Hope Solo: Babe of the week #31 (July 2012)

[Brolan]

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

"Other people do it, too." Not a very competent defence.

I really hope so. I would look abysmal in a satin dress.

I do not come from America, so probably my knowledge of the language is imperfect, but I was too wondering what does exactly "masculine feminist" mean. A man who supports equality? An independent woman? A butch lesbian? It's really confusing.

And people wonder why we take issues with the title of these threads.

If you don't like the threads, stay the hell out of them. If you want to whine and moan about them use this handy thread. The rest of us don't really care.

[sidious618]

Rush Limborg wrote:

---

Yeah...keep telling yourself that, sidious--if it makes you feel better.

I don't need to feel better as you're doing your normal schtick of asserting something vaguely and then acting as if you won an intellectual debate. This is nothing new and, once again, you're not making a clear point.

What I think you're implying is that somehow there's a problem if Emilia and iguana take slightly different opinions since they're, by and large, on the same side of the spectrum philosophically. What you fail to understand, is that this actually shows they're intelligent individuals more than capable of coming up with their own ideas. In other words, they're not brainwashed.

[TheGodBen]

intrinsical wrote:

---

I was merely commenting on the irony of TheGodBen's statement that we shouldn't judge a woman by her looks in a thread filled with her pictures.

Perhaps my point was that there shouldn't be a thread started every week filled with pictures of a particular woman for men to rate up or down, which all leads up to a bizarre year-end competition where the women are graded against one another in order to find the ultimate winner.

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

I do not come from America, so probably my knowledge of the language is imperfect, but I was too wondering what does exactly "masculine feminist" mean. A man who supports equality? An independent woman? A butch lesbian? It's really confusing.

The meaning certainly isn't clear but, if I were to guess, I would assume that Admiral2 is trying to shame us by calling us masculine women or feminine men. If it was an attempt at a barb, it certainly wasn't clear enough to make a point, nor sharp enough to do any damage to my normally fragile ego.

Brolan wrote:

---

If you don't like the threads, stay the hell out of them.

Nope. You can continue to make posts in these threads, and we can continue to make posts about your posts. You know, like the way internet forums are designed to work. If you don't care, ignore them.

[Captain Craig]

UP. I think she has the right mix of hotness and athleticism without being so 'cut' she loses her feminine curves.

Anwar wrote:

---

Reminds me of Jennifer Carpenter.

As I looked at her pics I felt she looked familiar, this may be why.

[Brolan]

TheGodBen wrote:

---

Nope. You can continue to make posts in these threads, and we can continue to make posts about your posts. You know, like the way internet forums are designed to work. If you don't care, ignore them.

Oh, but I very much do care that you and a few others have designated yourselves as some kind of feminist thought police and have taken to coming into these threads to derail them.

[the G-man]

I've lost track. Which is the vote for rape: up, down, or sideways?

Because while I think she's pretty, I really don't want to be seen as supporting the "rape culture," and I can't remember if "up" means "I want to rape her," "down" means "she is nothing to me therefore I can rape her" or "sideways" means "I want to lay her on her side and rape her."

Or is this one of things where there's no right answer because any time a man looks at a woman and thinks anything other than "I really want to know what she thinks about macro economics" it means he wants to violate her with his dirty shameful man parts?

Can one of you enlightened people help me out here?

[Robert Maxwell]

the G-man wrote:

---

I've lost track. Which is the vote for rape: up, down, or sideways?

Because while I think she's pretty, I really don't want to be seen as supporting the "rape culture," and I can't remember if "up" means "I want to rape her," "down" means "she is nothing to me therefore I can rape her" or "sideways" means "I want to lay her on her side and rape her."

Or is this one of things where there's no right answer because any time a man looks at a woman and thinks anything other than "I really want to know what she thinks about macro economics" it means he wants to violate her with his dirty shameful man parts?

Can one of you enlightened people help me out here?

The only way to win is not to play.

[sidious618]

the G-man wrote:

---

I've lost track. Which is the vote for rape: up, down, or sideways?

Because while I think she's pretty, I really don't want to be seen as supporting the "rape culture," and I can't remember if "up" means "I want to rape her," "down" means "she is nothing to me therefore I can rape her" or "sideways" means "I want to lay her on her side and rape her."

Or is this one of things where there's no right answer because any time a man looks at a woman and thinks anything other than "I really want to know what she thinks about macro economics" it means he wants to violate her with his dirty shameful man parts?

Can one of you enlightened people help me out here?

It's almost as if you go completely out of your way to miss the point. What you're writing is complete and utter nonsense that no one said unless you're just going to wildly take things out of context or something, both of which you've done in the past.

There are two options as to why you have this attitude:
1) You legitimately cannot comprehend the content of some people's posts.
2) You're intentionally misrepresenting what people say.

Which is it?

[Data Holmes]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

The only way to win is not to play.

Thank you Joshua.

[iguana_tonante]

Rush Limborg wrote:

---

It is, if it reveals a contradiction in the philosophy the opponent asserts in the debate (or rather, a lack of adherence). Such contradictions must be at least addressed--and either justified or admitted. Otherwise, said opponent loses credibility.

A suggestion for your debating skills: you can't use Emilia's opinion to point out a contraddiction in my argument because, as it has been noted, we are different people. It's not a surprise, tho, that from your point of view, all the people who don't share your worldview are blurred in a single, fuzzy entity called "the enemy". In fact, you do it all the time. I guess you don't know many "liberal" people in real life, and so it's difficult for you to treat us like real people with different opinions, instead of your idea of how "liberals" think and behave.

Brolan wrote:

---

If you don't like the threads, stay the hell out of them. If you want to whine and moan about them use this handy thread. The rest of us don't really care.

If I'll have to put up with the blatant sexism in these threads, you'll have to put up with the whining. Thankfyouverymuch.

sidious618 wrote:

---

I don't need to feel better as you're doing your normal schtick of asserting something vaguely and then acting as if you won an intellectual debate. This is nothing new and, once again, you're not making a clear point.

My guess is that he was a prized member of his debate team in high school (or somesuch) in his small hometown, and that formed his opinion that he's some kind of master debater and a formidable opponent. Like most people of common ability raised in a place where intellectual competence is somewhat scarce, he developed the illusion that he's a better debater than he actually is, and that his ability to outthink knuckle draggers and cow fuckers translates well in the larger world. Obviously, it doesn't, but hard-held ideas are difficult to let go, especially if they are linked to one's self esteem.

TheGodBen wrote:

---

The meaning certainly isn't clear but, if I were to guess, I would assume that Admiral2 is trying to shame us by calling us masculine women or feminine men. If it was an attempt at a barb, it certainly wasn't clear enough to make a point, nor sharp enough to do any damage to my normally fragile ego.

That's what I thought, but it just doesn't make sense. Being respecful of women makes me "feminine"? That's absurd. I wish Admiral2 would come and explain it, because it's the second time he used the expession so it must mean something important for him.

Brolan wrote:

---

Oh, but I very much do care that you and a few others have designated yourselves as some kind of feminist thought police and have taken to coming into these threads to derail them.

And we very much do care that these threads are disrespectful and demeaning for women, like all women that commented here have repeatedly said. Just as you are "free" to treat women as pieces of meat to be ranked on a market, we are free to voice our displeasure with it. Freedom, and all that jazz. I hope the irony doesn't escape you.

[TheGodBen]

Brolan wrote:

---

The rest of us don't really care.

Brolan wrote:

---

Oh, but I very much do care...

Okay.

that you and a few others have designated yourselves as some kind of feminist thought police and have taken to coming into these threads to derail them.

Firstly, we're not here to police your thoughts, there's a difference between thinking a thing and posting something on a message board, if you can't see the distinction there, that's an issue.

Secondly, there's a problem with gender relations on this website (as there is with a lot of websites, and the world in general), and I know that because I read what women have to say on the subject. Women on this forum shouldn't be made to feel uncomfortable for being women, they shouldn't feel like they're being objectified, and they shouldn't be attracting certain creepy comments. But they, seemingly all of them, do encounter these problems on this site. Whenever a discussion on that subject develops, these BOTW threads are almost always singled out by women as a symptom, and an enabling element, of the problem. If you don't care about that problem, okay, continue to ignore it. But I do care, and there are many other men like me. If that makes us "feminists", then okay, whatever, that's not an insult to us. We want to end the boys' club mentality that pervades much of this website. You're free to fight us on that, but we're not going away.

[{ Emilia }]

What TheGodBen said.

The thought must be terrifying to some of the guys here. They're gonna start making threads about it soon: "Why can't it be the 1950s again? Back when male whitey ran everything. "

[Brolan]

TheGodBen wrote:

---

Okay.

Firstly, we're not here to police your thoughts, there's a difference between thinking a thing and posting something on a message board, if you can't see the distinction there, that's an issue.

Secondly, there's a problem with gender relations on this website (as there is with a lot of websites, and the world in general), and I know that because I read what women have to say on the subject. Women on this forum shouldn't be made to feel uncomfortable for being women, they shouldn't feel like they're being objectified, and they shouldn't be attracting certain creepy comments. But they, seemingly all of them, do encounter these problems on this site. Whenever a discussion on that subject develops, these BOTW threads are almost always singled out by women as a symptom, and an enabling element, of the problem. If you don't care about that problem, okay, continue to ignore it. But I do care, and there are many other men like me. If that makes us "feminists", then okay, whatever, that's not an insult to us. We want to end the boys' club mentality that pervades much of this website. You're free to fight us on that, but we're not going away.

I don't care about the criticism, but do care a bunch of vigilantes have decided to mess about in threads solely for the purpose of disrupting them. This board made peace with this issue long ago by allowing this one "babe of the week" thread. People aren't allowed to derail or disrupt other threads and I see the statement "but we're not going away" as a promise to do just that.

[{ Emilia }]

Brolan wrote:

---

I don't care about the criticism, but do care a bunch of vigilantes have decided to mess about in threads solely for the purpose of disrupting them. This board made peace with this issue long ago by allowing this one "babe of the week" thread. People aren't allowed to derail or disrupt other threads and I see the statement "but we're not going away" as a promise to do just that.

So sexism is okay as long as it's confined to one thread (which it isn't)?

Is there a dedicated "let's be racist"-thread, too?

[Brolan]

{ Emilia } wrote:

---

So sexism is okay as long as it's confined to one thread (which it isn't)?

Is there a dedicated "let's be racist"-thread, too?

Sexism? Is that a codeword for "current values of society"? We get accused of rating women like "meat" but thats exactly what society does. Why with the thousands of people that go missing in the US each year do only the young, female, and attractive ones get on the news? On Nancy Grace? On any cable news show?

We had a dozen people killed in Aurora the other day but which one of them shows up on the news all the time? Why the young, female, and attractive one, of course. Look at your local TV news broadcast, tell me female reporters weren't picked for their attractiveness first. The leads of recent TV shows, tell me the women were picked for the acting ability first and not their attractiveness, I dare you.

If we are all sexist its because we live a society that values female attractiveness above almost anything else.