Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 13212223
Results 221 to 228 of 228

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

  1. Top | #221
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,858
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,302
    Rep Power
    68

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    That argument would apply to the days when actresses would expected to perform sexual favors in order to get roles. After all, if they did not want to give blow jobs or get fucked, they could go to school or get a desk job.
    Porn actresses still exist. There is no shame in it. And part of the job is to have sex on film with strangers. Is that what you mean by sexual favours by actresses? Because that's the only way what I am saying fits.

    Actresses for film where that's not the job, don't have that as part of the job so it's inappropriate to demand to get the job, and not just because it is cruel. It also means the best actress probably won't be getting the role.

    You are arguing that it is okay to give people demeaning options and letting them choose if they wish to accept them or not. Many people argue that a better world would be one where demeaning options are a thing of the past.
    How paternalistic of you. That argument could be used to justify all sorts of authoritarian control. Who decides what is "demeaning"? The people who want to take the job or you? Couldn't somebody turn this around on you and demand that it's a demeaning option for women to leave the home or show their faces so men who aren't their husbands may feel lust?

    Telling people who want to do something that it is indecent or unbecoming them is a core of conservatism. Letting people freely decide for themselves is liberalism.

  2. Top | #222
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,858
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,302
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    There's no sexism, or indeed racism. It's just the natural, unproblematic order of things, and should not be tampered with.
    Do you believe this or are you just projecting more straw?

    The only question left is about intent. Am I genuinely naive, or am I merely conveniently cloaking my conservativeness in the superficial trappings of supposed enlightenment? In the end, I look like a duck, I walk like a duck. Am I a duck?
    I think you may be a duck.

  3. Top | #223
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,858
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,302
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    They very well may have jobs as secretaries, may be going to school, and showing up in bikinis because it's extra money, and at the same time might be making it home before 6pm to make dinner for their hubbies.
    Or for their kids. Or to buy a new car. Are they bad people for doing this? I don't think so.

  4. Top | #224
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,858
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,302
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    It is high time we acknowledge that women are the weaker sex. They lack agency. They need to be guarded over to protect them. To preserve their chasity, they must be shamed away from displaying their bodies. Best to cover up. Look to Iran and Saudi Arabia.
    I see little difference between this and what others have been writing in this thread. People here want to take away "demeaning" options, rather than let women decide for themselves what they want to choose to do. At its core it is about whether or not they are recognized as having agency. Far right conservatives and illiberal regressives seek to remove this agency and choice. Liberals seek to protect it.

  5. Top | #225
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,910
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    25,651
    Rep Power
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    They very well may have jobs as secretaries, may be going to school, and showing up in bikinis because it's extra money, and at the same time might be making it home before 6pm to make dinner for their hubbies.
    Or for their kids. Or to buy a new car. Are they bad people for doing this? I don't think so.
    wtf

  6. Top | #226
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,910
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    25,651
    Rep Power
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Letting people freely decide for themselves is liberalism.
    So why are you against businesses deciding for themselves and free speech of a politician saying it's old-fashioned? You are against liberalism.

  7. Top | #227
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,858
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,302
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    So why are you against businesses deciding for themselves and free speech of a politician saying it's old-fashioned?
    I'm not. I'm against shaming women for availing themselves of this choice where it exists and I'm against calls for a world where such "demeaning options" are a thing of the past as laughing dog put it. Let people freely decide for themselves. Enough with the paternalism. What Trausti wrote is exactly what I oppose. Do you?

  8. Top | #228
    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 Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    So why are you against businesses deciding for themselves and free speech of a politician saying it's old-fashioned?
    I'm not. I'm against shaming women for availing themselves of this choice where it exists and I'm against calls for a world where such "demeaning options" are a thing of the past as laughing dog put it. Let people freely decide for themselves. Enough with the paternalism. What Trausti wrote is exactly what I oppose. Do you?
    Then you are in the wrong thread. I haven’t seen anybody shaming women for choosing any particular line of work.

Posting Permissions

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