My Eyes Are Up Here
Last week, CNN's Brooke Baldwin included Fox Sports analyst Clay Travis in a discussion about Jemele Hill and the White House's stance that her statement that Trump and anyone who supported him were white supremacists was a "fireable offense". The "classy" (read "rude") Fox Sports guy said that as a journalist, "I believe in only two things completely: the First Amendment and boobs." Baffled, Baldwin terminated the conversation. It is never right to say that. "Note to men," she tweeted, "that is never okay."
I get it. I really do. I even fully agree. I do wonder why women who rightly are offended when men are that rude continue to wear outfits clearly intended to accentuate the features men are not supposed to comment on in a world that has made those features a prime topic of attention on television, movies, billboards, malls ... you get the idea. She (and I) thought it was rude for him to say it. I think it's also rude for people to be constantly throwing it in our faces as well. Yes, guys like Clay Travis are rude, but they have a lot of help.
As Predicted
I've often said that redefining marriage from "man and woman" to today's version would lead to all sorts of bizarre, nonsensical definitions. As predicted, there is a story about a girl in the UK who ... wait for it ... married herself. They even have a name for it -- "sologamy" -- a term without meaning since the suffix, "gamy", references marriage and in no former reality did "one" equal "married". (Note: "monogamy" is from "mono" (one) and "gamos" (married). "Sologamy" has no meaningful definition.) She says it is "a growing movement for men and women, with consultants and self-wedding planners popping up all over the world." (The fact that her father gave her away only highlights the madness.)
"Marrying myself has helped me to appreciate my own company, to make time for myself and, quite simply, to love myself." See Narcissus.
As I've often said, it's not a slippery slope fallacy if it's happening.
Yeah, Like That
Maybe you've heard. September 23 is the beginning of the end according to the Bible. Oh, you don't remember that date in yours? Wait ... so you're saying you also haven't read about the planet Nibiru that is headed toward the Earth? Oh, you're really not into biblical Christianity, are you? Not like David Meade, "the self-described 'specialist in research and investigations,'" who has determined from the Book of Revelation all this is true. So convincing is this guy that he "has some nervously eyeing Sept. 23."
Paul warned, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." (Rom 2:24) This guy illustrates it.
Dear Lord, we apologize as a people for the foolish things done and said in Your name. Amen.
Filed Under "It Must Be True"
In Seattle a progressive believer read several chapters of the Gospels and published a blog post about how Jesus wasn't very Christlike. It must be true; I read it on the Internet.
14 comments:
Women seem to want to be able to dress as provocatively as they want, without being objectified. I understand the desire to dress how to want, but women seem to forget that men are visually stimulated.
But they do. That's the point. Power without responsibility.
Blame the woman. Typical. Would you all prefer the burka of the Muslim fundamentalists? Or just the evangelical equivalent of a burka?
"Don't want to show those ankles, girls, boys will get the wrong idea!"
Or, and follow me here, what about this: What if women dress how they want and guys behave like adults, not juvenile delinquents?
Quit making excuses for the molestation crowd. There is no harm in a woman with a low cut blouse or a short skirt. There IS harm in objectifying women. You're blaming women for the problem these men have.
Be rational.
~Dan
Thanks, Dan, for the demonstration of your true nature. "Stan (the conservative Christian) said it; it must be wrong." I made no excuse for the guy. I agreed with her that it was unacceptable. "I even fully agree." You accuse me of hate because I would like to encourage sinners to repent and turn to Christ. Yours looks more like hate ... for those who disagree with you.
And "Don't dress to accentuate the parts you don't want men to comment on" is not "Wear a burka." That's just plain idiocy. Some people have a "someone's wrong in the Internet; I have to fix it" mindset. Yours is a "Christians who take the Bible seriously are on the Internet and they're always wrong about everything" thing.
I know they're not Christians, but the Bible instructs Christian women to dress modestly. Seems even God knows men's shortcomings. I'm not defending the objectification of women. But I know male nature, and I know my baser instincts are to notice sexual allurement. I'm not proud of it, but I acknowledge it. My comment wasn't that women should wear burkas, but that they should realize how men are going to perceive them or quit complaining when they are objectified when they dress with the goal of attracting attention to there "assets". I am a happily married man who hates the objectification of women, and I struggle with objectifying women when they bring attention to their bodies. I'm saying men and women need to be aware of the problem and be willing to help each other overcome it. So, women, dress modestly. Men, recognize your disability, and work to counter it. And if you're a man who can 100% not be tempted by the female form, you're lying to yourself. That news commenter was wrong to say what he did. But he is not a Christian man with the goal of pleasing God, but a sinner acting exactly like his culture expects him to.
Given the scientific fact that men are visually driven when it comes to how we react to women, it seems reasonable to label those who say otherwise as science deniers.
If objectifying women based on their physical attributes is wrong, and I agree that it is, then why do so many on the political left support the availability of porn? How many on the political left responded positively when the porn actress that Cruz's twitter account accidentally liked, jumped all over him?
Personally it seems like there is a happy compromise between "letting it all hang out", and forcing women into burkas. But that conversation doesn't allow for demonixing those you disagree with.
Dan, repeating the same accusation after having it explained to you why it wasn't appropriate doesn't help your cause. At best it's lying. At worst it's intentional malice. It is not "Christian". (Hint: When I AGREE that the guy was wrong and I AGREE that we shouldn't say things like that and I AGREE with the woman who said it, it isn't "sexist". It's AGREEMENT.)
But, burka...
I think I have it figured out. "Women should be allowed to ... nay, celebrated for dressing as slutty as they wish. In fact, those who don't dress that way are likely victims of sexist males."
If a guy notices that she's dressed to draw attention to her body in a sexual way, he's an immature sexist pig. If he doesn't notice, he's male, so he's a sexist pig anyway. The only males who are not sexist are male feminists ... who most female feminists believe are as real as unicorns ... so they're actually sexist, too.
Good! Easy to remember. "White" = racist. "Male" = sexist. "Christian" = hater. Hey, this math is easy! Not real, but easy.
I object to women being viewed or treated as sex objects. I don't care if it's a man or a woman that does it. Apparently that's sexist. I have greater respect for the female body than many women do and that makes me a sexist. I live in a world that no longer makes sense and flings nonsense at you like you're an idiot for not swallowing it.
It's similar to the situation in the NFL, people want the right to express themselves in any way they choose, but also don't want the consequences that might result from those choices. Now clearly I'm not saying that every woman who dresses provocatively automatically deserves to be assaulted or verbally attacked or that there aren't lines of appropriate behavior. But, if a woman dresses provocatively, why be surprised if that provokes a reaction. Whether we like it or not people make assessments of us all based on how we present ourselves. I clearly have the right to show up to a job interview in Birkenstocks and a Che Guevara t-shirt, but I also have accept the responsibility for the results of my expressing my right.
I know your "all men are rapists" was not serous (although there are people out there who believe that), unfortunately some men are. Why would anyone assume that they won't run into one of them, and be dressed in a way that draws attention?
Once again, this is not to blame women who get raped, it's the rapists fault. But isn't discretion the better part of valor?
I also don't think you can ignore the "hook up" culture, the prevalence of sex separated from committed relationships, and the pervasive influence of porn when having this conversation.
Yes, I see the same thing in the NFL v Trump situation. "We want our rights and we want no consequences. You? Not gonna get it."
I don't think I said all men are rapists (although, you're right, there are extreme feminists who make such an argument). (I think that rape is extremely rarely about sex, about provocative women, about lust. It is almost exclusively about power. Unfortunately, for much -- most? -- of our society today, the majority of sex is just that ... about power.)
There is, hidden in this, another pressing problem. On my side of the aisle, we try to take note of those who claim to be on my side of the aisle and point out when they are despicable, mistaken, not representative of our side of the aisle. The other side, however, appears to think 1) that anyone opposed their side is equally despicable as those abberant examples and 2) no one on their side is ever wrong, despicable, mistaken. From the male side of the aisle, then, we can call this jerk from Fox Sports a jerk without arguing that all men are jerks. The other side -- the "anti-male side" -- requires that since this guy was a jerk, all men are jerks (with the slim exception of men who agree with them, I suppose) and anyone who does not agree with them are, therefore, jerks. Their side? Always right. No jerks.
The part I find most disturbing is, again, the double standards. "It's rude to use that language ... but, of course, we can." "It's wrong to be sexist ... unless, of course, it's our sexism." "It's wrong to be judgmental and intolerant ... unless it's something about which we are judgmental and intolerant." Over and over again.
I'd argue that the whole hook up culture or friends with benefits or whatever id at least as objectifying and devaluing women to the basest common denominator. Yet the feminists claim that it's empowering.
Post a Comment