Empowering the Sexist Pig - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-08-2006, 01:31 PM   #61
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:24 AM
It seems that this thread has touched on a number of important issues.

Joe Francis – he really isn’t the problem. He is a problem, and one that should face all appropriate criminal prosecution. The sad reality is that once he is taken away, many others will seek to fill his void.

“Protecting Women” – do we need to protect women from GGW-like operations. I’d say the answer is Yes and No. It is “No” to the extent that women do not need protection because they are women. That is sexist in both thinking and application. But the answer is also “Yes” to the extent that as a society we create an atmosphere where women may see the only route to fame and fortune is down the road of sexual submission.

Are they victims? In a micro sense, I agree with Irvine that a large number of the women posing for GGW know exactly what they are doing. The can command the camera and the males around them through sexual suggestion and sexual acts. On a macro level, however, we run into the question of “do they really know what they are doing?” Trading permanent images of sexual conduct for a few fleeting moments of fame, a cheap pair of underwear, and the false promise that they may gain some sort of power over others? They may understand how they are behaving within the system, but not realize that the system is cheating them.

Another element to consider is the obvious influence of alcohol in all these videos. I doubt any of these women would be willing to perform for the camera on a Tuesday morning after class. On a Thursday night after some partying, where alcohol has modified the inhibitions (the basic self regulatory ability of any individual) the results are obviously different. And if alcohol plays a role in the majority of incidents, that suggests there is a diminished level of consent and control to the behavior in which they engage. This is by no means of level of patronizing, but a reality of the chemically altered lifestyle.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-08-2006, 01:36 PM   #62
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 01:24 PM
^very good post nbc
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-08-2006, 01:36 PM   #63
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:24 PM
very good post, NBC.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-08-2006, 01:37 PM   #64
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:24 PM


jinx!
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-08-2006, 03:11 PM   #65
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 06:24 PM
oops I'll repost
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 08-08-2006, 03:35 PM   #66
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
what i had said was how bad is it if a woman essentially uses her "assets" to get a silly male to buy her drinks, and then she goes home by herself or with friends. she's essentially exploited the man in the example,
I know that's what you were saying which is why I had a bad initial reaction to the assumption that it's an exploitive move on the part of the woman to accept free drinks. She is no more obligated to reciprocate (as in the dinner example) than Francis is to give his GGWs more than a tshirt. Both the naked girl and the silly man know (or ought to know) the price they are paying for nothing more than the (remote) possibility of what they want.


Quote:
i said that some women might find stripping or even being a prostitute empowering because they are using sexuality to earn income, and i would also argue that taboos against such activities are expressions of the good girl/bad girl, madonna/whore forced dichotomy that trap women. i also said that some women might choose these professions, in good faith, when other options might be available to them. i do not think this is common, but i do think it is certainly possible.
It's not the oldest profession for nothing lol, I agree. There will always be gold diggers who want easy money. The legit ones marry well with big money in the prenup.

Quote:
so are you anti-pornography?
No, as long as it's not depicting humiliation or (suggestions of) violence.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 08-08-2006, 03:40 PM   #67
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
very good post, NBC.
OK, well now I'm a bit confused, because the way I read it, nbc is making pretty much the same argument I was, especially concerning the distinction between "knowing what you're doing" and "really knowing what you're doing" (though per usual, with a lot more concise lawyerly directness and a lot less critical-theory cerebrobabble ).
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 08-08-2006, 03:45 PM   #68
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Are they victims? In a micro sense, I agree with Irvine that a large number of the women posing for GGW know exactly what they are doing.
Quote:
On a Thursday night after some partying, where alcohol has modified the inhibitions (the basic self regulatory ability of any individual) the results are obviously different. And if alcohol plays a role in the majority of incidents, that suggests there is a diminished level of consent and control to the behavior in which they engage. This is by no means of level of patronizing, but a reality of the chemically altered lifestyle.
Do you see the contradiction?

You're basically saying if they drink, they aren't capable of taking responsibility for their actions thus making them victims.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 08-08-2006, 04:32 PM   #69
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

OK, well now I'm a bit confused, because the way I read it, nbc is making pretty much the same argument I was, especially concerning the distinction between "knowing what you're doing" and "really knowing what you're doing" (though per usual, with a lot more concise lawyerly directness and a lot less critical-theory cerebrobabble ).


well, i didn't say i agreed with all of it, i just thought it did a very nice job boiling down the issues being discussed.

and i haven't forgotten about your post, i promise, i just have been too busy today to really sit down and do some thinking and catch up on my Paglia.

i still have problems with the "do they really know what they are doing," because that assumes that there's something quite inarguably negative going on, which then sort of puts the blame for Francis' activities back on the girls themselves, or at least on the system that the girls and Francis are participating in, only with unequal power within the system (Francis having more, the girls having less, yet their mutual implication renders them both victims, which i don't think i accept).

my responses to AliEnvy, i think, buoyed my earlier points -- i think there are woman who are perfectly comfortable to use sex as a tool, even when they might have other tools available to them. i think it's a fallacy to think that all women who are strippers or prostitutes or porn stars are forced into the profession by their economically disadvantaged status, just like i think it's a fallacy to think that all girls in the "GGW" video suffer from low self-esteem. i think that all of these notions result, firstly, from socialized attitudes towards sex and what might be called "sex work" -- please note, i do not in any way mean to compare this to the illegal sex trade. i also think that, yes, we've assigned a victim status to women on the basis of their womanhood, which is often deserved, but not always.

i suppose i am willing to say that, on a micro level, some women in "GGW" might be victims and don't really know what they are doing, but i also think that the opposite is true -- some of them really do know what they are doing. to assume that because they are drunk they cannot consent makes about as much sense as the rape law in Massachusettes (at least when i was in college) that says that a woman is legally unable to give consent to sex if she has had even a single drink.

again, poor dear. must protect them from their vaginas and libidos.

or perhaps we're all thinking too much about it. perhaps these are just some 20 year olds drunk on spring break who did something stupid that they will laugh about 20 years from now. i think it's a fallacy to pin on their heads status of both the "poor dear" victim as well as the responsibility of someone who didn't really know what they were doing and unwittingly participated in what might be termed a "Rape Culture."

perhaps we think too much about all of this? perhaps we put thoughts in the head of girls on screen and boys who purchase the DVD that really aren't there? doesn't this really go back to whether or not things like pornography cause rape? or video games cause violence? or TV causes anti-social behavior?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-08-2006, 04:46 PM   #70
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 01:24 PM
I don't think I said that these "girls" always have poor self-esteem and that's why they get involved in GGW. I just don't think it's fair to call them sluts either, as was brought up much earlier in the thread. I don't think it's fair either to suggest that any sense of protectiveness equals wanting to protect women from their vaginas and libidos. I just don't see how something like GGW could possibly be sexually liberating for women, especially given the fact that it's operated by Francis. Sexual liberation for me doesn't mean just being free to display your breasts or vaginas, or to do whatever else they do in those videos. Something like Playboy would be more liberating in my eyes, given what I know about how it is operated. Unless anyone has any information about Hugh Hefner or his daughter that would be contrary.

My real issue with the whole thing is Joe Francis. My instincts tell me that the article doesn't even begin to skim the surface. To talk about all this in the abstract tends to take the focus and onus off of him, doesn't it?
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-08-2006, 05:23 PM   #71
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:24 PM
^ ^ Insofar as he's been charged with a lot of crimes, yes--although more cases than not against him have fallen through, and I do think we need to be careful about making the alleged rape recounted at length in the article (not that I much doubt one occurred) into a catchall indictment of Francis' accountability for whatever (if anything) we can agree might be wrong with the enterprise in general. And unless you see all of this as a simple, black-and-white matter of women with self-esteem too weak to protest submitting to being forced on-camera by some predatorial thug (which I realize is not how you see it )...then you do have to get into some abstractions, because the original question nb asked, and the reporter asked it too, inevitably raises further questions about sexual objectification, personal freedom, sexual freedom, compensation, consent, and the influence of sexism on all the above, etc. etc.

----------------------------

I do think though, Irvine, that you may be reading way too much into what I and some others find problematic in all this. I said back in my first post in this thread that I don't doubt most of these girls see the whole thing as just a cheeky lark, and I would still say that. I do find there to be some assumptions worth questioning in that attitude, but certainly not to the extent of making it illegal or anything like that. And I'm not anti-porn or anti-sex-trade, either--though that doesn't mean I agree with Camille Paglia on why I shouldn't be, nor with Andrea Dworkin on why I should.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 08-08-2006, 05:49 PM   #72
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
^I do think though, Irvine, that you may be reading way too much into what I and some others find problematic in all this. I said back in my first post in this thread that I don't doubt most of these girls see the whole thing as just a cheeky lark, and I would still say that. I do find there to be some assumptions worth questioning in that attitude, but certainly not to the extent of making it illegal or anything like that. And I'm not anti-porn or anti-sex-trade, either--though that doesn't mean I agree with Camille Paglia on why I shouldn't be, nor with Andrea Dworkin on why I should.

i'm sorry if you think my reaction is over-the-top, i assure you i think i take your, and other's, comments in the manner in which you attend to them. my broader point is about how sometimes the questioning of said attitudes are packed with infantalizing notions of what women's sexuality should and shouldn't be, and that leaves women without much control in the realm of sex and sexuality. i think that a flashing of the breasts, an unapologetic stripper, a happy hooker -- all of these things can be expressions of women claiming control over the dynamic we spoke of earlier. i think you are correct, often these actions are dictated by insecurities, expectations, and financial situations, but not always, and i think it's important to point out exceptions in order to broaden our understanding of female sexuality can and does do.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-08-2006, 06:39 PM   #73
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy
You're basically saying if they drink, they aren't capable of taking responsibility for their actions thus making them victims.
You've got a couple big leaps there.


Drinking => incapable of taking responsibility for actions => victims


Is this really the form of empowering liberation women are seeking? Or do we just nod, enjoy the show, and say "you go, girl"?

Based on the comments of the participants contained in the article, it seems that the women knew what they were doing in the instant case (they knew a camera was rolling, etc.). But they likely did not see how they are playing into someone else's business model.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-08-2006, 06:41 PM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
My real issue with the whole thing is Joe Francis. My instincts tell me that the article doesn't even begin to skim the surface. To talk about all this in the abstract tends to take the focus and onus off of him, doesn't it?
I don't see anyone giving Joe Francis the green light to continue illegal behavior. To the contrary, by focusing on him, we miss the larger problem that will allow others to do the same, or who already operate in a less sanitized fashion.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-08-2006, 08:27 PM   #75
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:24 AM
Quote:
Are they victims? In a micro sense, I agree with Irvine that a large number of the women posing for GGW know exactly what they are doing. The can command the camera and the males around them through sexual suggestion and sexual acts. On a macro level, however, we run into the question of “do they really know what they are doing?” Trading permanent images of sexual conduct for a few fleeting moments of fame, a cheap pair of underwear, and the false promise that they may gain some sort of power over others? They may understand how they are behaving within the system, but not realize that the system is cheating them.
Then why not outlaw gambling? or carny games? Or reality TV?

People ar swindled by all these things on promises of money, prizes or fame. I think that singling out something as harmless as amateur exhibitionist porn for criticism (and I think implied regulation) is wrong.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com