Page 5 of 23 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 228

Thread: "Ring girls" turfed and replaced by men: this week in feminist irony.

  1. Top | #41
    Veteran Member Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    4,232
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    8,772
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post

    Yes. First, it isn't inherently degrading. Being paid money to look good for other people is not inherently degrading and it's madness to think it is.
    So you disagree with the feminists who think it's inherently degrading and agree with the feminists who think it isn't.

    Second, even jobs that might be conceived of more reasonably as 'degrading' (such as diving through raw sewage to dislodge blockages) is still a legitimate job and there's no reason to 'eliminate' it on that basis alone.
    What I call degrading is something that denies or diminishes one's self-worth, dignity, and the respect one is given by others. Being a homeless beggar is degrading. Being a NOAA scientist forced to defend and excuse Trump's misinformation and lies is degrading. Being the victim of a nasty prank posted on Facebook is degrading.

    Diving through raw sewage to dislodge blockages isn't degrading, it's just icky.

    Looking good for money is open to both men and women. In certain contexts though it is gender segregated, and the market demand is uneven.
    Look, I get the concept. Men like looking. Men can derive a lot of sexual pleasure just looking at sexy young folks in revealing clothes, which is why businesses that cater to men employ sexy young folks to serve them. It's good for business. And some folks like having that job. But there's a real concern in that being sexy is more than just a job description, it used to be how women were valued back when men thought of them as chattel. In many ways, it's how women are still valued, especially by sexists and misogynists. And that sort of thinking has a long history of producing harmful outcomes.

    Ring Girls might like being Ring Girls. It might be fun and financially rewarding. But that doesn't mean jobs like 'Ring Girl' aren't problematic. I don't think banning that kind of job is the way to go, but I'm not sorry to see them shuffle off into the sunset. They were part of an earlier generation's concept of sexual liberation and gender roles which we've largely moved beyond. It's time for an update.

    Things change. Better get used to it because it's not going to stop.
    That's true. It might even be hoped that the current social discourse, dominated as it is by the dogmatic premises of the feminist faithful, may one day too change.
    No doubt it will. But you might not like that change, either.

  2. Top | #42
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    3,125
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    14,099
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    So you disagree with the feminists who think it's inherently degrading and agree with the feminists who think it isn't.
    That's correct.

    Look, I get the concept. Men like looking. Men can derive a lot of sexual pleasure just looking at sexy young folks in revealing clothes, which is why businesses that cater to men employ sexy young folks to serve them. It's good for business. And some folks like having that job. But there's a real concern in that being sexy is more than just a job description, it used to be how women were valued back when men thought of them as chattel. In many ways, it's how women are still valued, especially by sexists and misogynists. And that sort of thinking has a long history of producing harmful outcomes.

    And women's freedom (or men's) should not be predicated on what "sexists and misogynists" think.

    Ring Girls might like being Ring Girls.
    Since they choose to remain employed as ring girls, and the competition to be selected is fierce, and since they have gone on television to fight for (and fail to retain) their right to continue to be ring girls (or grid girls in the specific case I'm thinking of), then I'm sure it's more than 'might'.

    It might be fun and financially rewarding. But that doesn't mean jobs like 'Ring Girl' aren't problematic. I don't think banning that kind of job is the way to go, but I'm not sorry to see them shuffle off into the sunset. They were part of an earlier generation's concept of sexual liberation and gender roles which we've largely moved beyond. It's time for an update.
    "It's time for an update" is no kind of reason at all (except to renovate a bathroom).

    No doubt it will. But you might not like that change, either.
    If the change is away from a society where adults can decide for themselves how they want to be employed and what entertainment they voluntarily put their money toward, then I probably won't like the change.

  3. Top | #43
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    14,775
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    56,718
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    I don't know how I could have made it clearer.
    Your response did not address the question. I did not ask about whether you thought getting rid of ring girls would be effective in achieving its goal I did not ask about whether modeling was disrespectful. And I did not ask about your views on the morality of achieving the goal in this manner. So, you did not address the question at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Yes, I disagree with the statement as a whole. I also disagree with the implicit premises.
    Ms. Alden’s entire statement in the article is ““Being respectful of women is key to eliminating other forms of violence, especially violence towards women and children,”
    What would be key to eliminating other forms of violence, especially violence towards women and children?

  4. Top | #44
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    14,775
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    56,718
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    If the change is away from a society where adults can decide for themselves how they want to be employed and what entertainment they voluntarily put their money toward, then I probably won't like the change.
    So, you are against the bans on dog fighting and cock fighting in Australia. Both bans meet your stated standards.

  5. Top | #45
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    3,125
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    14,099
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    If the change is away from a society where adults can decide for themselves how they want to be employed and what entertainment they voluntarily put their money toward, then I probably won't like the change.
    So, you are against the bans on dog fighting and cock fighting in Australia. Both bans meet your stated standards.
    The dogs and cocks didn't voluntarily consent to be 'employed' for those acts, but nice try. It's telling that you think ring girls are like enslaved dogs and chickens.

  6. Top | #46
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    3,125
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    14,099
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    I don't know how I could have made it clearer.
    Your response did not address the question. I did not ask about whether you thought getting rid of ring girls would be effective in achieving its goal I did not ask about whether modeling was disrespectful. And I did not ask about your views on the morality of achieving the goal in this manner. So, you did not address the question at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Yes, I disagree with the statement as a whole. I also disagree with the implicit premises.
    Ms. Alden’s entire statement in the article is ““Being respectful of women is key to eliminating other forms of violence, especially violence towards women and children,”
    What would be key to eliminating other forms of violence, especially violence towards women and children?
    Eliminating the violence is impossible, so nothing can be key to it.

    But what would be key is completely irrelevant for me to disagree with her statement.

  7. Top | #47
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    23,146
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    65,619
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post

    No. They are not being scored, they are not going head to head with other ring girls and they don't share a winner's purse.

    I don't believe you are that naïve or that ignorant.



    My problem is that ceding ground to Puritans who have no moral case is bad. When the ring girls are turfed--and they will be because the precedent is now there-- the feminists will have succeeded in eroding value for the spectators and reducing employment for young women. Do you believe a single feminist who proselytizes her selective Puritanism actually goes to watch MMA tournaments?
    Wouldn’t puritans be seeking to end MMA altogether?
    No. The new Puritans don't object to violence against men.
    So when you say Puritan you are just using it as a swipe at them, not literal, because literal Puritans wouldn’t hold their opinions. Seems confusing but whatev’s.
    They do object to men enjoying looking at scantily clad women, and they do object to women being employed in ways that offends them personally but harms nobody.
    They do? They get strip clubs closed and this the next thing?

  8. Top | #48
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    5,533
    Rep Power
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post

    So you disagree with the feminists who think it's inherently degrading and agree with the feminists who think it isn't.



    What I call degrading is something that denies or diminishes one's self-worth, dignity, and the respect one is given by others. Being a homeless beggar is degrading. Being a NOAA scientist forced to defend and excuse Trump's misinformation and lies is degrading. Being the victim of a nasty prank posted on Facebook is degrading.

    Diving through raw sewage to dislodge blockages isn't degrading, it's just icky.

    Looking good for money is open to both men and women. In certain contexts though it is gender segregated, and the market demand is uneven.
    Look, I get the concept. Men like looking. Men can derive a lot of sexual pleasure just looking at sexy young folks in revealing clothes, which is why businesses that cater to men employ sexy young folks to serve them. It's good for business. And some folks like having that job. But there's a real concern in that being sexy is more than just a job description, it used to be how women were valued back when men thought of them as chattel. In many ways, it's how women are still valued, especially by sexists and misogynists. And that sort of thinking has a long history of producing harmful outcomes.

    Ring Girls might like being Ring Girls. It might be fun and financially rewarding. But that doesn't mean jobs like 'Ring Girl' aren't problematic. I don't think banning that kind of job is the way to go, but I'm not sorry to see them shuffle off into the sunset. They were part of an earlier generation's concept of sexual liberation and gender roles which we've largely moved beyond. It's time for an update.

    Things change. Better get used to it because it's not going to stop.
    That's true. It might even be hoped that the current social discourse, dominated as it is by the dogmatic premises of the feminist faithful, may one day too change.
    No doubt it will. But you might not like that change, either.

    Hear hear. Things like ring girls are inherently problematic, because of the wider issues around sexism and bodily objectification.

    I'm not sure what you meant about unblocking sewage not being degrading. In India, for example, it's a job reserved for the lowest caste. Degrading jobs are not peculiar to women only.

  9. Top | #49
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    3,125
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    14,099
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    So when you say Puritan you are just using it as a swipe at them, not literal, because literal Puritans wouldn’t hold their opinions. Seems confusing but whatev’s.
    Of course it's a swipe. Humans have used figurative language for a long time.

    They do? They get strip clubs closed and this the next thing?
    Yes, they object. I can hardly believe you think they don't object.

  10. Top | #50
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    8,089
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    11,744
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post

    Isn’t it kinda pathetic that a bunch of old men need to see other scantily clad men pound the shit out of each other and a bunch of scantily clad young women prancing around half dressed just so their cocks can feel some slight sensation and they can pretend? What kind of sick fuck requires that mix of violence and sex just to feel...something?

    Seriously I’m not sure what is worse: that some men are convinced their only shot in life is beating the crap out of other men, with all the resultant brain damage? Or that some young women are convinced that their only shot is to prance around scantily clad in front of pathetic old men?
    What makes you think they think it's their 'only shot'? Who made you the dictator of their lives and their choices?

    EDIT: Also, what's with the sudden ageism? If anything MMA audiences seem to be more tilted to younger men, but even if they were not, so what?
    Were I the dictator, those would not be their only or best choices.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •