Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Yeah, I do see the irony, I think it's ironic that you claim to know so much about statistics yet are blind to their limits. you're stubbornly refusing to realise that there are many other measurements and analyses of value that aren't statistical.

    Again, if you'd like to make, yknow, some kind of counter argument, or point, or anything that isn't 'I study stats therefore I am right'.
    So, what else than:

    "obviously porn makes men treat women bad"

    have you come up with?

    It is not obvious to me.

    And my point is not "i study stats hence I am right" my point was that post was so full of ignorance that I find myself wondering why do you talk about stuff you know nothing about. And really, "their limits"? But you know them yes?

    Also if you had said the above, and not gone on trying to explain why something you dont have a clue about is inappropriate, then at least you would have a valid point.

    pd why do you even argue, the experiment i mentioned backs YOU up, not me. all i am trying to say by talking about stats is what i said above - it really isnt simply "obvious".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Er, I never claimed you did, and quite frankly I don't care if you do. We're not talking about you.
    I was using "me" as a representation of all men.

    And you are supposed to study eng lit with metaphors and what not?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Instead of banning everything that puts you under pressure, why don't you get a grip and stop following the crowd? It's weird how you don't see men campaigning for the banning of girls' mags isn't it? These feminists are basically admitting how weak they think women are. Stop it, you aren't doing anyone any favours.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    So, what else than:

    "obviously porn makes men treat women bad"

    have you come up with?

    It is not obvious to me.

    It's not obvious to me either, because that's something I didn't once claim. You're remarkably good at creating these straw men.


    (Original post by danny111)

    And my point is not "i study stats hence I am right" my point was that post was so full of ignorance that I find myself wondering why do you talk about stuff you know nothing about. And really, "their limits"? But you know them yes?

    Also if you had said the above, and not gone on trying to explain why something you dont have a clue about is inappropriate, then at least you would have a valid point.

    pd why do you even argue, the experiment i mentioned backs YOU up, not me. all i am trying to say by talking about stats is what i said above - it really isnt simply "obvious".
    You keep harping on about statistics or whatever, but you saying 'oh you study an art and I study stats so you know nothing' holds no weight whatsoever unless you specifically refer to my post and what exactly you object to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    It's not obvious to me either, because that's something I didn't once claim. You're remarkably good at creating these straw men.




    You keep harping on about statistics or whatever, but you saying 'oh you study an art and I study stats so you know nothing' holds no weight whatsoever unless you specifically refer to my post and what exactly you object to.
    lol.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    I was using "me" as a representation of all men.

    And you are supposed to study eng lit with metaphors and what not?
    Er, if you refer specifically to yourself with no indication that you're 'representing no men' then of course I'm not going to think 'aha, when he says 'himself' he must mean 'all men'! What a great metaphor'! If you talk about yourself, I'll assume you're actually talking about yourself. Ridiculous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Er, if you refer specifically to yourself with no indication that you're 'representing no men' then of course I'm not going to think 'aha, when he says 'himself' he must mean 'all men'! What a great metaphor'! If you talk about yourself, I'll assume you're actually talking about yourself. Ridiculous.
    squish.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing is 'essential' to human beings. The fact that there are many people who don't view each other as masturbatory tools proves that it's not a necessary part of us. I certainly don't view men as sex objects.
    If we don't have food and drink we die, pretty essential imo

    You do, but you don't think you do. The ultimate goal in being in a relationship with a man is sex. I didn't say masturbation, I said sex, there is a difference.

    Thats like saying autistic people prove that intelligence isn't a necessary part of being human.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It strikes me that the crux of many arguments emanating from the feminist side of the fence are based on these assumptions:

    1. Men are socialized into thinking objectifying women is okay
    2. These magazines represent women to men and play a part in mens image of all women.
    3. You cannot argue with the socialization aspect, because you have been socialized and cannot think outside that.
    4. Women feel objectified by these magazines, feel limited to only becoming these images of women. That is only objects.
    5. Women feel that if these objects did not exist, they would not have to live up to them.
    6. Women who do not feel objectified ARE still objectified, they just do not realise it.

    I would argue that this socialization argument is an attempt to shut off debate. It talks about "qualitative" evidence with broad general brush strokes.

    Secondly it belittles men. It assumes that they cannot see a difference between an image designed to induce sexual attraction, and a real person.

    It belittles women into being so mentally weak they cannot understand the difference between an unattainable ideal, and reality. It also belittles their view of men, as in 'women can only see men as neanderthals who see them as objects'

    It is SUCH a patronizing argument.

    I would like to suggest that feminists stop trying to ban things, (negativity) and start campaigning for more help for abused women, more help for women who feel pressure and celebrate beauty in all its forms. Stop denigrating one view of beauty and simply celebrate multiple views of beauty (positivity.)

    In case anyone wants to know, the motion was heavily defeated at the LSE. Come on the boys.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paella)
    If we don't have food and drink we die, pretty essential imo

    You do, but you don't think you do. The ultimate goal in being in a relationship with a man is sex. I didn't say masturbation, I said sex, there is a difference.

    Thats like saying autistic people prove that intelligence isn't a necessary part of being human.
    Offensive, much? Do you know anything about autism? It's not a deficit in intelligence.

    I don't see the ultimate goal in being in a relationship as sex at all. It's an important aspect of being in a relationship, but not the ultimate goal. Maybe it is for you, but it isn't for everyone.

    I can't think of any quality that humans have that is 'essential' to them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Offensive, much? Do you know anything about autism? It's not a deficit in intelligence.

    I don't see the ultimate goal in being in a relationship as sex at all. It's an important aspect of being in a relationship, but not the ultimate goal. Maybe it is for you, but it isn't for everyone.

    I can't think of any quality that humans have that is 'essential' to them.
    bummer eh?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jxhn)
    It strikes me that the crux of many arguments emanating from the feminist side of the fence are based on these assumptions:

    1. Men are socialized into thinking objectifying women is okay
    2. These magazines represent women to men and play a part in mens image of all women.
    3. You cannot argue with the socialization aspect, because you have been socialized and cannot think outside that.
    4. Women feel objectified by these magazines, feel limited to only becoming these images of women. That is only objects.
    5. Women feel that if these objects did not exist, they would not have to live up to them.
    6. Women who do not feel objectified ARE still objectified, they just do not realise it.

    I would argue that this socialization argument is an attempt to shut off debate. It talks about "qualitative" evidence with broad general brush strokes.

    Secondly it belittles men. It assumes that they cannot see a difference between an image designed to induce sexual attraction, and a real person.

    It belittles women into being so mentally weak they cannot understand the difference between an unattainable ideal, and reality. It also belittles their view of men, as in 'women can only see men as neanderthals who see them as objects'

    It is SUCH a patronizing argument.

    I would like to suggest that feminists stop trying to ban things, (negativity) and start campaigning for more help for abused women, more help for women who feel pressure and celebrate beauty in all its forms. Stop denigrating one view of beauty and simply celebrate multiple views of beauty (positivity.)

    In case anyone wants to know, the motion was heavily defeated at the LSE. Come on the boys.
    have you read my argument with miss georgia on here? i tried to show her exactly this, but she seems so blinded by her ignorance that any argumentation is fruitless.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    I agree with them. If it just affected the women who choose to pose then I would have less of a problem with Page 3 and 'lad's mags', however, it impacts the perception of women across society. By banning the sale of them in certain places, it de-normalises the culture of seeing women's bodies as commodities.
    I agree. BAN ALL PICTURES AND MAKE MODELLING ILLEGAL!



    Of course, it doesn't matter if men's bodies are seen as a commodity, because they're sexist pigs.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    other women reinforce these images of a slim, well dressed woman etc more than lads mags do
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shortarse1)
    I agree. BAN ALL PICTURES AND MAKE MODELLING ILLEGAL!



    Of course, it doesn't matter if men's bodies are seen as a commodity, because they're sexist pigs.

    Of course it matters. But it doesn't happen on anywhere near the same scale for men as it does for women, and it doesn't cripple men in the same way it does women.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Of course it matters. But it doesn't happen on anywhere near the same scale for men as it does for women, and it doesn't cripple men in the same way it does women.
    how do you know that?

    I feel inadequate next to guys in magazines with perfect biceps and abs.

    Men are just too proud to admit it. But if you check the number of guys going to the gym, it has increased drastically - a clear sign that men feel the need to bulk up - pressurised into it by society which objectifes us. Ever seen SATC?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Of course it matters. But it doesn't happen on anywhere near the same scale for men as it does for women, and it doesn't cripple men in the same way it does women.
    I would argue it has far worse consequences for men that women. For women the phenomenon is well-known and there are avenues for help. Male anoerexia is massively on the increase, however the support structures simply are not that present. Secondly because of the shame involved in feeling inadequate as a man, there is far more underreporting than in womens cases. Lastly the male suicide rate is far far higher than womens, especially amongst young people. You can put a lot of this down to feeling the same social pressures as women, with no recognition and no support and no outlet. Women have monopolised this area for far too long, its not equal.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jxhn)
    Women have monopolised this area for far too long, its not equal.
    Missy doesn't want equality though...superiority would be far preferable.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jxhn)
    I would argue it has far worse consequences for men that women. For women the phenomenon is well-known and there are avenues for help. Male anoerexia is massively on the increase, however the support structures simply are not that present. Secondly because of the shame involved in feeling inadequate as a man, there is far more underreporting than in womens cases. Lastly the male suicide rate is far far higher than womens, especially amongst young people. You can put a lot of this down to feeling the same social pressures as women, with no recognition and no support and no outlet. Women have monopolised this area for far too long, its not equal.
    I'm not entirely sure what your point is. I would completely agree that in a lot of cases men are in need of help and support where women aren't. What's your point? This has next to nothing to do with objectification. I see no evidence whatsoever that high suicide rates in males have anything to do with their bodies being seen as commodities. You are really reaching here.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shortarse1)
    Missy doesn't want equality though...superiority would be far preferable.
    I've always found this this is such a cop out when arguing with a feminist. It's so easy to say 'YOU DON'T WANT EQUALITY YOU WANT SUPERIORITY' when you can't think of any other counter argument.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 17, 2010
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.