexuality, her worth as a person, etc. Telling a woman she is a "slut" for wearing certain kinds of outfits. Telling her she is not "dressing sexy enough" for her waitress or bartender job. Judging her on whether she wears makeup or does her hair a certain way at the office. These are unfortunate and unnecessary kinds of judgments that many women face.

Please note that the kinds of criticisms of clothing in these two cases are completely different. One case is about wearing clothes that present the person's body in a certain way, which affects only that person themselves. The other is about wearing clothes that present demeaning images and/or messages about other people or groups of people.

I hope it's clear that it is not "hypocrisy" to ask another group to stop wearing demeaning clothes, while also wanting freedom to dress yourself in whatever reasonable (non-demeaning) fashion you like. These are not contradictory things to want. To couch both views as "telling people what to wear" grossly oversimplifies the issue and tries to make two unequal views/expressions into the same kind.

If the women in question were wearing shirts that objectified and demeaned men, but then also told the men to stop wearing shirts that demeaned women, THAT would be hypocrisy.
What is unclear or untrue about this Swing?

User avatar
SwingMan
Posts: 1151
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:08 pm
Location: Hell's Outhouse - a.k.a. Buckeye, Az.
Contact:

Re: Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by SwingMan »

Indy wrote:It amazes me that you think women are more easily offended sex as a general rule, or that women are more emboldened by our society. And that you think this is all a ploy. A ploy for what?
It's not so much that women are naturally more easily offended - but they're put into a position to capitalize and take advantage of the opportunity. And the ploy is similar to the race hustlers - gotta keep that grievance industry thriving, lest there be no "business" or cause to champion a "persecuted class". It's bullshit.

And, one thing you've neglected to acknowledge thus far: Mori used the word "ask" - these women did not ask, they demanded. Big difference and a prime example of being emboldened as I previously mentioned.

Again - political correctness does not fly one bit with me.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 19339
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by Indy »

And, one thing you've neglected to acknowledge thus far: Mori used the word "ask" - these women did not ask, they demanded. Big difference and a prime example of being emboldened as I previously mentioned.
I guess you are right. They demanded to not be demeaned, just like Martin Luther demanded to not be demeaned for his religious beliefs, or how Martin Luther King demanded to not be demeaned based on the color of his skin. How hypocritical of them!

User avatar
Mori Chu
Posts: 20886
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by Mori Chu »

Hopeless.

User avatar
SwingMan
Posts: 1151
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:08 pm
Location: Hell's Outhouse - a.k.a. Buckeye, Az.
Contact:

Re: Video: 10 Hours of walking in NYC as a woman

Post by SwingMan »

Indy wrote:
And, one thing you've neglected to acknowledge thus far: Mori used the word "ask" - these women did not ask, they demanded. Big difference and a prime example of being emboldened as I previously mentioned.
I guess you are right. They demanded to not be demeaned, just like Martin Luther demanded to not be demeaned for his religious beliefs, or how Martin Luther King demanded to not be demeaned based on the color of his skin. How hypocritical of them!
Oh cut the hubris, Indy - if men did the same thing, they'd be ripped from asshole to appetite by just about every "special interest" group one could imagine. Just like how whites seem to be excluded from pointing out racism where it exists.

Gender does not - or, at least, should not - entitle one to special protection or privileges. I'm calling ass on the political correctness, is all.

Post Reply