That Maxxis "babes calendar" article…

You can’t say playing the person as the arguement ultimately started as what people thought of her writing this article as well as the subject itself being her view it was sexist and made her stupid.

So people have every right to consider her history and what they may perceive her motives behind writing it. And their view of what they feel to be her clear hypocrisy of not calling out wonderful people who stripped to sell lads mags but did this calender.

I’m assuming you’ve not read much of the thread, we’ve done this one multiple times. I’ll try again for you:

Society isn’t equal, in general it is women who are oppressed and threatened, not men. Yes some men get groped, but it is largely something which happens to women. Meanwhile such calendars tend to have men in dominant poses and women in submissive. There is no equivalence between hunks calendars and babes calendars.

Oh, and Maxxis haven’t done a Maxxis hunks calendar.

Life is hard, and it’s not fair – and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Of course there is, when it’s being unfair to one group of people and not another.

it was a loaded question

So he did neither this,

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[

Or attack me.

What did he wish to achieve by asking such a question if it was not just a roundabout way of calling me a wife beater.

Could….could we hit 2k before Christmas?

I put forward a suggested way that Adele could have influenced in a far more positive way and not only driven Maxxis’ marketing department into a direction she was happier with, but also potentially generated goodwill and resultant ad revenue for her bosses at TWC (so making her look good and helping secure her position).

erm, okay… She didn’t do this…. How does this make her argument wrong? It’s a completely different point albeit similar to the ‘okay maybe they were wrong, but they were wrong for charity’ one made in various places above. Again, so what?

Know your logical fallacy[/url]

He was only pointing out that some questions cannot be answered with only a yes or no – however anyone answers that question implies that they are, or were, a wife-beater. It’s been used before in other contexts so was NOT a personal attack on you. (though given some of the attacks in this thread I can see how you might think it was)

What did he wish to achieve by asking such a question if it was not just a roundabout way of calling me a wife beater.

probably just to demonstrate another logical fallacy used in argument. There’s loads of ’em:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

What did he wish to achieve by asking such a question if it was not just a roundabout way of calling me a wife beater.

not it was another loaded question to demonstrate that the question you asked was equally as un-nuanced as asking you whether you beat your wife…

see?

ha, not only am I slow, I missed why that one was wheeled out 🙂

But it wasn’t. She did link it.
And do you beat your wife is a yes or no question in my book.

Straight from the horses mouth, immediately after posting that:

I’m not sure why it’s confused chip for so long given how quickly that explanation was posted.

But that wasn’t the question.

“Have you stopped beating your wife?”

Answer “Yes” and it suggests you were beating you wife at some point.
Answer “No” and it suggests you still are.

That logical fallacy link says it infers guilt and can’t be answered without appearing guilty.

erm, okay… She didn’t do this…. How does this make her argument wrong? It’s a completely different point albeit similar to the ‘okay maybe they were wrong, but they were wrong for charity’ one made in various places above. Again, so what?

I’ve not said her argument/belief she holds (after all a belief is a personal thing possessed by the holder) is *wrong*, but perhaps her methodology of trying to influence change could have been better.

That’s all!

My question was not loaded. It was straightforward asking if she linked this calender to groping and flashing which she did unfairly in my opinion.
She basically tried to justify one reason why this calender was wrong was because she had been groped and flashed playing the victim card so she must be right.

No could mean I haven’t stopped because I never started.

No.

You’re doing it again Junkyard. Use of angry language, this is not the way to engage in reasoned and logical debate. Did you need to open a sentence with “BS”? Could you not say “I disagree”?.

Yes lets discuss the style in which i post rather than the fact you post BS and did exactly what you implored us not to do TWICE.
SO first you play adele now you play me

FWIW i could say I disagree but that is not what BS means.

It is mostly a slang profanity term meaning “nonsense”, especially in a rebuking response to communication or actions viewed as deceiving, misleading, disingenuous, unfair or false

As for reasoned and logical debate when you try it I will join in. Till then its “angry language”

OK leaving thread its not actually a debate is it.

As pointed out before the “beating your wife” bit, mayeb she did indirectly (which isn’t at all unfair), no she didn’t directly, which is why all this “beating your wife” bit started.

playing the victim card so she must be right.

Wow

molgrips does seem to have come round to a more pleasant manner of discourse so that snice. I think we disagree though.

Junkyard on the other hand sees scarecrows everywhere. There are many devices you can use to try and describe and explain a position. Besides which, your one of the worst offenders.

Try this one out Reductio ad absurdum. Interestingly enough that page even explains for you why its different to a strawman.

As someone who teaches this you really should know this stuff.

Cougar – the logical conclusion of the article is a ban whether that be via self censorship or by legislation. The argument that has been made that any such objectifying images are sexist and should be stopped is also equivalent to a ban.

If you really need a precedent for this, see free speech laws – you can say what you like but if it is actually racist, threatening, abusive or insulting then you can be prosectuted. Whats that if not a ban?

And just for the record, that isn’t a straw man arguement – thats a comparative point of view based on the most frequently used comparison in this thread.

She opened with all the times she had sufferered from sexual abuse (for which there is no excuse) then said that she did not blame the calender for what had happened to her but said it supported a society that thinks it’s ok to treat woman like that.

Well I don’t think we do live in a society that thinks it’s ok to treat woman like that.
And used her experience which I believe are unrelated to this calender to add weight to her opinion that these babe calendars are wrong.

the logical conclusion of the article is a ban whether that be via self censorship or by legislation.

Again; there is an obvious difference between “can’t” and “shouldn’t”. whilst both WILL end with the thing not appearing, they are clearly NOT the same thing.

Do you not call southern Asians “****” because you don’t want to, or do you want to, but don’t because you know it’s unlawful? And can you see how those things are different and how they apply to calenders featuring objectified people?

She opened with all the times she had sufferered from sexual abuse (for which there is no excuse) then said that she did not blame the calender for what had happened to her but said it supported a society that thinks it’s ok to treat woman like that.

Well I don’t think we do live in a society that thinks it’s ok to treat woman like that.
And used her experience which I believe are unrelated to this calender to add weight to her opinion that these babe calendars are wrong.

The good news is that it’s my opinion, so you’re welcome to disagree. That’s why it’s called an opinion and not a fact.

As for “playing the victim card”, you can f… off. Try talking to some actual women about their day to day experiences and maybe it’ll open your eyes a little.

edit: I’ve tried to remain very polite, calm and reasonable throughout this thread, without resorting to personal insults, but I’ve had enough, sorry!

Junkyard on the other hand sees scarecrows everywhere. There are many devices you can use to try and describe and explain a position.

Are you now suggesting that using a strawman is an appropriate way to explain your position?

Here’s a hint for you: as somebody who teaches this stuff, what do you think the chances are he knows more about it than you?

Though please keep going, another 1200 odd pages before I win my bet.

As for “playing the victim card”, you can f… off. Try talking to some actual women about their day to day experiences and maybe it’ll open your eyes a little.

her experences have nothing to do with the a babe calendar so why mention it. The exact same experiences I’ve had were nothing to do with a sexy hunk calendar but the fact that woman think its acceptable to behave in such a manor (the same as the men in her stories). why doesn’t she focus on that issue rather than a totally harmless calendar.

Well some parts of it clearly do, otherwise it wouldn’t happen. Just because you don’t move in those circles doesn’t mean they don’t exist – which I think is part of the reason you’re having trouble understanding, because you’ve not directly experienced either side of this.

I think the reason why the accusation of censorship generated such forthright responses, is because it is a ‘trump card’ in an argument: if someone is calling for censorship, then we are into the realms of “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Censorship was not what was being asked for, but by asserting that it was, that was effectively an attempt to shut down the argument, and avoiding facing the actual issues being raised.

Similarly, to justify the calendar because it was for charity, is avoiding facing the actual issues. If the calendar is sexist etc., doing it for charity does not make it OK.

Flogging to death my attempt to use how our views on racism have changed over the years as an analogy for sexism, imagine the following scenario:

It’s the early 1970s and a black man writes to the BBC to request that they stop showing the Black & White Minstrel Show. He complains that it is racist, and presents a caricatured stereotype which is offensive to black people. Would any of us consider that the following were adequate justification for that show still being on TV?

– It would be censorship to take the programme off air
– It’s not racist (because of course, the almost exclusively white upper middle class BBC will know what racism is much better than some black man)
– The Black & White Minstrels do a lot of work for charity
– Watching the Black & White Minstrel Show does not incite racism or somehow turn people into racists.

With regard to the last point, of course people did not watch the programme and immediately go out and assault a black person, but that caricature was part of a bigger picture in society of insidious overt and covert racism, which has only changed/is only changing because people challenged it.

At the end of the day, I don’t think repeatedly bandying about words like censorship or straw man are helpful. Ultimately it’s about empathy: it may not be easy for a man to imagine what it’s like for a woman, but if a woman/many women tell you that she has suffered such vile treatment as being groped etc., and if she says to you that casual sexism and sexist imagery help to perpetuate and reinforce attitudes among some men that such behaviour is acceptable, the least we can do is listen to her and ask ourselves if maybe she is right and we should change our opinions.

To be fair poah when I have been groped it did not cause me to be in fear of my own safety nor when I was flashed did I think it could be the prelude to an attempted rape. So I can understand how although similar experiences they can have completely different impacts on a man and a woman.

But still don’t find her linking these things to the calendar fair and don’t agree that because her argument may be, I don’t know a delicate subject for want of a better word I can’t put her argument under question.

Theres a few points in there nickc

1 – you agree the end result is the same whether its self censorship or an ‘actual’ ban
2 – that is not a strawman (which is just an attempt to dismiss an argument without engaging), it is taking the argument to its logical conclusion (theres probably a latin phrase for that somewhere)
3 – Of course there is a difference between shouldn’t and can’t
4 – I dont call people offensive racial terms because first, the words don’t normally enter my head and second it would be quite rude and offensive.

I’ve spend two **** years working with an uneducated cretin who thinks its ok to go to the **** shop and have a similar discourse to this stupid thread. It **** disgusts me so don’t imply that i secretly want to insult anyone differnt than me. Luckily she’s never heard the term strawman so we don’t go round that particular joyous circle.

My argument is that there are things which are categorically offensive and there are things which are categorically not. There are a number of grey areas in the middle and this falls well and truly in there. In my opinion, it is so close to the unoffensive group that it is ludicrous to complain in such a public and melodramatic manner.

To be fair poah when I have been groped it did not cause me to be in fear of my own safety nor when I was flashed did I think it could be the prelude to an attempted rape. So I can understand how although similar experiences they can have completely different impacts on a man or a woman

I was in one incident because it was a bloke that did it and I was young. Woman putting their hands up my kilt to try and grope is sexual assult. Can you imagine a man doing that to a woman?

her experences have nothing to do with the a babe calendar so why mention it. The exact same experiences I’ve had were nothing to do with a sexy hunk calendar but the fact that woman think its acceptable to behave in such a manor (the same as the men in her stories). why doesn’t she focus on that issue rather than a totally harmless calendar.

Are you now getting me mixed up with the author of the original opinion piece, or are you responding to me without addressing me directly? If I’m confused I can’t imagine how you must be feeling.

Thing with analogies is that they are never quite exact. Why is the Maxxis calendar similar to the Black and White Minstrels, and not Earth WInd and Fire, or whatever? And is there actually evidence (as opposed to internet opinion) that calendars lead to unpleasant behaviour?

Slowster – theres clearly two parallel discussion about the calendar and about sexism full stop.

You still work from the assetion that the calendar is sexist in itself. The only reason the charity bit is relevant is because its not part of the ‘normal’ advertising. Its a special purchase of a calendar. If the imagery was being used in ads in magazines then yes, i would class that as sexism, but it isn’t. That could be the only point where we actually differ.

Of course sexism is a problem. It is an improving picture though and there are real issues which need to be addressed. Focussing on somethign as trivial as a calendar allows proper dyed in the wool sexists to ridicule more significant arguments so might be counter productive. See “yoghurt knitting”, “tree hugging”, and “sandal wearing” as examples of the type of thing I mean. Which terms, for those of you that dont understand, are all a form of objectification.

I dont call people offensive racial terms because first, the words don’t normally enter my head and second it would be quite rude and offensive.

And we have a winner! You are agreeing with the author of the article about Maxxis Calenders, as she also doesn’t think that tyres and naked girls should be the first things to go together naturally (words don’t enter my head) and she finds it offensive, and rude

[/end of thread]

Ok, so now we’re back to strawmen.

Calling someone a racial slur to their face is really very differnt to producing a calendar with some pictures on it.

The equivalent would probably be me now, knowing she doesn’t liek the calendar, taking a copy round to her house and somehow forcing her the view each and every picture. But i wont do that, because it wouldn’t be very nice.

I really hope you can see that.

And is there actually evidence (as opposed to internet opinion) that calendars lead to unpleasant behaviour?

Oh come on.

No-one’s saying that calendars CAUSE unpleasant behaviour.

We are saying (over and over again) that such calendars are a continuation of ingrained bad behaviour from lots of men and even society as a whole over the years.

The calendars, along with all the other behaviours should stop. Society is not yet at the point where images like this do not carry baggage. Fionap testifies to that.

And we have a winner! You are agreeing with the author of the article about Maxxis Calenders!!
[/end of thread]

Not so quick Nicky boy,
What percentage of Pakistanis would take offence at being called a **** in any context
How many Indian people would object to being called it as it is often used as a broad term by the type who would use it.
I even know some Indians who are doubly offend by the term because they say the don’t like ****.but thats another story.

I would say the number would be very high because it is a known term of abuse used in such catchy phrases as **** out and **** go home. So the word **** is synonymous with racial hatred.

How many woman would be offended by this calender, how many see this as a woman hating statement of sexism.
this calender is not deliberately trying to be offensive calling brown people **** is.

only in your head

though…

I’m definitely calling troll now

Ok, so now we’re back to strawmen.

No, we’re not.

Calling someone a racial slur to their face is really very differnt to producing a calendar with some pictures on it.

Yes, one is racist, and the other objectifies and is pretty much (99% of the time) sexist as well, so semantically they’re different, but is essence you’re still repressing a group because of something they can do nothing about (being South Asian or Female)

Your example doesn’t work in the way you want

I can see your argument, it just isn’t much good.

So what exactly is the difference? Is the LA defence sufficient to make it non-sexist?

Can we please explore this rather than do stupid arguments, as I think we might be onto something here.