You are really pointing at Trump's "pussy grabbing" line for this? Did you miss the collective outrage of all media in reaction to it? Was he celebrated and chuckled in favour of for saying it on a morning talk show like Lorena Bobbit was? Can you even imagine the outrage if men on such a show joked about a woman having her private parts chopped off?
-
Features
Dine and Dash dater now faces 6 years
- Thread starter RVonse
- Start date
I'm not saying that "the media" represent America.
I'm reflecting on the behavior of voters who thought nothing of it and all of their public comments.
Although, as one saw, "the media" certainly had no trouble _creating_ it. And "The media" had no trouble airing interviews with people who laughed at it and called it "locker room talk."
Moreover, on the Lorena Bobbit issue, I'm going to place a guess that you were very very young in 1993? Based on other comments you've made. And so, having seen all of that "media" myself at the time, live, I wonder how you can be so inaccurate? Did you watch "all the media" live? Or did you just see youtube videos of one talk show twenty years after the fact? Just curious how you're forming your opinion here.
Last edited:
laughing dog
Contributor
Laughed and defended it as the way "real men" talk!
JP seems to know very little about the "culture" of the US. Some people snickered about the Lorena Bobbit incident (one of my favorite jokes from that era is What did Jeffrey Dahmer say to Lorena Bobbit? - Are you going to eat that?) - but she was arrested and tried.
thebeave
Contributor
Jolly may be getting the Lorena Bobbitt story mixed up with a later penis cutting incident that was discussed on The Talk. See video below. Keep in mind, this banter was not left on the cutting room floor, but broadcast on the show. I think this illustrates his point pretty well:
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80JqoyaL-p4&t=43s[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80JqoyaL-p4&t=43s[/YOUTUBE]
Can you describe what's on it for those of us whom the invisible hand of the free market deems unworthy of broadband internet?
thebeave
Contributor
Its five women sitting around a table laughing about how a man's wife cut his penis off and threw it in the garbage disposal and turned it on. Sharon Osburne said she would have given the severed penis to her dog to gnaw on. Sara Gilbert did chime in, to her credit, that it was a bit sexist to be laughing about it, whereas it wouldn't be funny if the sexes were reversed and a woman's breast was cut off instead. Then they all said "hmmm", then, "nah" and laughed again and said its a different situation when its a woman getting maimed. The audience was laughing along with the roundtable throughout the discussion.
Sounds pretty awful. And you say this happened many many times? On lots of shows? Always laughing?
Yes that's the talk show I was thinking of. And there have been other such cases of such double standard. Had they been men joking about mutilating women's genitals, the show would have been canceled quickly.
The bias is that women are inherently weak and to be protected. It's the same reasoning behind the chivalry of "don't hit a woman", as in it is a special kind of wrong to do violence to a woman and a bigger deal than if the same level of violence is done to a man (especially if by a woman). It is a definite double standard; one as big or possibly even bigger than racial bias. Black men get a double whammy, and get seen as the ultimate inherent aggressors.
You think so? You don't realize how many decades of shows laughed at things like that?
Archie Bunker comes to mind. And "One of these days, Alice!"
But maybe laughs about _hitting_ women is just funnier?
All I'm saying is, yes that show was bad. And so was every show that laughed at women being abused or raped, and there have been many.
Yup it's bad when anyone does that. It's always been bad. Welcome to our world, youngster.
thebeave
Contributor
I don't think I said it happened many, many times on lots of shows. Where did I say that? It was definitely not an anomaly though. Here's another example. Lorena Bobbit getting a standing ovation from an audience of women. Are you sensing a theme here?:
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY1PtRY-ARA[/YOUTUBE]
ruby sparks
Contributor
But even the Trump example was arguably pretty much in line with what I was saying, for it not being open and public (until released) into the public domain. An actual locker room is only one example of non-open.
I am delighted to be wrong. I'm glad you find both a) and b) to be inexcusable.
No prob.
I'll be honest with you, whether or not I would say something would depend on the situation. If someone was saying it to me or about a woman I knew, I'd probably indicate my disagreement. On the other hand, if I just overheard someone I don't know saying it, I might not say anything, and I certainly see no good reason to have a LOT to do with such a person.
I'd be the same whether the person I might have overheard being sexist was a man or a woman (in a similar situation). I don't see it as my job to necessarily go around policing other people's speech at every opportunity.
But thanks.
You are welcome.
ruby sparks
Contributor
On a minor point, my initially-expressed opinion was to do with the OP, which is to say it was about dishonesty and possible financial implications of what might be called 'a certain type of dine-dating' (by either sex).
Whether the main issue in that is/was sexism, or whether the main issue is/was dishonesty or whether the main issue is/was financial gain/loss, it's fair to say that asking if women in general or men in general can get away, publicly/openly and/or privately (there's a difference, and other options which are in-between, such as posting anonymously but openly on the internet) with sexist or otherwise offensive things in general, might be a slightly different question from, even if arguably related to, the specific OP issue and my opinion regarding it.
Whether the main issue in that is/was sexism, or whether the main issue is/was dishonesty or whether the main issue is/was financial gain/loss, it's fair to say that asking if women in general or men in general can get away, publicly/openly and/or privately (there's a difference, and other options which are in-between, such as posting anonymously but openly on the internet) with sexist or otherwise offensive things in general, might be a slightly different question from, even if arguably related to, the specific OP issue and my opinion regarding it.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
Eek. That is.........slightly weird and dubious.
I think 'an audience of cheering women' arguably makes the case quite well that it's not exactly an anomaly.
Does anyone have a video of a studio audience of men cheering Donald Trump over his pussy-grab comments?
If so, what was the reaction from the wider public to such a video?
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
That said, the title added to the first example (the video of the women on the chat show) describing it (seeing the the video) as a 'red pill moment'....I think that's a bit ott.
The other thing worth noting, imo (and some people here might not agree with me) is that when you have a section of society which has had to put up with more (which imo women do, generally) or are more often on the receiving end, then that section arguably going ott (let's say cheering a woman who cut off a man's penis) is to at least some extent, more excusable or mitigated, even if still not justified (because two wrongs don't make a right). And I accept that one of the several reasons why women might (might) get away with more in this general respect might be validly to do with that background context. And other things, I'm not saying that's the only reason and I'm certainly not condoning a possible double standard nonetheless.
But there is always a risk of equating things which aren't necessarily equatable or are deprived of context.
Which is one reason I initially stuck to the dine-dating thing. I think there is more to equate in that example. And it's more on-topic in this thread.
The other thing worth noting, imo (and some people here might not agree with me) is that when you have a section of society which has had to put up with more (which imo women do, generally) or are more often on the receiving end, then that section arguably going ott (let's say cheering a woman who cut off a man's penis) is to at least some extent, more excusable or mitigated, even if still not justified (because two wrongs don't make a right). And I accept that one of the several reasons why women might (might) get away with more in this general respect might be validly to do with that background context. And other things, I'm not saying that's the only reason and I'm certainly not condoning a possible double standard nonetheless.
But there is always a risk of equating things which aren't necessarily equatable or are deprived of context.
Which is one reason I initially stuck to the dine-dating thing. I think there is more to equate in that example. And it's more on-topic in this thread.
Last edited:
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
The problem with this thread topic is that it really doesn't have anything to do with politics, but the fact that it is in the Politics forum opens it up to people inventing a political issue to discuss. The dating game is a cultural phenomenon, not a political one, but feminism is political. So that becomes woven into the story.
From what I read of the original story, this man had some incidents in his past of defrauding businesses by leaving without paying his bill. From the linked article in the OP:
So this looks like just another one of his petty scams, not even necessarily an act designed to punish women for the fact that men traditionally pay the expenses on a date. He is accused of having enticed the women into ordering more food, knowing full well that he intended to stick them with the bill. He allegedly even mentioned that he was paying. There was no indication that he expected to have sex in return for paying expenses, although that seems to have entered into the thread discussion. This appears to be just a petty scam designed to take advantage of courtship behavior. The accused is unlikely to get serious jail time for that, but, if found guilty, he should face significant punishment for defrauding those women.
From what I read of the original story, this man had some incidents in his past of defrauding businesses by leaving without paying his bill. From the linked article in the OP:
So this looks like just another one of his petty scams, not even necessarily an act designed to punish women for the fact that men traditionally pay the expenses on a date. He is accused of having enticed the women into ordering more food, knowing full well that he intended to stick them with the bill. He allegedly even mentioned that he was paying. There was no indication that he expected to have sex in return for paying expenses, although that seems to have entered into the thread discussion. This appears to be just a petty scam designed to take advantage of courtship behavior. The accused is unlikely to get serious jail time for that, but, if found guilty, he should face significant punishment for defrauding those women.
If Archie Bunker was made today with lines like those, and a laugh track after them, do you really think the show would not be cancelled? Times have changed, for the better in society's treatment towards women, but also upholding the double standard I've mentioned.
I'd like to see one within the past decade that is equivalent to the ones the beave has posted. That are mainstream and primetime and not niche and hidden under rocks.
You'll see that same sort of double reaction when comparing something a black advocacy group says to an equivalent something a white nationalist group says. The historically oppressed group now get the kid gloves, as if to offset history. I think this is a historical backlash effect laced with identity politics and tribalism.
Where there was generations of abuse by group A against group B, and where significant progress is made towards equality and fairness between the groups, there will be generated people within group B less interested continuing to build such equality and fairness, and more interested in vengeance on a group level, and there will be people generated in group A who feel guilty about the past and walk on eggshells around people of group B.
And that may make sense, if we were talking about individuals instead of groupings of them. But of course, there are plenty of people in Group A who had nothing whatsoever to do with what the people in group B feel justified in attacking Group A for, due to grievances that often befell people in Group B other than the individuals lashing out.
Take away the group identity politics, and you've just got a person who genitally mutilated a person, or a person who frauded another person into paying for a meal. There is no reason based on identities to presume that the victims were entitled princesses/princes or that they somehow deserved what was done to them. To reach that conclusion you need to play identity politics and lean on prejudice and societal bias.
Fighting prejudice, including sexism and racism, means both dismantling prejudice against people you identify as being in minority groups, as well as avoiding and dismantling any new prejudices created in doing so. Black people CAN be racist, as can white people and any other people. Women can be sexist, as can men. And minorities within minorities DO get sacrificed in the name of anti-prejudice more frequently than most people care to admit. It is easy to acknowledge this and doing so doesn't make you a bigot against anyone, despite the accusations of such you are bound to draw by doing so.
The answer is to treat people as individuals with traits rather than as interchangeable members of groups.
Last edited:
Archie bunker is still on in re-runs, multiple times a day. So somebody is watching it, enough to keep it on the air currently - many more times than reruns of Steve Harvey.
~shrug~
I haven’t watched the videos, but from the way you describe them I find them harmful. People should not seek revenge.
Not by cheering Bobbit, nor by saying these women “deserved” it.
I agree. These women don't deserve it just because they are women. That's where Derec went wrong in this thread.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Said the person who has given up on making distinctions between Feminists.
Oh I get it. We're to take a certain approach when it suits us and not when it doesn't.
