That Maxxis "babes calendar" article…

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)

It’s not sexist though, that’s the point, the calender is repressing no one.
There is one school of feminist thought that objectification is wrong and another what says it’s not.

It’s not sexist though, that’s the point, the calender is repressing no one.

Ah, right, I see, you share the same problem that Dan has. That’s all you got, and its a crap argument.

aracer and nick.

I will refer you to junkyards little theory, which he completely misquoted but hey ho. Its actually a theory of competence or learning a new skill. Please see here : competence for a nice starter.

Basically you are in the “Unconscious incompetence” stage though i do hope that soon changes.

Nicks last little gambit is a classic strawman. Some of the others are a bit more ambiguous.

Really, not as crap an argument as that just because some one would not call someone a **** it is proof that that person is wrong in believing this calender is not sexist.

This is like Captain Rum suggesting opinion is divided on whether a ship should have a crew?

Well of course he would, because he only teaches it (yeah, I know appeal to authority 🙄 )

Of course that post is an ad hom, not that I’d expect you to understand that better than any of the other terms you incorrectly bandy around.

Please put me out of my misery, you are trolling aren’t you?

chip – Member

Really, not as crap an argument as that just because some one would not call someone a **** it is proof that that person is wrong in believing this calender is not sexist. 😆 Hoist by his own petard!

So what exactly is the difference between the girls on this calendar and a group of firemen/chippendales making a calendar?

And why wasn’t Brad Pitt lambasted when he first appeared for blatantly objectifying men ?

I don’t see much of a problem with these ‘glamor’ publications, whereas I did fell uneasy in a German-themed pub in London the other day where all the waitresses were wearing similarly themed dresses with cleavages on display, etc. That felt a lot more exploitative than the ‘fantasy’ of that calendar.

Nicks last little gambit is a classic strawman

OK, once more, then I’m having my tea,

Strawman: After saying that we should spend more on Health and Education, Ninfan replied that he was astonished that I hate my country so much that I would leave it defenceless.

By misrepresenting or fabrication, ninfan has shifted the argument, and at the same same presented himself as a reasonable man.

I’m not misrepresenting you, I understand what your argument is (You don’t think the calender is sexist) I just think it isn’t up to much, is all.

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.

If they don’t cause unpleasant behaviour, what’s the problem? You may say they are a “continuation of ingrained bad behaviour” but, apart from not really explaining what that means, you don’t present any route to how that might happen. Fionap hasn’t said it is causal (though, with respect, I don’t think she has an expertise beyond being female).

What should stop – if it ever started – is mixing up fantasy and reality. These girls are actresses, playing a role. I may be naive but I find it hard to believe that anyone looks at that picture and thinks “that one second from the left, she’s really gagging for me to give her one”. On the other hand, if your world is devoid of fantasy and role playing it will be quite a boring place to live.

That would be a strawman yes. A more subtle one would be to shift the discussion less blatantly. Like you did by banging on about racism in a way which wasn’t relevant.

Perhaps we should look at some other things on that very clever website:

the fallacy fallacy is a good one to start with
tu quoque seems relevant
anecdotal appears a few times
I refuse to post strawman again.

false cause is probably the crux of this entire thread and is what chip and I at least are suggesting i.e. the calendar and ‘sexy images’ of the type, have no material impact on the prevalence of sexist behaviour in society.

The problem here is, there is no evidence for either ‘side’ as its all opinions but people keep getting offended and insulting people.

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)

One involves insulting a real person, the other involves creating a fantasy on a piece of paper.

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

Err … right …

<assuming dan isn’t trolling>

No, no it wouldn’t, because he’s not misrepresenting anybody, it’s simply an analogy.

</assuming>

tu quoque seems relevant

You’re just taking the piss now.

<assuming dan isn’t trolling>

false cause is probably the crux of this entire thread and is what chip and I at least are suggesting i.e. the calendar and ‘sexy images’ of the type, have no material impact on the prevalence of sexist behaviour in society.

You don’t appear to understand that fallacy either – unless you and chip are suggesting there is actually a correlation?

</assuming>

The suggestion is that there is no direct cause/effect, but that the existence of such calendars and similar marketing material helps in a small way to legitimise such behaviour in some groups, and that if such things didn’t exist there would be a small non-direct decrease in such behaviour. “I’m not groping that woman because I haven’t got a girly calendar on my wall” said no misogynist ever, but the effect would be real.

Fionap hasn’t said it is causal (though, with respect, I don’t think she has an expertise beyond being female).

Is a fair point, but I think some on this thread are/were unaware of the experiences she’s had, which I presume (being a bloke without that experience) are relatively typical.

I may be naive but I find it hard to believe that anyone looks at that picture and thinks “that one second from the left, she’s really gagging for me to give her one”.

You’re well educated, middle class… and naive. IMHO – I have little experience of those social circles either, but they quite clearly exist.

Honest to god.

That link isn’t the **** be all and end all of definitions.

One google search ater:
Strawman: 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.

So equating racism with sexism so that he can claim ‘we have a winner’ perhaps?

As for

false cause is probably the crux of this entire thread and is what chip and I at least are suggesting i.e. the calendar and ‘sexy images’ of the type, have no material impact on the prevalence of sexist behaviour in society.

You don’t appear to understand that fallacy either – unless you and chip are suggesting there is actually a correlation?

How did you get that so backwards?

<generously assuming dan isn’t trolling>

Just a thought for you dan, when nobody else on here is agreeing with your definition and classification of a strawman argument, how many people disagreeing with you would it take for you to consider your position?

</assuming>

If they don’t cause unpleasant behaviour, what’s the problem?

They help to validate it.

Which one of you reported Jeremy Vine to the BBC Equality and Diversity Board for using the term “manflu” on air.

Just a thought for you dan, when nobody else on here is agreeing with your definition and classification of a strawman argument, how many people disagreeing with you would it take for you to consider your position?

I agree with Dan but value my time more highly.

The suggestion is that there is no direct cause/effect, but that the existence of such calendars and similar marketing material helps in a small way to legitimise such behaviour in some groups, and that if such things didn’t exist there would be a small non-direct decrease in such behaviour. “I’m not groping that woman because I haven’t got a girly calendar on my wall” said no misogynist ever, but the effect would be real.

I can imagine how that might happen, but it also seems to me that people (well, men ..) will find something to lust over, whether it’s a girly calendar or the underwear section in the BHS catalogue. I fear that we’re focussing on the wrong thing, and that greater equality and respect will lead to less interest in this rather pathetic pornography.

I agree with Dan.

Anything to get this badboy/girl to 2k posts.

They help to validate it.

That’s just an assertion.

A winner!!!!

Oh, perhaps not…..cmon folks, Christimas spirit and all that 😉

How generous. May I add that I have been extremely generous with my responses to you.

As for people agreeing or disagreeing with how to define a strawman argument, I suspect most people have better things to do. As do I.

They will – I acknowledged as much earlier. The difference is in the degree of normalisation and objectification – the underwear section of a catalogue isn’t something you put on public display, and nor do the women pose in suggestive ways (so I’ve been told 😳 )

<implausibly assuming dan isn’t trolling>

Really? You appear to have spent quite a lot of time on it.

</assuming>

The attitudes displayed in this thread, people calling sexism and racism for such little provocation, are why crimes like the child abuse in Rotherham were able to go on for so long – people afraid to say anything because some idiot acting as the political correctness police would jump down their throats.

it’s only a calendar featuring some good-looking women who put a lot of effort into remaining photogenic – a bit like a lot of men also do to appear in Mens Health magazines, etc, and countless en

there are a lot worse crimes being committed in this world.

The difference is in the degree of normalisation and objectification

Again – just assertions. Does seeing something fictional really make a significant difference to real life behaviour? Are readers of Lolita more likely to become pedophiles? This topic is rapidly exhausting even my enthusiasm for pointless quibbling, but the arguments seem a bit thin so far 🙂

The attitudes displayed in this thread, people calling sexism and racism for such little provocation, are why crimes like the child abuse in Rotherham were able to go on for so long

😯

there are a lot worse crimes being committed in this world.

whataboutery

Again – just assertions.[/quote]

Just my opinion, my opinion being that Adele was making a reasonable point – but some on this thread (who have more patience than I do) have done much better explanations. Why don’t you explain why we’re wrong if you think we are – we could do with something intelligent and logical on that side of the debate?

The fact is that some men do have dodgy attitudes and sexual behaviour, and they’re not getting them from a vacuum – they’re coming from somewhere.

Yes, just an assertion. Held by a lot of people though not just me.

Like you did by banging on about racism in a way which wasn’t relevant.

I thought it was very relevant. Another once widespread -ism that is being confronted.

So what exactly is the difference between the girls on this calendar and a group of firemen/chippendales making a calendar?

Because men aren’t marginalised, objectified, victimised and generally viewed (by some people) as second-class citizens in the same way women are. That’s the difference (I said this about 20 pages back, and here we are still).

And yes of course, that sort of thing does happen to men too; but it’s much, much less common. Superficially we’re talking about striving for equality – sexy women = sexy men in calendars – but the logic bomb that half of the posters here are continually missing / ignoring here is that we’re not on a level playing field. As (largely) white heterosexual men we’re in a position of privilege, of power even.

This thread has clearly demonstrated that nature abhors a vacuum and will repopulate any niche. Its like the bad old days of the trinity of argue. Its even got minor tj and elfin clones developing. Sweet baby jeesus 😯

So what if it all went away in the name of feminism. No more ladsmags on sale no more calendars of either sex on show, no more sexiest soap star award. All men and woman featured in music videos will be appropriately covered up.

Will this make me more or less likely to take a second to admire the pretty woman with a large bust walking past me in a low cut top. Will she even be allowed to show ample flesh once sexual attraction becomes a taboo.

will my sole source of titilation be the Internet or will that be campaigned in to self censoring too.

Will I be reduced to buying old copies of baywatch on VHS from a dodgy bloke behind the co op.
Could this whole sorry affair fuel a resurgence in hedge porn until we eventually evolve in to a nation of asexuals.

If the only person you have seen naked in the last twelve months is your wife are you going to be more or less likely to look at the bikini clad ladies on the beach when on your annual two week break in Torremolinos.

Oh the humanity.

We kind of need a sticky of points for this thread – the one about similar male calendars does seem to be the most repeated though. Everybody also seems to be ignoring that even if there are similar calendars with blokes on, Maxxis don’t produce one, and apparently the reason a blokes one wouldn’t sell is so obvious that it provoked a head in hands moment – yet that in itself being evidence of sexism appears not to be so obvious.

Chip, don’t be stupid.

Just in case this hasn’t been mentioned:

Feminism: a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women.

On the sex industry (mixed views): feminists critical of the sex industry generally see it as the exploitative result of patriarchal social structures which reinforce sexual and cultural attitudes complicit in rape and sexual harassment. Alternately, feminists who support at least part of the sex industry argue that it can be a medium of feminist expression and a means for women to take control of their sexuality.

So what if it all went away in the name of feminism.

I mentioned that early on too. Perhaps in order to have healthy modern attitudes towards sex and sexuality we need take a step back first.

I’ve no desire to desexualise the country; quite the opposite, we should be more comfortable with sexuality, I think that as a nation we’re still very prudish about the subject and I’d be happy if we could deal with things like sex and nudity in a mature and sensible fashion. But “lad culture” (ie, the handwave excuse to be a monumental bell-end towards others) needs kicking to the kerb before we can move forward.

Mole grips you are a fine man, good and decent.
You have managed that despite the corruption of sexy calanders.
What percentage of the population manage to partake in responsible objectification with out resorting to sex crimes or it cultivating a unhealthy attitude to the opposite sex.

Forcing self censorship of all sexual images of people based on it offending feminists or encouraging a hormonal young man to shout oy oy at a passing lady is as I said before like restricting the performance of all cars because some people drive like knobs.

saxabar > that’s basically what I’m saying. Once we’ve addressed “the exploitative result of patriarchal social structures which reinforce sexual and cultural attitudes complicit in rape and sexual harassment” and stamped out the notion that this is somehow ok, we can get to a point where “it can be a medium of feminist expression and a means for women to take control of their sexuality” is normalised.

But that won’t happen whilst lads in the street bellowing “look at the tits on that” at a passing woman goes unchallenged.

I have worked in the building trade all my life and never witnessed anyone shout look at the tits on that.
How many times have you witnessed that cougar .