Page 26 of 37 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 362

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

  1. Top | #251
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    3,307
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    14,281
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Not just mine. But okay Jan, it is your opinion that it is not demeaning.
    That's true, it is my opinion. But I weigh your opinion and my opinion less than the opinion of the person who was actually doing the job of ring girl-- while the role existed. Her opinion about whether it was demeaning really carries some weight, since she's the one who is voluntarily participating in it.
    That is your opinion, Jan.
    Yeah, that's why I said it.

  2. Top | #252
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    9,164
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,608
    Rep Power
    69
    Your name is Jan? What is the significance of him calling you Jan?

  3. Top | #253
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    3,307
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    14,281
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Your name is Jan? What is the significance of him calling you Jan?
    It's a meme from the 1990s Brady Bunch movies.

    On occasion, when someone has said something manifestly unbelievable, something preposterous, instead of using the rolleyes emoji, I signal my skepticism by quoting Marcia Brady, who makes the sarcastic comment of "sure, Jan" after Jan claims she's being pursued by a handsome and mysterious student called George Glass.

    It's a funny and useful meme. Laughing dog may or may not be aware of the origin but has probably cottoned on to the meaning given the context that I use it.

  4. Top | #254
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    5,750
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    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.
    Selective liberalism, that's what it is. People should be free to say and do anything they want so long as I agree with it.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 09-16-2019 at 09:00 AM.

  5. Top | #255
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    5,750
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    It may shock you to learn that some of them may even enjoy it and take pride in it *gasp*
    I think everyone accepts that part already. Your problem, as has been suggested several times by several posters, is that that's only one aspect of the issue, not the whole issue, that there's at the same time also a valid, problematic issue around traditional cultural sexism and stereotyping. Your analysis is incomplete, simplistic, resolved only at the limited individual level (and of only some individuals), and appeals to an ideal world. The people you say should not be speaking or acting as they do (you supposed liberal you) are concerned about the part of the overall picture that you are conveniently ignoring.

    And then there's the fact that such things are gradually on the way out because of a wider general shift in public perceptions. Hence businesses responding to this, often for business reasons, in the final analysis. And I'm sorry to tell you that your objections are not likely to stop that trend, which is, despite your rather flimsy arguments to the contrary, progressive in nature.

    As to feminists specifically, everyone with any sense, even if they're not feminist and even if certain things that feminists do irritates them, knows and admits that but for them agitating for change for at least the last century, very little of it would have happened in the laissez-faire, 'natural' way that things supposedly should do in your artificially-described hypothetical world. In the real world, your non-interventionist case is unrealistic, and essentially seeks to shut people up. It's at least naive and, unless you are a fool, arguably bordering on bogus, and in fact in pragmatic terms effectively boils down to an argument for maintaining the status quo, even if consistently but unconvincingly presented otherwise, in the superficial garb of extending freedoms. In short your analysis is flawed because it omits half the story.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 09-16-2019 at 10:23 AM.

  6. Top | #256
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    9,164
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,608
    Rep Power
    69
    Ruby, you purport to tell me my views. I can do the same for you:

    Trausti already pointed it out. You are paternalistic and in the guise of protecting women (who you grant minimal agency) you seek to control rather than liberate them. You think you are woke and on the right side of history, but you are actually authoritarian and paternalistic and fail to see that you are what you purport to decry.

  7. Top | #257
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    5,750
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Trausti already pointed it out. You are paternalistic and in the guise of protecting women (who you grant minimal agency) you seek to control rather than liberate them. You think you are woke and on the right side of history, but you are actually authoritarian and paternalistic and fail to see that you are what you purport to decry.
    Standard false claim made about progressives by anti-progressives. That figures.

    As for citing Trausti, you cannot be serious. I don't think I've ever encountered anyone with such a completely unsophisticated, myopic and soundbite posting history since I first arrived on the internet. As ever, as with a few posters, it's not that he might not have a point, it's the inane way it's always the same slogans, no matter what, and completely missing any kind of nuance or balance.

    To repeat, it's not that there isn't a case for and against ring girls, it's the blatantly telling absence among advocates here that there's also at the same time a downside to be acknowledged and taken into account. A downside which is and has been increasingly informing the views of the public generally, in the real world, despite the complaints from those who are 'triggered' by progress.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 09-16-2019 at 03:33 PM.

  8. Top | #258
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    5,750
    Rep Power
    14

    If you can look at that and not wince slightly then in my personal opinion, sorry but you have a bit of a problem with your worldview.

  9. Top | #259
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    9,164
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,608
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Standard false claim made about progressives by anti-progressives. That figures.
    As opposed to your standard false claims made by illiberals against liberals? You decided to lecture me on what I think. Seemed fair game to do the same to you. Apparently we each think the other is a repressive conservative. Fun times.

    As for citing Trausti, you cannot be serious.
    Your adhom is noted. I don't care what else the man has posted or why he posted what he did or your personal judgments on him. Your personal attacks and judgments are irrelevant. What he posted was a good parralel for what illiberals have been posting in this thread.

    As to feminists specifically, everyone with any sense, even if they're not feminist and even if certain things that feminists do irritates them, knows and admits that but for them agitating for change for at least the last century, very little of it would have happened in the laissez-faire, 'natural' way that things supposedly should do in your artificially-described hypothetical world.
    First wave feminists had it right. Women should be allowed to do whatever men are. There should be no jobs or areas of society held away from them and all laws doing so shouldn't exist. It's rare today to find any that still do. And women should be considered for jobs, such as this commentary job, based on skill and merit and knowledge as well. But they shouldn't be given the job just because they were a ring girl as Toni has been demanding. It's a totally different job, and we don't even know of any on of them applied for it, as Metaphor noted in response.

    Women should have the same rights men have, including the right to vote and be considered equal human beings under the law, including having equal agency and freedom. That is what the first wave feminists fought for and what they won. It was about freedom and equality, and I stand firmly with them. Let them wear what they want. Let them do what they want. Let them drive cars and apply for schools that used to be exclusive to men. There are still parts of the world where women need to be liberated.

    If women want to be engineers, architects, or doctors, that's great, if they have the talent for it. If they want to be ring girls, strippers, or models, and have the talent for that, that's fine too. If they want to stay in the home and raise children as full time mom's that's also fine. I stand for their right to choose whatever they want without shaming them.

    Much of the new crop of "feminists" are about control and repression and entitlement. It is backwards.

  10. Top | #260
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    5,750
    Rep Power
    14
    Still no mention of any downside. Unbalanced argument. Check.

    Also, as has been said to you repeatedly, no one here is shaming ring girls. That's just one of your straw men who's not a hot, tight and juicy non-minger in a bikini and high heels for men to ogle and wolf-whistle at.

Posting Permissions

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