You know all the discussions we’ve been having recently about reflexive misogyny among some of our male posters? The below are all examples of the kind of jejune “humor” that many women find offensive.
Please make more of an effort to restrain your inner 12-year-old.
twickster, for the SDMB
The person in question went out of her way to make this an unrestrained juvenile moment. She’s a vaginal life support system looking for attention.
Ignoring that really ugly description of a woman, I disagree that she opened her self up to leering comments in this discussion. Since Lady Godiva and before, people have used there bodies in the name of protest. People in this thread are seriously debating issues around the boundaries of public protest, consequences of such protest, the role of universities in policing their students.
We can debate the merits of the protest, whether it was juvenile or sophisticated, whether being naked added to or detracted from the message without turing it into a locker room free for all. There is a difference between addressing sexuality, gender, genitalia and making gratuitous sexual comments in reply to serious conversation.
thank you!
Whether that is the case or not, some of the comments were seemingly more along the lines of leering drive-bys then not, which–as of late–we’re coming down a little harder on.
Hard on? Reported!
This is the second time we’ve been in the news for something controversial that has left me scratching my head. I remember the whole uproar over showing a pornographic in McConomy. Funny thing was that I never heard any complaints about the monthly (I think it was monthly) TBA movies. Everyone knew that TBA meant porn. I wonder why there is such a delayed response to most things but at least this just happened.
Personally, I think there should have been more uproar over Malik Zulu Shabazz speaking but fine, let PGH flip out over anti-Catholic free speech and porn instead.
Strikes me as tacky but, more so, trying to shock people by subverting Catholic icons is so overdone and banal that I think less of her for that than for the act itself. Show a little spark and creativity instead of scraping the bottom of the shock-barrel.
Piss Christ was in the 1980’s – time to innovate a little bit, kids!
Idle Thoughts, you did that on purpose didn’t you.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. I would have botched some metaphor of gooses and ganders. I can’t think of too many things happening to The Church that would make me take its side.
After dwelling on this a bit longer, I gotta say, I still think it’s fantastic!
This took guts. She stood up to one of the most powerful organizations this world has ever seen, and one that I particulary find to be a bane on humanity in general. Not only that, she put her reputation and life on the line as there are probably quite a few whacko’s out there that are very pissed off.
I mean, if she had worn a bikini bottom, this would not make news. It would likely be ignored and we wouldn’t be talking about it right now. She did what she had to do to get her message across.
Really, what did she do wrong? This was an art parade. People should expect to see provacative things. Some say this is indecent exposure, but what is so indecent about nudity? It makes you question where we get these ideas from in the first place.
Maybe she was dressed as an antipope.
I agree wholeheartedly with what she did. Totally.
However, you’re saying that she is not open to ridicule, although it’s acceptable that she ridiculed the head of a religious group?
If it’s religious, it probably gets death threats. There’re a lot of nutbags out there.
:rolleyes:
Stood up to? What? The tongue clucking of one bishop who feels insulted and who cannot actually impose any sanctions on her? The outrage (OUTRAGE, I tell you), of one guy who dresses himself up in the lofty title of “Catholic League” to issue his strident complaints of “persecution”?
Whatever the merits of her effort, she was hardly “standing up to” anything more than the sort of pubescent jokes we have seen in this thread. (I have no idea what “community standards” CMU has in place. I suppose that if they sanction her, she could be seen to have been standing up to her university’s handbook.)
Protests are fine. She has a first amendment right of free speech to do so (legality of her lack of attire not withstanding). I have no problem with and wholeheartedly support her if she wants to stand on a soapbox and scream about how the Catholic Church is letting countless people die because of their stand on condoms or shout about the marginalization of women or how it has implicitly approved of the sexual abuse by turning a blind eye or just moving the offenders.
But as I said, it is the manner in which she did it. Nude? OK. Religious garb? Tacky but OK. Half naked/half religiously dressed with a revered religious symbol shaved onto her genitals? That’s over the line.
As to who considers it OK to attack the church: do I really have to spell it out? On this thread alone we have The Great Sun Jester and Der Trihs. In other threads on this board? I’d search on anti-Catholic posts but the servers would crash. But in general, disrespect to religious iconography and insulting religion in general is a popular past-time of our more liberal citizens.
Now, let me stress this: I do not, in any way, shape or form believe that any one religion should be held free from ridicule. I laughed my ass off during Meaning of Life when they sang “Every Sperm is Sacred’. I found Dogma great and a good slam at the Church. I also loved The Joys of Yiddish. Believe me, as someone who grew up with Irish Catholic guilt I could really appreciate some of the humor.
However, there is a point where ridicule becomes insulting. In my aforementioned example of a blackfaced Obama protester while he was safe within his first amendment rights he violated the laws of propriety. Everyone’s favorite assholes, the Westboro Baptist Church, are legally allowed to protest funeral as much as they like according to the Supreme Court ruling. But what they are doing is offensive. Being able to do something does not mean you should do something. I could shit on my dining room table during Thanksgiving dinner. Doesn’t mean I should.
It’s not ridicule, it’s sexualized shaming, and the target is ALL women, not just this one. That’s the way misogynistic, sexual shaming works.
Much like it’s wrong to use racial slurs to insult Obama, but ti’s perfectly ok to critique him as a president. We can talk about this protest. We can disagree with what she did. We can even insult her. But when you use sexual shaming to insult her, it’s a slam on all women, and it’s wrong.
:rolleyes:, back at ya.
Let’s not forget the reason the church is so powerful is because the overwhelming majority of the people in this country back it. She stood up to them. Her friends, family, and neighbors.
Why?
Actually, I am not sure that one could characterize the clipped photos as pornographic. They may have been clipped from porno magazines–that would certainly be the easiest source for a wide variety of such photos–but out of the context of wide-spread legs or contact with a penis, tongue, or finger, I would not deem them inherently pornographic any more than the mere sight of a breast or penis is inherently pornographic.
Piffle.
We have no idea what her family or friends think of this and they would more likely be upset by her partial nudity than by her wearing a bishop’s mitre.
The Inquisition has never had a toe-hold in this country. She simply did not “stand up” to anyone, whatever you would like to imagine.
