Battle of the Flickr All-Stars December 29, 2007 10:35 AM   Subscribe

This FPP sucks. It's basically just an excuse to ogle Rebekka: 'Look, she has boobies!'

My post (and a couple of others, IIRC) on this very same subject was deleted months ago (back when this was, you know, actually relevant). Why should an openly sexist version remain?
posted by chuckdarwin to MetaFilter-Related at 10:35 AM (444 comments total) 7 users marked this as a favorite

that last line is pretty shitty, but that's the only shitty part. I don't know what this means in terms of moderation.
posted by shmegegge at 10:42 AM on December 29, 2007


It's sexist to say she's hot?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:43 AM on December 29, 2007


Matt deleted mine, and it was essentially identical in content. He basically said "Flickr apologised. There's no reason to post this."
posted by chuckdarwin at 10:43 AM on December 29, 2007


That is to say: When she's standing there in a bikini? Isn't that sort of the whole entire point of the photograph?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:44 AM on December 29, 2007


So you're upset about your deletion, and so much not this post.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:44 AM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


Got the link for comparison, chuck? Might be handy.
posted by baphomet at 10:44 AM on December 29, 2007


It's sexist to say she's hot?

It's sexist to reduce a good artist to mere tits and ass, yes. Her beauty has no bearing on the subject of theft/copyright infringement and over-moderation at flickr (what the post is ostensibly about).
posted by chuckdarwin at 10:47 AM on December 29, 2007


The last sentence of that post is just awful.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 10:48 AM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


So you're upset about your deletion, and so much not this post.

I'm upset to see such a crass post, yes (especially when mine was better and had no references to her 'hotness'). Plus, I know her a bit (I'm on her profile) and she deserves better than a frat-boy masturbation post on the blue.
posted by chuckdarwin at 10:48 AM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


http://www.metafilter.com/61302/Your-Favourite-Photo-Site-Sucks
posted by chuckdarwin at 10:51 AM on December 29, 2007


That's fair, and I flagged it as sexist. But I get the feeling you're making this about having your post being deleted, and less about this post being the problem.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:51 AM on December 29, 2007


The last sentence of that post is just awful.

Reposted for emphasis.
posted by chuckdarwin at 10:51 AM on December 29, 2007


she deserves better than a frat-boy masturbation post on the blue.

I want to agree with you, and I do think the last sentence is juvenile, but I'm sorry: the subject is an attractive woman in not much clothing, and I think it's meant to elicit a response to her attractiveness. This is not the Alison Stokke thread all over again.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:53 AM on December 29, 2007


That's fair, and I flagged it as sexist. But I get the feeling you're making this about having your post being deleted, and less about this post being the problem.

Not really. I said what I meant. This FPP sucks. It's basically just an excuse to ogle Rebekka: 'Look, she has boobies!'
posted by chuckdarwin at 10:54 AM on December 29, 2007


the subject is an attractive woman in not much clothing, and I think it's meant to elicit a response to her attractiveness.

Why include that photo at all? What does it have to do with the subject of the post?
posted by chuckdarwin at 10:55 AM on December 29, 2007


I flagged it too - for the hawt part of the post. But - I wouldn't have seen her work otherwise, nor did I know about flickr drama.
posted by typewriter at 10:59 AM on December 29, 2007


Why include that photo at all? What does it have to do with the subject of the post?

Well, it was part of her photoset. And I'm willing to bet it's received a disproportionate number of views relative to other photos in the collection. And let us not bullshit here: I'm sure the artist is well aware of what the appeal of this photo is. Why did she include the photo at all?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:10 AM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


Plus, I know her a bit (I'm on her profile) and she deserves better than a frat-boy masturbation post on the blue.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't look like somebody held her at gunpoint and said "Let me photograph you scantily clad or else."

What I'm saying is that she chose to represent herself to the world that way. You might say "that doesn't mean we have to ogle her" and I have no particular opinion on that part - my point of contention is that you are saying 'she deserves better' regarding a view of her that she has direct culpability in promoting.

If you're a friend, then presumably you think her smart enough and mature enough to make her own decisions about self-presentation.
posted by Ryvar at 11:11 AM on December 29, 2007 [5 favorites]


Or what kittens for breakfast said.
posted by Ryvar at 11:12 AM on December 29, 2007


It's sexist to reduce a good artist to mere tits and ass, yes

She is not being reduced to mere tits and ass, the post specifically says "also, Guðleifsdóttir is hot 1, 2,3.", which means in addition to everything, she's hot.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:16 AM on December 29, 2007


yay for the new metafilter!
posted by PugAchev at 11:17 AM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


I understand that she is the most frequent subject of her photos, and she is partially nude in some of them. That's fine... they're amazing photos.

What I'm still not getting what that photo has to do with the subjects of theft or censorship. Why not link to the photo that was deleted? It's on her blog.
posted by chuckdarwin at 11:19 AM on December 29, 2007


She clearly considers herself an artist, and it is crass and sexist in that context to suggest that we should admire her equally for her pulchritude. On the other hand, among the self-portraits she chose for her on-line portfolio is at least one that's pure cleavagey cheesecake and not an particularly interesting picture otherwise, so I'm not gonna hate the poster for pointing out something that she already made part of her public persona.

I will hate him for misspelling "Iceland" twice in a post that links to the Wikipiedia page, and for implying that I might find "Guðleifsdóttir" hard to pronounce.
posted by nicwolff at 11:21 AM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


To the extent the subjects of the post are something like 1) here's an interesting bit of internet/flickr drama and 2) here's also an interesting photographer, the fact that one aspect of the photographer is that she's apparently admired for her physical beauty and doesn't mind posing to show it is relevant to the subject in that it gives us more information about the photographer.

That said, it's also a totally lame and childish thing to put in the fpp.

Like typewriter, I didn't know about the drama or the photographer beforehand.
posted by psmith at 11:22 AM on December 29, 2007


As expected, it didn't take too long for someone to go for the sexist mindcrime angle in order to bitch pettily about the deletion of a previous post.

Calling women hot is now verboten. Stand by for prohibitions on calling certain puppies cute, pointing out that gay pride parades feature skimpily dressed men, and carrying more than an ounce of liquid or wearing shoes while posting or browsing.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:23 AM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


nicwolff, cortex (sorry I said it was matt upthread) decided that this subject wasn't suitable for the blue months ago. Why keep this one (especially when it sucks on a number of levels)?
posted by chuckdarwin at 11:24 AM on December 29, 2007


I flagged it as racist, because I mistakenly believe that Iceland is inhabited by a race of bosomy blond women.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:25 AM on December 29, 2007 [9 favorites]


There are millions and millions and millions of pictures of women in bikinis -- and less! -- on the web. I'm sure some of them even freely chose to have those pictures there. Do you want everyone linking to those pictures too, with comments about whether or not they're hot?

This post is "OMG BOOBIES!" and should be discouraged.
posted by occhiblu at 11:25 AM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


Krrrlson - I'm not being petty; I'm trying to understand why a post which is identical to a deleted post should be allowed to stand.
posted by chuckdarwin at 11:26 AM on December 29, 2007


Christ almighty, fucktard. It's still Christmas - get over yourself. Oh noes - pictures of a girl! The Sexism Pendulum swings the other way and suddenly it's a crime to link to a picture posted by a girl of herself?

Or maybe it's just a crime to get a post through which someone else failed at. Whinging little cock.
posted by benzo8 at 11:28 AM on December 29, 2007


The last sentence is "OMG BOOBIES!," not the whole post. Given the controversy not too long ago regarding the OMG HAWT GEEK GIRL, I'm surprised the OP included the last sentence at all. Maybe he hasn't been paying attention?

Or, what shmegegge said.
posted by chihiro at 11:29 AM on December 29, 2007


*checks date*

?

Fucktard? When did this site turn into somethingawful?
posted by chuckdarwin at 11:30 AM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]


Do you want everyone linking to those pictures too, with comments about whether or not they're hot?

Saying the FPP isn't sexist isn't the same thing as saying it's a great FPP.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:32 AM on December 29, 2007


That's fair, and I flagged it as sexist. But I get the feeling you're making this about having your post being deleted, and less about this post being the problem.

Not really. I said what I meant. This FPP sucks. It's basically just an excuse to ogle Rebekka: 'Look, she has boobies!'
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:54 PM on December 29 [+] [!]


I'm not being petty; I'm trying to understand why a post which is identical to a deleted post should be allowed to stand.
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:26 PM on December 29 [+] [!]


So which is it?
posted by Krrrlson at 11:35 AM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


Am I to understand that the only possible purpose to a photograph of a woman in a bikini is to point out how sexually desirable she is?
posted by shakespeherian at 11:37 AM on December 29, 2007


I'm trying to understand why a post which is identical to a deleted post should be allowed to stand.

Judged by your peers on Metatalk, you may unfortunately find this to be found to be a poor rationale for deleting a post. Better to have stood firm with the (valid, IMO) sexism criterium — more leverage there.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:39 AM on December 29, 2007


Krrrlson - The post sucks; flickr apologised; she still has an account; she still posts (carefully); there's no reason to make an FPP. Plus, the last bit is stupid.

The fact that other posts on the same subject were deleted merely supports my argument.
posted by chuckdarwin at 11:39 AM on December 29, 2007


Blazecock Pileon - the sexism isn't even as important as the fact that this is a non-story. It was a non-story months ago. Hell, I'd almost forgotten about it.

Rebekka is worthy of an FPP; this isn't it.
posted by chuckdarwin at 11:41 AM on December 29, 2007


Am I to understand that the only possible purpose to a photograph of a woman in a bikini is to point out how sexually desirable she is?

Sometimes the purpose is sell to beer...
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:42 AM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


"To sell," even. Need coffee. Gah.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:43 AM on December 29, 2007


It's basically just an excuse to ogle Rebekka: 'Look, she has boobies!'

the sexism isn't even as important as the fact that this is a non-story

When making a callout, focus clearly on a specific point of contention and don't let go. Vagueness gives the inevitable pileon patrol ammunition to fire back, particularly if it seems like your criticisms are motivated by some other injury.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:50 AM on December 29, 2007


I didn't click on any of the "She's hot" links, because it just seemed like a setup for a Rickrolling.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:57 AM on December 29, 2007


I guess my problem is that I have several criticisms :-) It sucks on a number of levels.

But, yes. Thanks for the timely advice. 'Tis my first call-out. I actually thought that someone would've deleted it by now.
posted by chuckdarwin at 11:57 AM on December 29, 2007


because it just seemed like a setup for a Rickrolling.

If. Only.
posted by chuckdarwin at 11:58 AM on December 29, 2007


why a post which is identical to a deleted post should be allowed to stand.

Yours wasn't identical and you seem to be a bit obsessive on this topic. In fact, it's pretty much impossible to compare two posts and yet people try to do it often. This post was better, even with the stupid part on the end.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:19 PM on December 29, 2007 [5 favorites]


So, like, this artsy chick, she's hawt, dude?
posted by orthogonality at 12:19 PM on December 29, 2007


I respectfully disagree, and I fail to see how something that happened so long ago is worthy of a new and sexist FPP.
posted by chuckdarwin at 12:23 PM on December 29, 2007


I disagree too. This is a crappy post and guaranteed to elicit dumb sexist comments.
posted by languagehat at 12:31 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


you seem to be a bit obsessive on this topic

Uh, yeah, maybe a bit. He has 1/3 of the comments in this thread.
posted by graventy at 12:34 PM on December 29, 2007


Y'know, I'll just never get used to how much drama mere boobies can inspire.
posted by miss lynnster at 12:36 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


Mere boobies? You're understating the very foundation of this thing we call the internets.
posted by found missing at 12:41 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


There's interesting material in the FPP, even if it is poorly presented. Just glancing over the FPP before reading the links, I would be interested in:

* Was this a case of a wrong license being chosen (a la the post about Virgin using Flickr photos in their ads)?
* Was it outright theft?
* Was the photo originally deleted because the Flickr was more concerned about the rights of a business than the original photographer?
* Being sexually attractive is a definite advantage in this world. Is the photographer leveraging this? Are her photos otherwise unremarkable? Is she being ironic? Is she possibly curious as to whether "genuine" art photos get anything like the views of boob shots? Does she expound on this in any way?
* What are her photos like?

There is also the prurient interest in looking at a lovely young woman in a state of undress.

So sexist? Perhaps as it is presented, but as been noted the photographer is an active participant in this, and exploring why might be more interesting than saying "I'd hit it." But chuckdarwin does have an interesting point about the original deletion. Even if it was a mistake and flickr apologized, the scenario and the gallery's use of the photos was interesting. Killing that original FPP seems to be more akin to protecting flickr than deleting because of "mehness."
posted by maxwelton at 12:41 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


Killing that original FPP seems to be more akin to protecting flickr than deleting because of "mehness."

Mods don't like to see other mods criticised, I guess. Or, they didn't want an FPP that openly calls out people at Flickr and Yahoo!.
posted by chuckdarwin at 12:44 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


It is a puzzler:

The last line is sexist.

This topic was rejected months ago not based on form but content.

Both of these things are true; chuckdarwin, having made the old deleted post, is more likely than anyone to remember the deletion. So what? That doesn't make him wrong, about either thing.

So why jump on him about this MeTa post? Knee-jerk disagreement? No room for sour grapes? Lack of basic understanding of how these things have worked in the past?

He's right on both counts, whether conflict of interest exists or not. Saying he's wrong is dopey, no matter who you are and who he is.

It's true that consistency in moderation is a fool's goal, though, so once mods show up in this thread and lay down the law, even if they're being just as myopic as the other dopes here, the case is closed.

It's not like there's a double standard here, because a double standard requires consistency and the mods aren't robots. But chuckdarwin has a couple good points, and the reason this post stands is a mystery.

Life's full of mysteries. Maybe the discussion made this post a good one. It wouldn't be the first time a stated policy was turned on its ear. Nor would it be the first time someone's legitimate point was trashed by bored bullies.

Crazy little thing called love.
posted by breezeway at 12:48 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


chuckdarwin, your presentation in the old post was a link to a bbc news bit summarizing a situation that had been settled by the time you made your post, but you spun it in the post as a sort of Bad Shit Going Down thing; you included in the first comment a (not damning but not remotely helpful in a this-will-go-well sense) admission that you kinda knew the subject; and for all that, your post provided none of the background and links to her actual photography that you yourself seem here to think are important to a worthwhile post about her.

I don't see these as identical posts.

The "she's hot" tag on the end seems a bit tone-deaf considering recent events, but not everybody has been reading metatalk and it strikes me, too, as more meh than deletable. It's not a great post, but it's not an awful one either and it certainly serves her as a photographer to be discovered by Mefi readers better than your post back in May did.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:58 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


she deserves better than a frat-boy masturbation post on the blue

The more frat-boys masturbate the less they reproduce. She's taking one for the team Yo.

(Somewhat Fratist)
posted by vapidave at 12:58 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


While we're back on the offensiveness/sexism issue, maybe this user can have his/her username changed. I'd like to suggest the following options - change it to:

(a) pudendum
(b) fundamentalist
(c) agent provocateur
(d) dworkin
(e) apple

Vote early, vote often.
posted by Rumple at 12:59 PM on December 29, 2007


I don't see these as identical posts.

I don't either. This one sucks.
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:03 PM on December 29, 2007


This one sucks.

Flagged as suckist
posted by found missing at 1:09 PM on December 29, 2007


sucksist?
posted by found missing at 1:11 PM on December 29, 2007


I dunno what sucks worse, the FPP or chuckdarwin's whiny ass call out...
posted by wfrgms at 1:25 PM on December 29, 2007


If I don't look at photos of her boobies, do they truly even exist? Metafilter, get to work on this one.
posted by Brocktoon at 1:31 PM on December 29, 2007


If I don't look at photos of her boobies, do they truly even exist?

Depends. Did they make a sound when they fell?
posted by Dipsomaniac at 1:36 PM on December 29, 2007


She's so hot she's making me sexist.
posted by wemayfreeze at 1:45 PM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]


chuckdarwin's original post seemed to focus on the Flicker unlicensed-use controversy. This one, despite its regrettably sexist last bit seems to be more about the photos themselves (and that last bit, as has been pointed out, is also about photos the artist has chosen to include). That's a pretty substantial difference, I'd say.

My tip for the stealtho-sexist among us: If I'd done this post and wanted people to see those pics of her without the wink-wink nudge-nudge aspect of the post, I'd have said something like, "The artist also does self-portraits."
posted by not that girl at 1:56 PM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]


MetaFilter is a moderated community, which has MeTa for all sorts of ribaldry. And also [she's] hot posted on the Green is simply crass and eminently deleteworthy
posted by Neiltupper at 1:56 PM on December 29, 2007


pls translate
posted by found missing at 1:59 PM on December 29, 2007


"And also [she's] hot" posted on the Green is simply crass and eminently deleteworthy

This the second time in as many days that someone has referred to the Metafilter main page as the "Green." It honestly looks blue to me.

Am I colorblind? If I had to describe one of the Metafilter sites as "green," I would've picked AskMe.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 2:04 PM on December 29, 2007


I respectfully disagree

Yeah, we got that. And then we got it again. And again. And again.

Maybe you can stop assuming we're all dumb and consider your point made. You've already got nearly a third of all the comments in this thread, I think that's enough. Take a breather and let the dice fall as they may.
posted by splice at 2:05 PM on December 29, 2007


Oh, if only she were an ugly girl so she could be properly judged for her art as any man. Alas.
But then would people have been as hot on stealing her photos? Hmmm.

Oh, these damnable boobies. Always getting in the way.
posted by miss lynnster at 2:08 PM on December 29, 2007


Christ almighty, fucktard. .... Whinging little cock.
posted by benzo8 at 2:28 PM on December 29 [+] [Flagged]


Settle down dude. Its a post, he didn't run over your dog.
posted by shothotbot at 2:08 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


Well I for one am utterly offended.

Not exactly sure at what, but when I work it out, I'll let you all know.
posted by Frasermoo at 2:16 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]



Just discovered this thread and laughed a lot.
"Also, she is hot 1 2 3" is sexist? A kleenex please. Does somebody take
PC too seriously or does somebody use PC only as an excuse because one of
his postings was deleted? Come on dude, get a life. Metafilter is not a
competition.
BTW chuckdarwin, my post is different than yours. I was not aware of your
post but I it talked about the stir. My post talks about the stir too but it is mainly about her beautiful pictures. And yes, the person who took them is beautiful too. I doubt that she minds the label.

Screwed up my post a little bit. I am not a native speaker and of cause
the spell checker did not pick up "island" (Iceland in German) since it
is a legit word and even makes some sense in the context. Sorry, will try
harder the next time.

I don't take pictures but enjoy seeing beautiful pics. Love to browse 2Photo sometimes. Check it out.

Evil sexist Yoyo_NYC
posted by yoyo_nyc at 2:18 PM on December 29, 2007


Oh, if only she were an ugly girl so she could be properly judged for her art as any man.

That's optimistic of you. If she were an ugly girl, and had the gall to put photos of herself online, it's quite likely to conversation would've focused on her hideousness.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 2:19 PM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]


I agree that the timeliness of the post is debatable, but I saw the original post that chuckdarwin made before it was deleted, and this one, and I prefer this post because it showcased her work, which was at the center of the whole debate. She'll get more attention for her photos through this post. Sorry it didn't work out in your favor, cd, and the new fpp does sound rather frat boyish at the end, but it's still a more complete post than yours was.
posted by misha at 2:20 PM on December 29, 2007


chuckdarwin will be here momentarily to respectfully disagree
posted by found missing at 2:23 PM on December 29, 2007


(TOTTALLY DARWINIST)
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:27 PM on December 29, 2007


--"Also, she is hot 1 2 3" is sexist?--

Yes, it is. You're defining her in terms of her beauty which may be fine and dandy among your mates but is actually one of the off-putting constructions women see on this website making them leave. They spend their lives dealing with the 'hot or not' labelling and, as I understand what they've said in a few Meta posts in the last month, it's something that they'd rather not have to deal with or see here. It also sets posts up to become "I'd hit it" sexual objectification. If it's self-evident that someone is beautiful, why do you even need to point it out anyway?

--My post [..] is mainly about her beautiful pictures.--

And that's where you should have left it. Her pictures are gorgeous. Personally I thought the kids and the sky ones were best. Her posting bikini shots of herself isn't quite the same thing as saying "please make a comment here or on another website whether or not you think I'm hot".

In my perfect world, the post would stay and there would be a red line through the last sentence and an advisory stating that that sort of commentary is unnecessary and in fact likely to hinder the quality of the discussion.
posted by peacay at 2:35 PM on December 29, 2007 [10 favorites]


Are people allergic to even the slightest hint of a male gaze? Harden up, for fuck's sake.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 2:38 PM on December 29, 2007


"If it's self-evident that someone is beautiful, why do you even need to point it out anyway?"

Am I not sexist already in realizing that somebody is beautiful without pointing it out?
posted by yoyo_nyc at 2:38 PM on December 29, 2007


That's optimistic of you. If she were an ugly girl, and had the gall to put photos of herself online, it's quite likely to conversation would've focused on her hideousness.

Aye. And there's the rub. Such is life in the girlzone.

P.S. -- Meanwhile, that Rembrandt dude... he sure was hot. 1 2 3 Amirite?
posted by miss lynnster at 2:47 PM on December 29, 2007


(Oops! 2 was supposed to be this, not 1 again.)
posted by miss lynnster at 2:49 PM on December 29, 2007


Plus, I know her a bit- isn't that in and of itself reason for deletion?
posted by Sailormom at 2:52 PM on December 29, 2007


You're defining her in terms of her beauty

Again, the post DOES NOT do that. It's an afterthought compliment. Debate whether it was necessary all you want, but please realize the poster was not defining her solely by her beauty or breasts.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:59 PM on December 29, 2007


The valiant yet surprisingly noncommittal rebels ardent flagwaving boyzone defense had proved resurgent. Increasingly emboldened by the confusion and dismay, they charged up the molehill toward glory, stopping at the summit to scratch their crotches and stare steely-eyed into a future much more like the past, the good ol days when certain folks knew their place and didn't complicate things.

"I'd hit it" I said, to cheers. I'd hit it.
posted by cashman at 3:01 PM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]


Actually miss lynnster, Rembrandt was a handsome man.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:03 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


Can we delete chuckdarwin's FPP for a second time?

Not that I endorse the second awful FPP on this topic. I just think it'd be a good way to spite chuckdarwin.
posted by mullacc at 3:03 PM on December 29, 2007 [7 favorites]


Okay, well maybe he's just not my type I suppose. Which is convenient. Since he's dead & all.
posted by miss lynnster at 3:05 PM on December 29, 2007


Her posting bikini shots of herself isn't quite the same thing as saying "please make a comment here or on another website whether or not you think I'm hot".

she must be new to the internet then.
posted by Frasermoo at 3:06 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]




It is a great post! The post points us to a gallery of stunning photographs that few of us would otherwise have seen. Best of the web, you know.
posted by LarryC at 3:10 PM on December 29, 2007


miss lynnster, is it just me or does the look on Rembrandt's face seem a little annoyed? Almost as if he knew we'd be objectifying him, 400 years later. :-)
posted by chihiro at 3:10 PM on December 29, 2007


chuckdarwin will be here momentarily to respectfully disagree

Not yet. He is from England and just annoyed because I am German. So just don't mention the war to him. I mentioned it once but I guess I got away with it...
posted by yoyo_nyc at 3:12 PM on December 29, 2007 [5 favorites]


I think we can all agree that anyone, hot or not, that makes themselves the focus of their art, deserves criticism for vanity at least. Didn't Philip Roth explore the concepts of art and artist? And didn't Thomas Pynchon take being separate from your art to such a degree, that the mere idea of Thomas Pynchon the reclusive artist, took hold?

Or we can have a whole debate on whether attractive women (and men) get helped along in life. They do, for no other reason but their attractiveness, as do kids born into wealthy families. Sometimes the issues are larger than they seem. But yeah, what a bad way to go around presenting the fact that she had a ton of comments and support, oh and by the way, she's incredibly attractive.

It is akin to doing a post on Mark Zuckerberg and then going, "this rich dick went to Philip Exeter, put that he enjoyed fencing (really!) on his Harvard application (really!) and didn't apply for financial aid (really!) and is now richer than the rest of you will ever be." When really presenting the facts without the commentary would have been sufficient in forming my opinion. He could be a swell dude who just had some help, a lot more help than most of us get, but you don't need to go and shove classism in America down my throat. So posting something along the lines of "her favorite model is of herself," is a lot less crass way of saying it and takes the issue away from sexism while still letting the discerning reader know that her personal appearance, at least in some way, is going to play into this.
posted by geoff. at 3:13 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


I think you'd be singing a different tune if Rembrandt had painted himself wearing a speedo.
posted by found missing at 3:17 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


Dead IS my type.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:39 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


I think you'd be singing a different tune if Rembrandt had painted himself wearing a speedo.

Well, give or take the invention of lycra, he pretty much DID!
posted by miss lynnster at 3:45 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


Sorry. I haven't Haimburgled in a while. Old habits die hard.
posted by miss lynnster at 3:45 PM on December 29, 2007


Boobies and girls in bikinis can be hard to find on the internet. Even though I am a straight, 40-something, college-educated woman, I often come to Metafilter to find this type of content.

Sometimes I even have to look at what I initially thought was just a post about a good photographer just to find this hawt girl content. But often I can pick just about any post on just about any topic and shortly find comments about boobies and such.

I can't imagine where else I might want to regualrly visit on the internet instead of Metafilter, because it's not like I ever want to just have an interesting discussion that doesn't involve boobies. Why would I leave?
posted by Anisoptera at 3:46 PM on December 29, 2007 [13 favorites]


Here's the /sarcasm tag for those who were still unsure.
posted by Anisoptera at 3:49 PM on December 29, 2007


You aren't a straight, 40-something, college-educated woman? I'm so confused.
posted by found missing at 3:53 PM on December 29, 2007


This the second time in as many days that someone has referred to the Metafilter main page as the "Green." It honestly looks blue to me

Blue! Blue! It's all these fucking Xmas colours everywhere!
posted by Neiltupper at 4:03 PM on December 29, 2007


You aren't a straight, 40-something, college-educated woman? I'm so confused

You have to read the whole sentence. Sorry if it's difficult for you to understand.
posted by Anisoptera at 4:12 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


chuckdarwin will be here momentarily to respectfully disagree bitch and moan.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:13 PM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]


chuckdarwin: You're clearly not an unbiased observer here. You're pissed that your FPP was deleted, and this one wasn't. Well, this one had more links and it wasn't an immediate reaction. As far as the "sexist" stuff, well she put this picture in an "erotica" group. I don't think she minds. Some women actually do like people admiring their bodies, as long as they stay in control.
posted by delmoi at 4:19 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


Rebekka's photographs: 'Look, I have boobies!'
Metafilter: "Look, she has boobies!"

I fail to see the problem. If she is going to post photographs of herself in a bikini then everyone is free to pile on. Or are they "art?" Because they don't look a lot like art to me.
posted by fire&wings at 4:22 PM on December 29, 2007


Sorry if it's difficult for you to understand.

No need to attack. I think your comment is GREAT. I've NEVER seen anything like it on MeTa before.
posted by found missing at 4:22 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


Or are they "art?" Because they don't look a lot like art to me.

Handy guide:

Naked woman, looking at camera, fake boobs: Porn
Naked woman, looking away from camera, real boobs: Art
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:25 PM on December 29, 2007 [20 favorites]


Wait wait, I just looked at her Flickr page- she keeps sets organized by how many favorites her pictures have? FAIL.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:27 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


Metafilter hates attractive women.
posted by xmutex at 4:28 PM on December 29, 2007


As far as the "sexist" stuff, well she put this picture in an "erotica" group. I don't think she minds. Some women actually do like people admiring their bodies, as long as they stay in control.

For heaven's sake, the issue isn't only whether she minds. I mind. Other users mind. Calling a woman hot may not be sexist; continually commenting on women's looks, as if it's always an important consideration when discussing women, is. I'm tired of it. It makes me feel like shit. I wish people would stop it.
posted by occhiblu at 4:30 PM on December 29, 2007 [21 favorites]


Really, guys?

Again?!
posted by shakespeherian at 4:34 PM on December 29, 2007


As far as the "sexist" stuff, well she put this picture in an "erotica" group. I don't think she minds.

What occhiblu said. Who cares whether she minds? The question is whether it's good for MetaFilter. It's not, and I somehow thought we'd settled that awhile back. Depressing to have to fight these battles over and over for the very first time.
posted by languagehat at 4:36 PM on December 29, 2007


I think we can all agree that anyone, hot or not, that makes themselves the focus of their art, deserves criticism for vanity at least.

No, we cannot all agree. I certainly do not.

If she is going to post photographs of herself in a bikini then everyone is free to pile on.


I so love "she asked for it" in all its post-modern variations. We've come a long way, baby.

Because they don't look a lot like art to me.

That is because you are apparently unable to see past the tits.
posted by DarlingBri at 4:38 PM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]


No need to attack. I think your comment is GREAT. I've NEVER seen anything like it on MeTa before.

Not an attack at all, more of an apology for possibly being unclear. Thanks for the compliment. Let's just have the tagline and get back on topic.

Metafilter: Sorry if it's difficult for you to understand.
posted by Anisoptera at 4:38 PM on December 29, 2007


As far as the "sexist" stuff, well she put this picture in an "erotica" group. I don't think she minds.

So if someone posts porn to the front page, and everyone in the thread says 'd00d i wanna cream her face!' it isn't sexist?
posted by shakespeherian at 4:40 PM on December 29, 2007


Wait wait, I just looked at her Flickr page- she keeps sets organized by how many favorites her pictures have? FAIL.

Bingo. Thank you. I've seen her work over the past year or so. The floating apple thing was cool but I find it difficult to get hipsterections over her arty narcissism. FAIL indeed.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 4:41 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


I recall chuckdarwin's earlier post about this, and I found it interesting as heck (despite, or perhaps because of the "shit is going down" tone)
like maxwelton suggests though, a post on this topic could be much better. The one on the front page now sadly sucks because what could have been an interesting copyright in the digital age (and what it means for your rights dear reader) discussion, will now turn into "sexy in photos" or "sexy female photographers" talk. Meh.
posted by dabitch at 4:47 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


It's sexist to reduce a good artist to mere tits and ass, yes.

I dunno. I understand that people shouldn't be valued only for looks and sexiness is more than appearance and all this 'hawt,' 'boobies' talk is bad for society and the children and will cirve your spine and stop the country from winning the war and all that happy horseshit...

BUT,

at the end of the day humans (male and female) are animals. We like looking at pretty pictures and our first mental reaction on seeing a beautiful person is to lust after it. All the other stuff is embroidery and self-justification, ultimately, and though they wont admit it publicly women do this as much as men and are just as looks fixated and superfical. Is this a bad thing or a good thing? Who the hell knows. Take it up with evolutionary biology.
posted by jonmc at 4:56 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


So if someone posts porn to the front page, and everyone in the thread says 'd00d i wanna cream her face!' it isn't sexist?

Um, isn't the primary function of porn the facilitation of sexual fantasy?
posted by jonmc at 4:57 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


In any event, it was on popular favorites on delicious today, so until/unless Metafilter is "Del.icio.us -- Distilled" it was pretty poor anyway. AND regardless of the photo being in an erotica group, it was OMG BOOBIES. Do a post on erotica on Flickr and include those photos, fine, but if this is about what happened to her, make it about what happened to her. Unless you think we should care about it because she's hot.
posted by Medieval Maven at 5:10 PM on December 29, 2007


Glad everyone enjoyed the holidays. Back to work, MeFi!
posted by absalom at 5:12 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


I think before we act hastily, we need to see pics of yoyo_nyc's boobies.
posted by chlorus at 5:12 PM on December 29, 2007


For heaven's sake, the issue isn't only whether she minds. I mind.

I don't. Other's don't.

Calling a woman hot may not be sexist; continually commenting on women's looks, as if it's always an important consideration when discussing women, is.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The original poster made one comment. Does he have a history of making such comments?

I'm tired of it. It makes me feel like shit.

Really not trying to be offensive her or insensitive here, but if such an innocent (though immature) comment makes a person feel like shit, isn't that the person's issue? Again, not trying to direct this at you personally, but the general you.

I understand that women can get frustrated with sexism and agree that they have every right to feel that way. I worry though when pretty much any and every instance of a guy commenting on a women's appearance is lumped together with all the other sexist shit out there. There are differences.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:14 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


Um, isn't the primary function of porn the facilitation of sexual fantasy?

...and therefore its reduction of women to objects isn't sexist?
posted by shakespeherian at 5:27 PM on December 29, 2007


There may be differences, sure, but when a picture of a girls talking is suddenly intentional softcore porn in people's eyes, yeah, this is a bit too much male gaze taking over. This isn't just about what comment is and is not appropriate. Think about it; if everything you did, every bit of art you tried to produce, every commentary you tried to make was turned into someone's wank fantasy, wouldn't you start to feel a little silenced? As if the only worthwhile statement is the part that gives someone a boner. It's dismissive and annoying, both the thoughtless comments and the constant misunderstanding of why it's dismissive and annoying.
posted by Hildegarde at 5:28 PM on December 29, 2007 [4 favorites]


Dismissive and annoying, and a gratuitous and stupid conclusion to the post. It's being lumped in with all the other sexist shit out there because it is the other sexist shit out there.
posted by goo at 5:31 PM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]


It was a fine post and you are just spitting sour grapes because your post was deleted. How lame.
posted by caddis at 5:40 PM on December 29, 2007


our first mental reaction on seeing a beautiful person is to lust after it... and though they wont admit it publicly women do this as much as men and are just as looks fixated and superficial.

Kindly refrain from speaking for me. Especially incorrectly.

but if such an innocent (though immature) comment makes a person feel like shit, isn't that the person's issue?

How about if it's MetaFilter's issue? This is a post about copyright. The appearance of the photographer, even if she is her own subject, is entirely irrelevant. And yet, the boys on the blue cannot fucking resist pointing out that OMG she has boobies.

It does not, to say the least, engender an environment where women are treated respectfully or as equals.
posted by DarlingBri at 5:40 PM on December 29, 2007 [6 favorites]


Um, isn't the primary function of porn the facilitation of sexual fantasy?

...and therefore its reduction of women to objects isn't sexist?


My point was that in porn (I'm not talking about the stuff in the FPP) pretty much everyone involved is a sex object. That's the function of porn.

Kindly refrain from speaking for me. Especially incorrectly.

I'm not 'speaking for you' but I've heard enough women drooling like schoolgirls over some new 'hot guy' who just got hired at work or some movie star stud to realize that women do this shit, too. That's just life. Like I said, at the end of the day, we're just animals, no matter how hard we try to deny it.
posted by jonmc at 5:46 PM on December 29, 2007


This is a post about copyright.

Sorry that you see it that way but this was just the hanger. The main purpose was to show her beautiful pics. I would not have posted this if I had not liked the art. I also would have posted very different if the posting had been focusing on copyright.
posted by yoyo_nyc at 5:49 PM on December 29, 2007


Like I said, at the end of the day, we're just animals, no matter how hard we try to deny it.

i've got a great idea - why doesn't someone start a new activist group - women against biology?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:03 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


she deserves better than a frat-boy masturbation post on the blue.

Chuck, you have to be a bit less rescuer here and a little more couldn't care less if you're going to win this womans heart.
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:05 PM on December 29, 2007


It sucks when the people who are wrong are proud to be wrong, and justify their wrongness with non-arguments ("deal with it") and elusive reductions ("we're all shitheads, so are you"). It's worse when key controversies are based on false dichotomies: "she's hot" and "she's ugly" are not opposites, and saying "she's hot" does not mean "she's pretty."

"She's hot" is a judgment of sexual attractiveness, and is thus the equivalent of saying "I would like to fuck her." Few men would describe their mothers or sisters as "hot" for this reason.

It should come as no surprise to anyone, assuming a very basic level of social ability, that many people would be offended to know that this photographer is someone they would like to fuck.
posted by breezeway at 6:07 PM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]


our first mental reaction on seeing a beautiful person is to lust after it... and though they wont admit it publicly women do this as much as men and are just as looks fixated and superficial.

This comment is based on a basic misunderstanding of the issue. Again. Women do this lusting as well, but here's what they don't do: when a man produces art, or makes music, or keeps a tech blog, or whatever, women may well have their moments of lusting, but they don't replace the voice of the man with their lust, making everything that man says, does, or produces about that lust. If anything, female lust only makes a man's original message or perspective louder (see George Clooney). This is less about whether or not you find this woman attractive in her pictures and more about how we as a community choose to react to women's work.

Additionally, just because there are boobs in a picture doesn't make it porn. We have boobs. They are a part of us. They are not part of you, and they are not presented solely to titillate you. Just because you're titillated doesn't make the picture about you and your titillation.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:09 PM on December 29, 2007 [11 favorites]


It makes me feel like shit.

ah, finally.

it really boils down to that, something makes somebody feel like shit in a site with 70,000 users. triggering a user's insecurities, or bad memories, or simply interfering with one's comfort zone is a mortal sin. after all, mathowie had the audacity, back when the site was free, to take a tiny Suicide Girls ad and all hell broke loose and he was yelled into retiring the ad -- it's all about individual comfort zones, after all. I mean, that's why the front page (of the basically irrelevant blue, since the most successful part of the site -- and, I assume, the moneymaker for the owner -- is AskMe anyway) is reduced to a silly list of recycled pablum and youtube music/cartoon link dumps -- god knows they're inoffensive, after all. that's what counts, they don't make people feel bad about themselves -- weblog as conversationsupport group..

For years it's been impossible to post about the overweight for the same reason -- "It makes me feel like shit", and mathowie had to deal with the emails of the easily offended. easier to kill the posts than to delete all the comments from the infidels who may point out that maybe, in some cases, not all, some, calorie intake and nutrition may be the root cause of obesity -- god forbid: over here, nutrition and body weight are blissfully unrelated -- the people have spoken.

Same for religion, it took what, 20 deletions before a post about Richard Dawkins made it unscathed and undeleted? Because hearing that the guy one prays at night might not exist, well, "It makes me feel like shit". so to hell with science if science is offensive.

The Disneyfied, G-rated MeFi's front page, on any given day now, is a bit of a joke, really. And the MeFi PC police -- so deliciously trigger happy with that "flag" button to better bully the admins into submission -- is especially guilty. It's important that the site does not offend anyone ever, no matter how delicate their comfort zone. Who cares if it sucks, really, as long as it's inoffensive.

One more thing: this is the Internet, where for better or worse the most searched item is something like "Lindsey Lohan blowing a horse": I'm actually surprised by how well behaved the contingent of childish "she's hot!!!" commenters is in this site -- god knows they're much more unruly in the comments sections of vastly more successful sites such as, YouTube or flickr. You want the Internet without some nerd somewhere ogling a cute woman's photo? (because after all these same guys are sadly lacking in real life interaction with attractive women and the Internet is their best -- only -- shot). good luck with that.

Me, I just hope that Google or Yahoo buy AskMe (and it's satellites) very soon -- Matt will get his well-deserved mountain of cash, and the PC police will write some very surly emails to Sergei Brin or something

Not that the post about the Icelandic photographer was particularly good -- boring postcard-like uninspired shots of fields and horses are cool if you think Anne Geddes is an artist, otherwise, not so much. And who cares about how the photographer looks? Possibly, a few jerkoffs. But without them, there'd be no internet. And certainly no IT departments. So what can you do.
posted by matteo at 6:10 PM on December 29, 2007 [20 favorites]


Only in the sense that people would be shocked, shocked, to find sexual attraction going on on the internets. LMAOROTFL.

Oh hai. Ize in yr photo site turnin u on.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:14 PM on December 29, 2007


You know, I'm just itching to find an excuse a hanger for a FPP about Will Smith - maybe something vaguely political or historical - so I can add in the totally irrelevant fact that the man is both hot and uncircumcised. Then we can all talk about cocks for a change, perhaps over tea and sanitary towels.

yoyo_nyc, the next time you intend to make a post that isn't about copyright, I suggest you construct it in such a way that 52 of the 86 words are, in fact, not about copyright. Then you can protest with much more righteous indignation.
posted by DarlingBri at 6:14 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


at the end of the day, we're just animals, no matter how hard we try to deny it.

Hey, I'm an animal right from the beginning of the day, y'know what I'm saying? Roowwwwrrr!!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:17 PM on December 29, 2007


You know, I'm just itching to find an excuse a hanger for a FPP about Will Smith - maybe something vaguely political or historical - so I can add in the totally irrelevant fact that the man is both hot and uncircumcised. Then we can all talk about cocks for a change, perhaps over tea and sanitary towels.

knock yourself out.
posted by jonmc at 6:20 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


Y'know, I'll just never get used to how much drama mere boobies can inspire.

Not a Homer fan, then?

D'oh!
posted by spiderwire at 6:21 PM on December 29, 2007


As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler fat people approaches one.

What's the name of this law, anyway? Surely there is one by now.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:21 PM on December 29, 2007


Oh, for fuck's sake Matteo, it's not about being fucking PC. Not that I would expect you to understand it, but it doesn't fucking matter if it makes one person feel like shit -- it matters because the way the post is structured, supposedly it lends weight to her Flickr issues that she is HAWT, which should have nothing to do with it. The poster did something stupid, appended a bad post with a worse summary of "I would hit that," and that's supposed to be a-OK? Somehow pointing out that the whole thing is stupid and also, FWIW pointlessly showcasing the user's apparent desire to nail this girl, is a bad call out? Whatever. After DarlingBri does her post about Will Smith, I'll do one about the music of Maroon5 and, oh, btw, how much I'd love to shag the shit out of Adam Levine.
posted by Medieval Maven at 6:22 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


Am I wrong in thinking that one can say "BTW, she's hot" and not mean to be sexist, but saying that lacks class and respect and that is what we should be aiming at? A level of discourse where an offhand comment about someone being attractive (and I hate to break it to you guys, but some people have awesome secondary sexual characteristics) is taken to be just that, offhand and not intended to objectify or demean. The only way to realize that level of discourse is to very intentionally be respectful, to refrain from blurting something about how cute the subject is in a post about intellectual property and social capital and what have you... YOU CAN DO IT.

I mean, I am certainly an animal, but I'm an animal with manners, APE WILL NOT OBJECTIFY APE and so on.

I'd love to go to Iceland one day, it seems like such a singular place.
posted by Divine_Wino at 6:22 PM on December 29, 2007 [4 favorites]


Shit post, boring photos, tacked on Beavis-ism.
posted by klangklangston at 6:27 PM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]


It's not about intentions. If a person doesn't understand this essential demeaning tendency that's built in to the way he interacts with women (online or off) by saying the kinds of things that were said in that post, intentionality doesn't enter into it. Take the time to unlearn some of the bullshit in your head that allows you to think that it's appropriate to add something like that as an offhand comment in a forum like this, that would be respectful. (I hope to god these same people don't have the balls to say things like that to women's faces!)

But as an offhand comment, Divine_Wino, every time you post I imagine jonmc giving it to you up the ass, doggie-style. So hawt! I particularly enjoy it when he gives you the reach around. I mean that in the most respectful way.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:36 PM on December 29, 2007


that's hot.
posted by Stynxno at 6:38 PM on December 29, 2007


i have to wank furiously now
posted by pyramid termite at 6:40 PM on December 29, 2007


Wow, you totally misread my comment in a supercrazy way, Hidegarde, but you're right, Jonnie is always a gentleman about giving a brother a hand.
posted by Divine_Wino at 6:40 PM on December 29, 2007 [5 favorites]


Oh, if only she were an ugly girl so she could be properly judged for her art as any man. Alas.
But then would people have been as hot on stealing her photos? Hmmm.


Not to pick on miss lynnster (your points are always well-taken), or to denigrate the photographer, but I happened to open the flickr-stream and then the "1, 2, 3" pictures in tabs, looked at the flickr page, then at the "hot" pictures, said "meh," and went back to the flickr stream. Sure, she's pretty. Lucky her. But those photos are awesome. Therefore this post is awesome. I'm still not sure why the bit at the end, after the jump, detracts from that awesomeness.

Am I allowed to make a crack about chuckdarwin getting the vapors, or will that be flagged as sexist? I recently learned from MeTa that the phrase is apparently verboten, which confused me, since I've always used it to refer to faux-outrage.

I would also like to call out:

1. The FPP as being temporalist, because it's out of date and therefore discriminatory against current events.

2. The multitude of posters in this thread and other recent threads making unfair and demeaning generalizations about fraternity members, many of whom go on to become valued members of the community. They also provide a crucial target for high-minded derision and an important natural resource for domestic strawman production.

3. The unacceptable -- not to mention hypocritical -- whinism on display here and throughout the gray, which has been rampant for years with nary a peep of reprobation.

MetaFilter has always been a bastion of hope for pissing and moaning and this high-falutin' dismissal of our right to complain incessantly and pointlessly is a black mark on the site's record.

I demand that it stop, right now. I will continue to stamp my foot petulantly until action is taken or I am appeased.
posted by spiderwire at 6:41 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


But as an offhand comment, Divine_Wino, every time you post I imagine jonmc giving it to you up the ass, doggie-style. So hawt! I particularly enjoy it when he gives you the reach around. I mean that in the most respectful way.

The Wino would be the top in this relationship, obviously.

I'm not a crusader in the gender wars, I just have a strong distate for pieties, anybody's pieties.
posted by jonmc at 6:41 PM on December 29, 2007

"MeFi can rightfully brag of being saved from pointlessness by a splendid, long list of ultracool ladies. as one of the most assholish male users here -- and God do I have a lot of competition thanks to my fellow male MeFites -- I am constantly awed by their brains and their luminous humanity, and I am very grateful for their presence here." [linky]
I knew where to find that comment matteo because I actually save things in my favourites that I want to keep; in this case because I thought you well articulated what I was thinking. I don't care whether you call it PC or anti-sexism or nerragundah or bob, but promoting an environment where we get more of this luminous humanity is worth pursuing, seems to me.
posted by peacay at 6:42 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


(my ultimate point was just that people of both genders are always going to notice and comment on people's appearances, because that's the way people are. whether it's good or bad dosen't really enter into it. I try not to get agonized over things I can't do anything about)
posted by jonmc at 6:43 PM on December 29, 2007


Matteo, are you actually arguing that mefi comments should be more like youtube or flickr comments? You hope mefi changes ownership so that it can become more like those sites? Really?
posted by ryanrs at 6:43 PM on December 29, 2007


I should add that I'm drinking some of this Zappa inspired beer right now, I just like the idea of answering 'Whaddaya drinking?' with 'Lumpy Gravy, dude.'

But I digress. This is obviously a variation on the old saw about people rising above their base urges. To which I say, why? Self-improvemet is a sham. Self-acceptance is the truly mature path.
posted by jonmc at 6:51 PM on December 29, 2007


but promoting an environment where we get more of this luminous humanity is worth pursuing, seems to me.

Paternalism!

Anthropocentrism!

Content-ist!
posted by spiderwire at 6:51 PM on December 29, 2007


You asked if it was enough just to have good intentions, Wino. And I answered. No. It's not enough. Most people have good intentions but don't seem to have any perspective on the implications of their actions. One also needs to at least try to get a grip on that part of the equation. I fail to see how that's supercrazy, unless by "supercrazy" you mean requires some effort. Then yes, it IS supercrazy.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:51 PM on December 29, 2007


my ultimate point was just that people of both genders are always going to notice and comment on people's appearances, because that's the way people are.

jonmc, I really suggest you take a good look at how often women are posting these kinds of comments about men (or other women, for that matter) on MeFi. Because while I see you saying "everybody does it" I'm not seeing a subset of "everyone" that possesses vaginas engaging in this kind of locker room behaviour here.
posted by DarlingBri at 6:53 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


luminous humanity

Oh, and incandescentist too! The Umbral Rights League will hear of this! For shame!

You're also being insensitive to those who suffer from synesthesia. They find the smell of your terminology offensive.

And this entire thread privileges the literate. Fortunately, though, this is the internet, so we don't have many of their kind around here. And good riddance, I say.
posted by spiderwire at 6:56 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


Because while I see you saying "everybody does it" I'm not seeing a subset of "everyone" that possesses vaginas engaging in this kind of locker room behaviour here.

what about hildegarde's hot fantasies about divine wino and jonmc?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:57 PM on December 29, 2007


I'm upset to see such a crass post, yes (especially when mine was better

Better? How? OK, now this shows the crassness of your MeTa post.
posted by caddis at 6:57 PM on December 29, 2007


DarlingBri, go to Mecha and search the word 'Clooney.' Hang out at places I've worked. Plenty of women are glad to talk about men as sex objects. and you know what? I don't really care, because I realize that that's the way people are built, we have libidos, we think about fucking people. Rather a lot. If I see a pretty girl, I think about fucking her. If I meet a smart girl, I think about fucking her, If I meet a funny girl, I think about fucking her. It's the way my genes were programmed. And plenty of women were programmed that way, too. and that's fine.
posted by jonmc at 6:58 PM on December 29, 2007


That was an attempt to turn the tables, man. I just threw you into their orgy, you with your gifted fingers.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:59 PM on December 29, 2007


NOTE: Those of you unaware of the sexism meta threads from November, please see Discussion-Point and Changes-to-make-Metafilter-more-woman-friendly. Both threads survived 1000+ comments without descending into jokey bullshit. Take that as a sign that more than a few members think sexism on mefi is a serious problem.]
posted by ryanrs at 6:59 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


But jonmc, they don't do that here. Kindly return the favor.
posted by ryanrs at 7:01 PM on December 29, 2007


I just threw you into their orgy, you with your gifted fingers.

Is he dressed in a police uniform at least?
posted by jonmc at 7:02 PM on December 29, 2007


Hildergarde: That was an attempt to turn the tables, man. I just threw you into their orgy, you with your gifted fingers.

Digitalist!

jonmc: If I see a pretty girl, I think about fucking her. If I meet a smart girl, I think about fucking her, If I meet a funny girl, I think about fucking her.

Perv.
posted by spiderwire at 7:02 PM on December 29, 2007


That was an attempt to turn the tables, man.

in all seriousness, you should make sure the table's strong enough to hold all that doggie lovin' weight
posted by pyramid termite at 7:04 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


I should add that I'm drinking some of this Zappa inspired beer right now, I just like the idea of answering 'Whaddaya drinking?' with 'Lumpy Gravy, dude.'

Libationist! (This, you must admit, it completely true.)

But I digress. This is obviously a variation on the old saw about people rising above their base urges.

Primitivist!

To which I say, why?

Relativist!

Self-improveme[n]t is a sham.

Ambitionist!

Self-acceptance is the truly mature[...]

Ageist!

[...] path.

Cartographist!
posted by spiderwire at 7:06 PM on December 29, 2007


it completely true

Oh, and all you typo-haters can stop right there.
posted by spiderwire at 7:07 PM on December 29, 2007


you're an istist, spiderwire - shame on you!
posted by pyramid termite at 7:08 PM on December 29, 2007


you know, having seen chuckdarwin's old post on the photog that someone thankfully linked to here, I'm seeing his side of this issue less and less. His original post from months ago was a serious piece of shit made even worse by how very very sincere he was in his advacy of an issue that had already been resolved. The new post was largely fine with one giant fucking stinkbomb of a last line.

But here's the thing: chuckdarwin knows the photog? huh. well, the mods know best but at this point I'm more than a little surprised that he wasn't banned in the first place. I mean, he's a good dude and shit, but if I posted a newspaper article about MY friends to mefi I'd pretty much expect a swift and merciless bannination. To then go and bitch about someone else getting away with a better post on a topic he could have been banned for posting about in the first place is really just incredibly tactless.
posted by shmegegge at 7:08 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


(I hope to god these same people don't have the balls to say things like that to women's faces!)

Many do. The tragedy is that, all too often, they get to keep them afterwards.
posted by spiderwire at 7:11 PM on December 29, 2007


Hildegarde, really, re-read what I wrote and perhaps in general offer an apology for attacking my nonexistent sexism with some really crude homophobia. Did you leave your account logged in where a reasonably articulate and possibly concussed bigot could get a few minutes with it?

I said very clearly that the problem with the post in the FPP was that it was disrespectful, that the poster was possibly (I don't want to assume) not aware that saying the subject of the post was "hot" was demeaning to her and to women in general and therefore a bad thing to do. In an ideal world we could shrug off someone saying "oh yeah, also that person is cute" and accept it as an offhand comment, but we don't live in that world, so rather than argue that any kind of discussing of physical attractiveness is sexism, we should approach that matter as an issue of being respectful and having class so that people who instinctively argue that saying someone is good looking cannot possibly be sexist are countered with the point that their defense doesn't matter, what matters is not making people feel uncomfortable.

Instead you had a tremendous brainfart and decided that what I said (which FUCKING INCLUDED A DISAGREEMENT WITH JONMC, who is my beloved friend, who I disagree with often and still consider my beloved friend) was worthy of some kind of crazy comment about him sodomizing me, as if that was a punishment for me being sexist. You associate me with Jonmc (which is fine, we are good friends), so you seem to have some notion of my comment history here, but you also assume that I have a history as an apologist for sexist comments, when in fact I have the exact opposite comment history. So yes, you were being really crazy and I resent your implications extremely.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:12 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


you're an istist, spiderwire - shame on you!

In the immortal words of Ferris Bueller, "A man should not believe in an ism. He should believe in himself."
posted by spiderwire at 7:12 PM on December 29, 2007


If I see a pretty girl, I think about fucking her. If I meet a smart girl, I think about fucking her, If I meet a funny girl, I think about fucking her.

And when I listen to guys over and over again telling me and everyone who they like to fuck (and how I may or may not measure up to those standards -- hey I'm smart and funny, maybe jonmc wants to fuck me! what if I don't want to fuck jonmc? am I just denying my animalistic nature?) I get tired of it. Just because something flashes through your mind doesn't mean it always makes decent conversation in mixed, or any, company.

D_W, I got your joke.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:13 PM on December 29, 2007 [9 favorites]


NOTE: Those of you unaware of the sexism meta threads from November, please see Discussion-Point [mefi] and Changes-to-make-Metafilter-more-woman-friendly [mefi]. Both threads survived 1000+ comments without descending into jokey bullshit. Take that as a sign that more than a few members think sexism on mefi is a serious problem.]

There by the grace of God go I. I can't believe I missed these, or at least, I can now believe why a stupid comment about her being hot (and there are a lot of stupid comments), is such a contentious issue.
posted by geoff. at 7:15 PM on December 29, 2007


This post reminded me of an old joke:

What did the man say when he saw a penis chasing a vagina?

"Just one fucking thing after another."
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:15 PM on December 29, 2007


Thanks Jess.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:16 PM on December 29, 2007


What's homophobic about my erotic fantasy? Did I offend you by thrusting you into a sexual situation without your consent?

Gosh, that would be unthinkable.
posted by Hildegarde at 7:18 PM on December 29, 2007


This is probably a good time to mention that I've always appreciated your declaration of entomological solidarity in your choice of username, pyramid termite (assuming you're open-minded about arachnid rights), though I do sometimes worry that we might be perceived as anti-vertebrate. You know, before we have the chance to execute The Plan. Wink, wink.
posted by spiderwire at 7:18 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


jonmc, I ran a porn site for women for five years. I'm perfectly aware of women's sexual drives, of the function of pornography, and the relationship women have with oogling men. I've certainly never denied any of that; in fact, I spent quite a lot of my life encouraging women to enjoy how normal that is. And yet, one thing confounds me.

In an environment that was by definition sexualised, on the attached discussion boards women were able to discuss news, politics, art, history and current events without touching upon which artists, politicians, or pundits anyone might want to fuck. Like, ever. On MeFi, which does not, the last time I checked, promote itself as a porn site, we are apparently unable to have a discussion about a woman's copyright being breeched without comments about how fuckable she is. Like, ever.

Perhaps with your enormous insight and my limited understanding, you can explain this difference to me.
posted by DarlingBri at 7:19 PM on December 29, 2007 [4 favorites]


Because while I see you saying "everybody does it" I'm not seeing a subset of "everyone" that possesses vaginas engaging in this kind of locker room behaviour here.

But jonmc, [women] don't do [lustful ogling / "he's hot"] here. Kindly return the favor.

Why is Justin Timberlake so hottttttt?

They may do it less, or a lot less, but it happens. And that's not to justify anything; it's just a caution against speaking in absolutes.
posted by CKmtl at 7:19 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


I can't believe I missed these.

Yeah, Matt really should have put those threads in the sidebar.
posted by ryanrs at 7:22 PM on December 29, 2007


Just because something flashes through your mind doesn't mean it always makes decent conversation in mixed, or any, company.

Yes, but by the same token somebody making a minor ettiqutte slipup about such things, dosen't make them the sexist ogre neanderthal. (I know, nobody called me a sexits ogre neanderthal, but saying anything that deviates from currently accepted opinion in threads like this will get you branded one anyway). What I'm saying is that constant scolding about this kind of stuff is not working. and I think it's because a lot of us have a rather visceral reaction to being told what we can and cannot say or do or whatever. so any discussion about this kind of stuff is going to have to require two-way liustening not just scolding and indoctrination.

also, Wino, my brother by another mother, Hildegarde's OK, she's just having some fun at our expense I think.
posted by jonmc at 7:22 PM on December 29, 2007


I can add in the totally irrelevant fact that the man is both hot and uncircumcised.

I assume he is hot despite having an animal penis.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:23 PM on December 29, 2007


Did I offend you by thrusting you

heh, heh, heh - she said thrusting, beavis
posted by pyramid termite at 7:24 PM on December 29, 2007


DarlingBri, I'd actually say that maybe a function of the institutionalized sexism of women being told to be 'appropriate,' or something.

Serioulsy, I'm amazed that any of you fucking people take any fucking thing I say seriously. We're a bunch of dorks on a website. Relax.
posted by jonmc at 7:24 PM on December 29, 2007


There's a testimonial written by chuckdarwin on the photog's profile page at flickr, but I don't believe that he meant he knows her personally. At least, I didn't get that impression from his "I know her a bit" comment.
posted by iconomy at 7:26 PM on December 29, 2007


also, Wino, my brother by another mother, Hildegarde's OK, she's just having some fun at our expense I think.

Hmm, well that's fairly low end and shitty. I don't care for it.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:31 PM on December 29, 2007


These threads have all devolved into who has the highest granularity of indignance.

Reminds me of my favorite Emo Phillips joke:
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

He said, "Christian."

I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

He said, "Baptist Church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed
Baptist Church of God?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879,
or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.
In other words, a lot of baiting ("but fuckin' is just nat'ral") and redirected outrage ("this makes me angry and I hate you -- I mean, you sexist!").

Y'all should give it a rest. As a general rule, if the callout is primarily about subtext rather than substance, the old "flag it and move on" maxim probably applies. We haven't been saying that enough lately.

Flag it and move on. That is all.
posted by spiderwire at 7:31 PM on December 29, 2007


I, for one, am quite relaxed, but constantly perplexed by this behaviour. It's like clockwork. If I sexualize and objectify men in a way they find unpleasant (see above), I universally get this kind of deeply offended reaction; of course these reactions make my point for me. This is what it's like when the "I'd hit it" comments come pouring in, as jessamyn pointed out above. You think it's harmless when you do it (you have such good intentions!) but are horrified and demand apologies when the tables are turned.
posted by Hildegarde at 7:31 PM on December 29, 2007


Although also very funny. Hildegarde if you were taking the piss I say thank you and fuck you, good work.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:33 PM on December 29, 2007


Self-improvemet is a sham is a sham.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:34 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


You think it's harmless when you do it (you have such good intentions!) but are horrified and demand apologies when the tables are turned.

i have news for you - you're utterly and irredeemably harmless, no matter how smutty and offensive you want to be

give it up - you just don't have it
posted by pyramid termite at 7:35 PM on December 29, 2007


*curtsies*

And for the record, I really do think the boy on boy action is hot. But in future I'll keep my lusty fantasies to myself.
posted by Hildegarde at 7:36 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


jonmc, you acknowledge institutionalized sexism in one sentence, then dismiss criticism of such in the next.
posted by ryanrs at 7:36 PM on December 29, 2007


It's sexist to reduce a good artist to mere tits and ass, yes.

I think Julian Schnabel would call that 'marketing'. It's above board. Anything that sells art is a good thing.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:39 PM on December 29, 2007


And for the record, I really do think the boy on boy action is hot.

that's because you're not participating

But in future I'll keep my lusty fantasies to myself.

good - it's friday night and 10.45 is way too damned early to fall asleep reading
posted by pyramid termite at 7:40 PM on December 29, 2007


good - it's friday night and 10.45 is way too damned early to fall asleep reading

...it's friday night?

[puzzles about the international date line]
posted by spiderwire at 7:42 PM on December 29, 2007


Wow, someone's got his panties in a knot over this. I guess we hit some sort of nerve.
posted by Hildegarde at 7:42 PM on December 29, 2007


...it's friday night?

yes - it only seems like we've been discussing this with hildegarde for half the weekend
posted by pyramid termite at 7:45 PM on December 29, 2007


Hmm, well that's fairly low end and shitty. I don't care for it.

I have fun at other people's expense all the time, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't allow them to do the same to me.

ryanrs: I'm more approaching a tangential issue about 'appropriateness' which is kind o a stranglehold on discussions of sexual matters.

and Hildy, fwiw, I found the whole thing amusing

Self-improvemet is a sham is a sham.


No, I disagree. Striving for some ideal is foolish and leads to frustration. At a certain point, I looked at myself and aid: self, you are a man of mediocre appearance, mediocrte intellect, you talk too much, you drink too much, you smoke too much, you're lazy, you're argumetative, you have questionable taste according to most people etc. etc...but that's who you are, warts and all. To be nything else would be a denial. and being dishonest about what you think or feel is a far worse crime than offending someone.
posted by jonmc at 7:45 PM on December 29, 2007


He could have just meant that you misspelled "self-improvement."
posted by spiderwire at 7:47 PM on December 29, 2007


Also, it ain't Friday night.
posted by spiderwire at 7:49 PM on December 29, 2007


I have fun at other people's expense all the time, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't allow them to do the same to me.

Sure, I'm the shit talker of the world, but not with people I don't know. I resent it.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:50 PM on December 29, 2007


It's not, and I somehow thought we'd settled that awhile back. Depressing to have to fight these battles over and over for the very first time.
posted by languagehat


Settled it? With a metatalk thread and the added 'sexism' flag? It might make us feel better. It solved very little.
posted by justgary at 7:54 PM on December 29, 2007


Also, it ain't Friday night.

no, it's tuesday weld
posted by pyramid termite at 7:54 PM on December 29, 2007


Sure, I'm the shit talker of the world, but not with people I don't know. I resent it.

I understand what you're saying, but we kind of know eachother here, in some sense. so I didn't take what she said as a personal attack, just some humor with an attempt to make a point.

(also, the fucking Pats are beating the Giants, damiit)
posted by jonmc at 7:56 PM on December 29, 2007


(also, the fucking Pats are beating the Giants, damiit)

stop the fucking presses
posted by spiderwire at 7:57 PM on December 29, 2007


If I sexualize and objectify men in a way they find unpleasant (see above), I universally get this kind of deeply offended reaction;

You may sexualize and objectify me in any way you like, and I assure you I won't be offended in the slightest. Snowballing dios while getting ramrodded by stavros in the chicken suit? Baby I am oiled up, hot, and ready to go.


*Consenting-adult fantasies only, please.
posted by Ryvar at 8:03 PM on December 29, 2007


Y'know, At this point I honestly don't care who you're trying to sexually objectify. You're just plain ickin' me out.
posted by miss lynnster at 8:06 PM on December 29, 2007


I absolutely presumed you'd take it with grace and humour, jonmc, as that's the sort of guy you are. Perhaps Mr. Wino's resentment will help him understand why the women of the internet get a bit fed up from time to time, and why this comic strikes a chord.
posted by Hildegarde at 8:06 PM on December 29, 2007


Hildegarde, what's with the crappy personal-attacks? And, I really don't get the incredibly hostile response to a suggestion that people just refrain from blurting out who they want to fuck. But if it offended you, discuss it, don't do the weird "I bet you have sex with someone else I hate" garbage.

As for the post, I don't really get it, either; if it's not about the copyright, and it's not about the boobies, then it must be about the photography, but I suspect that a post that was "Hey, look at this Flickr person's photo stream!" would be deleted... so. Odd.
posted by taz at 8:06 PM on December 29, 2007


Striving for some ideal is foolish and leads to frustration.

Striving foolishly for unattainable ideals, maybe. Striving to improve the things about yourself that you'd like to improve and can conceivably make progress on is hardly foolish. Granted, if the pain involved in the self-improvement exceeds the pain involved in being unhappy with the status-quo, making the economical choice is understandable; but being okay with yourself in general doesn't obviate the value of trying to be better about the things you wish you could be better about.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:06 PM on December 29, 2007


"Snowballing dios while getting ramrodded by stavros in the chicken suit?"

It's a chicken suit?

How disappointing.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:06 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: snowballing dios while getting ramrodded by stavros in the chicken suit
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:07 PM on December 29, 2007


Snowballing dios while getting ramrodded by stavros in the chicken suit?

I thought "fantasies" implied "fictional."
posted by spiderwire at 8:08 PM on December 29, 2007


Not at all. Next time we do it, we break out the horseradish!
posted by Ryvar at 8:09 PM on December 29, 2007


Toy Story 2:

Buzz Lightyear: "Hey Etch, draw that man in a chicken suit!"
Rex: "Aaaaagh! It's the chicken man!"
Hamm: "I knew there was something about that chicken I didn't like."
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:12 PM on December 29, 2007


Hildegarde, what's with the crappy personal-attacks? And, I really don't get the incredibly hostile response to a suggestion that people just refrain from blurting out who they want to fuck. But if it offended you, discuss it, don't do the weird "I bet you have sex with someone else I hate" garbage.

Okay, why is that a personal attack? Why is it a personal attack for me to express a fantasy when it's not offensive at all for men to express a desire to have sex with the subject of a post, or particularly mefi posters, etc? And why do you find it incredibly hostile? I'm not hostile, I'm trying to make a point; random women on the internet don't want to be your fantasy sex slaves any more than you want to take part in my little fantasy fictions. Expressing them is crude and makes people uncomfortable, yes? That's my whole point. We're so at ease with all the "I'd hit it" and "ooo boobies" that it doesn't seem as crude to you, I presume. But it's just as crude for women to be constantly sexualized in this way as it is when it happens to you.

I don't hate jonmc or divine wino, I picked them entirely randomly (though I know jonmc is good humoured and would understand my point). Can you not see the comparison I'm making? Can you not squint a little and see that I'm just turning the tables for a half-second?
posted by Hildegarde at 8:15 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


Who says it's not offensive for men to do that? Not me, and not Divine_Wino. What's your purpose for attacking him?

We're so at ease with all the "I'd hit it" and "ooo boobies" that it doesn't seem as crude to you, I presume.

Your presumptions are wrong. And the comparison you're making is not the least bit subtle, so yes, I can see it. Why do you choose someone who hasn't shown any of that behavior and has argued against it to practice your omg-the-shock!-comparison on?
posted by taz at 8:23 PM on December 29, 2007


Um, so Hildegarde, D_W, and jonmc all have said "it's fine, that was funny," but now you're freaking out at taz for being offended on behalf of whoever was being insulted, which at this point, who knows. Is that about right?

This is ridiculous. As an ardent rationalist I demand an immediate apology.
posted by spiderwire at 8:24 PM on December 29, 2007


I absolutely presumed you'd take it with grace and humour, jonmc, as that's the sort of guy you are.

Well, then if you respect the sort of guy I are: the Wino is one of the finest human beings I've ever know and he consistently humbles me as a writer and as a human being, but he has his quirks about human relations. So I'll vouch for his good intentions (and whatever else) with everyuthing I've got.
posted by jonmc at 8:26 PM on December 29, 2007


jonmc is a cock
posted by spiderwire at 8:29 PM on December 29, 2007


I don't hate jonmc or divine wino, I picked them entirely randomly

just like a purposeless idiot

Can you not squint a little and see that I'm just turning the tables for a half-second?

you're embarrassing yourself - really - it was just plain dumb and the more you defend it, the dumber it looks
posted by pyramid termite at 8:31 PM on December 29, 2007


Oh, God. The extra comment about the photographer's hotness was dumb and unnecessary. Otherwise, the FPP was fine-ish. (Dead legal issue, nice enough but overrated photos. My life is neither greatly enhanced or degraded by it.)

Hildegarde, while I can understand your desire to make a rather blunt case about how it feels to be objectified, Divine_Wino was deeply uncomfortable with being targeted from the start of this, and has been repeatedly clear about letting you know that he feels you overstepped. If I had someone make a similar highly sexualized comment about me here, especially if we were largely in agreement on the original issue, I'd be pretty pissed, too. People's personal boundaries vary, right?

Can you not see that one of the people you picked randomly was really uncomfortable with this? Is it so hard to just apologize and move on?
posted by maudlin at 8:32 PM on December 29, 2007


(my ultimate point was just that people of both genders are always going to notice and comment on people's appearances, because that's the way people are. whether it's good or bad dosen't really enter into it. I try not to get agonized over things I can't do anything about)

Noticing is natural and inevitable. Commenting, on the other hand, requires the intervention of all sorts of higher brain functions. If you have no higher brain functions, may I suggest Fark as your daily web destination?

Thanks.
posted by tkolar at 8:32 PM on December 29, 2007


*Buys a round. Of pitchforks.*

No? Gasoline. I have gasoline.
posted by heyho at 8:33 PM on December 29, 2007


You know, I'm glad we can all agree that random sexual comments online, even made playfully, can constitute an "attack". That seems like good progress to me.

Anyway, jonmc, I don't think any bad thoughts about wino at all. It was a completely random choice of names. Your names were just in front of my eyes at the time. I was not trying to offend, and I'm sorry if you're deeply hurt by my comments. They were only meant to be playful and to make a point.
posted by Hildegarde at 8:34 PM on December 29, 2007


sorry, "cock" is sexist and also discriminates against poultry, i meant jonmc is an asshole

see, we'll all be fine if we just confine ourselves to poop-jokes, and not anything to do with gender, ever, and henceforth the level of discourse will be raised
posted by spiderwire at 8:34 PM on December 29, 2007


jonmc is an asshole

of course I am. so are you, so's everyone here. life is nothing but a journey of discovery n finding out just what kind of asshole you are.
posted by jonmc at 8:41 PM on December 29, 2007


I was just watching a Mel Brooks movie on cable, and I realized that when he dies, I'm really going to miss that crazy bastard and I realized that on several different levels me, the Wino and Hildegarde are all tuned in to the same station Mel was on, where we can mock eachothers pieties mercilessly and still retain some compassion for eachother and eachother's essential humainty. Just keep that in mind.
posted by jonmc at 8:47 PM on December 29, 2007


I'm not deeply hurt, really, if I was interested in being buggered Jonmc would be a fine candidate for the pitcher, I'm just annoyed that in a place where I've been posting for five years and have many friends, both male and female, some fucking idiot who can't think four tiny steps in a logical direction can impugn my reputation as someone who might be profane and irreverent, but is never disrespectful to a whole class of people and makes a point of that, and just goes off on a weird tangent where they repeatedly insist that I said something I didn't. Such is life, we should all be to shrug off the slings and arrows of outrageous dipshits, but sometimes things stick in our craw. I thank Taz and everyone else who knows me, for sticking up for me, it means a lot. Hildegarde, you're wack and it's all your fault.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:48 PM on December 29, 2007


jon, i agree with you completely and would like to apologize profusely to you and everyone else here who might have been offended at my statement, and to give thanks for the fact that in this holiday season we can all celebrate the fact that we are assholes and engage in mutual discovery of our assholes without anyone being offended, ever. also i love you with whatever degree of platonicism makes you feel optimally comfortable, and also by that i mean love in the mystical sense and not in the discriminatory sexy sense that might make you feel objectified as an object of desire and also potentially impugn our manhood and thereby potentially offend those who feel that we should be less defensive about our manhoods. also i was not trying to mock you by calling you names, i was merely making a point about the double-standard for derogatory anatomical insults, and you were merely a convenient target and i knew it was ok to insult you because you're thick-skinned about it and it's ok to insult people if they appear not to care about it. although as a Titans fan i still feel no sympathy for the fact that your football American Football team is going to the playoffs already, win or lose, despite my mutual non-denominational hatred for the Patriots, which i don't think will offend anybody and if it does then i don't care because they suck.
posted by spiderwire at 8:52 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


yet again, apparently everyone needs a hug.
posted by miss lynnster at 8:53 PM on December 29, 2007


It's okay, I'm being properly punished. I got cancer for christmas. Maybe I'm being harsher than I think I'm being. So, sorry for that, I didn't mean to actually direct anything to you personally. It's just this weird argument we've gotten into a million times since I've been around metafilter and I've never managed to find a way to express why "I'd hit it" comments are offensive. It all just keeps getting shrugged off as being PC or women being over-sensitive. It builds up after a while.
posted by Hildegarde at 8:54 PM on December 29, 2007


if I was interested in being buggered Jonmc would be a fine candidate for the pitcher,

*practices knuckleball*

Wino, my friend, Hildegarde is more orthodox about this kind of stuff than is either of our taste, but I've made fun of her here a time or two and I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't allow her to do the same. And as you well know, I am a strict fundamentalist when it comes to freedom of speech. And I've decided that she's more or less one of the good guys and you know that once I decide that I'll walk in front of a bus for someone.

also, pips says hello and she misses you and that you've gotta like somebody named hildegarde.
posted by jonmc at 8:55 PM on December 29, 2007


[Disk Full]
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:00 PM on December 29, 2007


I've never managed to find a way to express why "I'd hit it" comments are offensive. It all just keeps getting shrugged off as being PC or women being over-sensitive. It builds up after a while.

I don't neccessarily disagree with you there. Like a lot of people, I've spent a long time trying to balance my ideals of 'everybody should be respected' with my innate distaste for schoolmarmish finger-wagging and puritanism and like a lot of people, I'll make my missteps along the way. And Divine Wino has been far more graceful than me in most discussions on these type of topics, so if he's offended, chalk it up as a personal quirk, sinc ehe is a man worthy of respect, especially if all that respect reuqires is observance of minor quirks.

and I'll repeat my oft stated theory that a lot of the conflict in these stuations comes from a mis-estimation of how 'familiar' we are with eachother. If the 'I'd hit it' guy in question was a guy you knew well and liked, you'd probably just roll your eyes and say 'he's just being whatever' because you know his hearts in the right place. And some of us prolific posters (amybe inaccurately) figure that people who know us via MeFi might do the same. But maybe that's an imprudent assumption, but I don't know that I'd want to overcorrect into dinner-party level banality.
posted by jonmc at 9:01 PM on December 29, 2007


[Disk Full]

Quick, think of a witty Ethereal Bligh joke!


We miss you EB, come back and get some hugs
posted by spiderwire at 9:02 PM on December 29, 2007


It's okay, I'm being properly punished. I got cancer for christmas.

I'm very sorry to hear that.

I have a question, though - if you have cancer, what in fuck's name are you spending a perfectly great Saturday evening over two hundred comments deep in a MetaTalk sexism thread? Damnit, go skydiving! Leave this tepid shit for those of us who have the luxury of zero perspective!
posted by Ryvar at 9:04 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


I got cancer for christmas

Seriously? Get better and if you're ever in the apple, I'll buy you a beer.
posted by jonmc at 9:07 PM on December 29, 2007


Why is EB's account disabled?

And it's too cold out for skydiving. I just want to stay home, curl up on the chaise lounge and read a book. But then the internet rears its head and...

Well, it's a nice distraction, isn't it!

Anyway, it's only thyroid cancer, it's not going to kill me. So the surgeon tells me. So I've really just got cancer junior and I'm being all histrionic about it. Just enough to piss off people on the internet, not enough to go skydiving. ;)
posted by Hildegarde at 9:14 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


Anyway, it's only thyroid cancer, it's not going to kill me.

Oh. My mom had that. She told me about it on the phone like she was telling me he had the flu, but that's my momma, as a wise man once said.

EB disabled his account himslef. I miss the crazy bastard. He was aguest at my wedding and even tolerated being summoned to our hotel room by me, pips and two other drunkassed mefites with style and aplomb.
posted by jonmc at 9:17 PM on December 29, 2007


The difference that you're failing to grasp, Hildegarde, is the direction of your comments. DW was offended because you aimed a comment at him. You were offended because the FPP aimed a comment at someone else.

The problem with "Oh, noes - sexism!" comments on Meta seems to be that women don't want sexual equality - they want men to act like women. All of the "we don't do it, so you shouldn't" seems to ignore the fact that one of the things that makes the world go around is that we're different animals, men and women. Of course, when women do do it, men just go "wow, that's hot!" and women get offended: "Damn it - let me objectify in peace - stopping hijacking my fantasy!" We'll never be the same, and we'll never approach these things in the same way - trying to shoehorn anyone in such a manner is only ever going to cause argument and distress...

Embrace difference!
posted by benzo8 at 9:18 PM on December 29, 2007


It belongs on the front page just as much as the implied "you're not a man if you haven't been in the RN" post, doesn't it.
posted by clevershark at 9:18 PM on December 29, 2007


Hildegarde, a woman with cancer once shared the worst "feel better!" sentiment she ever received, which I will share with you because it kind of makes me giggle:

Stay strong! Be a brave Amazon warrior!
posted by occhiblu at 9:20 PM on December 29, 2007


This has been a fun dereail, but can we get back on topic, please? The topic of piling on chuckdarwin?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:21 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


It's just this weird argument we've gotten into a million times since I've been around metafilter and I've never managed to find a way to express why "I'd hit it" comments are offensive. It all just keeps getting shrugged off as being PC or women being over-sensitive. It builds up after a while.

When have I ever said I'd hit it (I did say it once, I was referring to a questionable pitch in a softball game in college and I was right)? Who is We? Do you mean you and me? Do you not understand that every login that is not yours is not some faceless asshole that hates women? I ain't your goddamn sonofabitch.

I'm sorry (really, sincerely) about your cancer, I know I'd get weird behind something much less scary than that.

Ok, ok, we're clear then, be well, take it easy. What a weird night.

Jon,
My love to Pipsela, your efforts as a peacemaker are, as always, appreciated, but you also know, "You're gonna hafta kill me... "

Wow, Cool Hand Luke and the Misfits, perhaps I need a drink.

Oh and also, I sigh at Benzo8, but surely I've had my rounds tonight.


posted by Divine_Wino at 9:21 PM on December 29, 2007


benzo8: you're being kind of hamfisted about it, but you have something of a point. Feminists want tobe treated as equal. Men often express affection for eacother through rough, crude, often sexual humor. It's a way of saying 'you're one of the guys, I'm not going to treat you like a faberge egg.' It's also something of a test, guys who fail by getting offended or not giving back as good as they get are seen as prissy or diffident. So when a man feels comfortable enough with a female friend to joke like that, it's of ten a sign of respect even though it dosen't seem that way.
posted by jonmc at 9:23 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


Dude...I've already gotten that one! Well, minus the "be a brave amazon warrior", though that might have been more appreciated just for the humour value. Yeah someone told me to "be strong", and I'm like...what if I can't? Christ, that's singularly unhelpful.

Benzo8: I think we sorted that out, thanks.
posted by Hildegarde at 9:23 PM on December 29, 2007


This has been a fun dereail, but can we get back on topic, please? The topic of piling on chuckdarwin?

Eh, chuck's OK, he just dosen't appreiate the Dictators enough.
posted by jonmc at 9:25 PM on December 29, 2007


I may well be being hamfisted, jonmc - it's early, I've not had much sleep, and I'm not a great writer of my thoughts at the best of times. I don't claim that sexism doesn't exist, but I guess I'm much more a believer that the only "ism" to argue over is humanism - if we all treated each other like humans then these other things wouldn't be an issue. I always feel that as soon as you legitimise something by giving it an "ism", it's all too easy for things to swing too far in the opposite direction, to a point where we eradicate difference for the sake of appeasing a word...
posted by benzo8 at 9:28 PM on December 29, 2007


and as a bunch of wise men said:

we're all alright!
we're all alright!

(I'm not even kidding. That refrain has gotten me through some frustration. If we all remembered that nobody's perfect but that most people are trying to do the best they can, we'd all be a lot happier)
posted by jonmc at 9:29 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]


The problem with "Oh, noes - sexism!" comments on Meta seems to be that women don't want sexual equality - they want men to act like women. All of the "we don't do it, so you shouldn't" seems to ignore the fact that one of the things that makes the world go around is that we're different animals, men and women.

Wow. That comment is just so totally clueless and insensitive as to what actual, real sexism feels like from the perspective of someone who's actually faced it (well, from mine at least) that I'm gonna actually stop reading this thread and do something productive with my life for the rest of the night. Because... just... wow.

That said, I'm almost thankful how lame that was, though. Because I've got stuff to do.
posted by miss lynnster at 9:31 PM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]


This has been a fun dereail, but can we get back on topic, please? The topic of piling on chuckdarwin?

Yeah, are we allowed to ogle yet?

Seriously, I cant believe that this miserable topic is being revisited because of 3 low-resolution, SFW pictures and one vaguely-juvenile [more-insided] tossoff comment. This thread itself is orders of magnitude more offensive than that post.

This callout sucks. "Battle of the Flickr AllStars" -- good lord, that's dumb.

posted by spiderwire at 9:35 PM on December 29, 2007


Wow, that one comment upthread was just too much. And yet it taught me something about myself and this crazy world we all share.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 9:41 PM on December 29, 2007


Am I allowed to make a crack about chuckdarwin getting the vapors, or will that be flagged as sexist?

I think you should change it into chuckdarwin enacting a cheltenham tragedy and tag it not-heyerist.

Also, I comment on the fuckability of men all the time. I don't usually do it so that they can hear it though. I just whisper it gigglingly to my friends who are usually also doing the scan-comment thing (or I say it to myself). I occasionally comment on people's unattractive also, and I ain't pretty, I'll give you the drum. But I don't yell out 'hey you ugly person with astonishingly bad dress sense, yer like ugly and stuff!', just as I don't yell out, 'hey nice thighed man, please penetrate me with your penis!'

So, I think my theory is, think what you want and tell your friends if that's yer thang, just don't make the focus of your gaze feel horribly uncomfortable with what you're doing.
posted by h00py at 10:13 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]


The problem with "Oh, noes - sexism!" comments on Meta seems to be that women don't want sexual equality - they want men to act like women.

So, you are saying that men who don't make "she's/he's hot" comments in Metafilter posts and threads are acting like women? Men who make posts that involve a female and don't make remarks about her looks are acting like women? Men who don't assume that their entire reading audience is male are acting like women?

Because these are the things that we are talking about on Meta, and I don't see those behaviors as purely female characteristics.
posted by taz at 10:16 PM on December 29, 2007 [5 favorites]


So, you are saying that men who don't make "she's/he's hot" comments in Metafilter posts and threads are acting like women

Aw, come on. Of course he didn't mean that. He meant that men who DO make "she's hot/he's hot" comments in Metafilter aren't necessarily being sexist just because a woman might not make the same comment.

Whether that's true or not is a different question, but your strawman isn't fair.
posted by Justinian at 10:19 PM on December 29, 2007


Oh wonderful, the serious people are back. And they're the theorizing for us! All righty, time for me to check out.

</irony type="mefi" align="chaotic evil" class="offensive_content">

I hereby disclaim everything preceding this comment.


<serious type="mefi" align="neutral good" class="pedanticism">

This are serious thread.
You may continue your reprobation and pondering now.

posted by spiderwire at 10:29 PM on December 29, 2007


But here's the thing: chuckdarwin knows the photog? huh. well, the mods know best but at this point I'm more than a little surprised that he wasn't banned in the first place. I mean, he's a good dude and shit, but if I posted a newspaper article about MY friends to mefi I'd pretty much expect a swift and merciless bannination. To then go and bitch about someone else getting away with a better post on a topic he could have been banned for posting about in the first place is really just incredibly tactless.
posted by shmegegge at 10:08 PM on December 29 [1 favorite +] [!]


F*ck that sh*t. Metafilter was founded on people posting their friends' cool sites. Just don't be a friggin billboard and everything is fine.
posted by caddis at 10:49 PM on December 29, 2007


If the 'I'd hit it' guy in question was a guy you knew well and liked, you'd probably just roll your eyes and say 'he's just being whatever' because you know his hearts in the right place.

Remember when Bill O'Reilly talked about his dinner at Sylvia's restraurant in Harlem? He remarked "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.'"

I'm pretty sure Bill O'Reilly didn't realize how racist that statement was when he said it. But it was racist anyway. His beliefs and intentions, whatever they may be, don't change the racist nature of his speech.

In much the same way, sexist statements create a sexist atmosphere on mefi—even if the speaker didn't intend to do so.
posted by ryanrs at 10:51 PM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]


no, I think you would be right. chuckdarwin definitely has the vapors.
posted by caddis at 11:03 PM on December 29, 2007


Well, I'm not sure that it isn't fair, Justinian, but I'm willing to consider that it might not be. But if I and others are being accused of wanting men to "act like women" when we argue against those specific behaviors, how should that comment correctly be parsed?

Here's how I read it, with my interpretation in brackets:

The problem with "Oh, noes - sexism!" ["oh noes" means it's silly and overwrought] comments on Meta [comments that are arguments against making gratuitous remarks about how hot or not a woman is when it has nothing to do with the subject] seems to be that women don't want sexual equality [women don't really want the same respect men get] - they want men to act like women [they want men to act against their nature].

So, basically it reads to me like "these silly, hand-wringing 'sexism' comments against gratuitously sexual/objectifying remarks about women means that what women really want is not to be treated with the same respect men enjoy, but instead want men to act in an unnatural way (by not making those comments)." Which made me ask if the men who don't make such comments are therefore "acting like women"?
posted by taz at 11:06 PM on December 29, 2007


So I've stayed out of the big gender discussions on the grey until this one. As a radical feminist, most of my positions have been well-enough represented to the point where it's just not worth it for me to get involved, especially because I know I'm outside of the mainstream. The same is true with this thread, where I feel that there's no question that there is very little legitimacy to those who don't see a problem with the discourse that's happening here. As is always the case, I have putative allies who make moves that I disagree with or represent positions that I find ineffective or backwards. I think Hildegarde's hypothetical was a tactical misstep. The problem isn't that men aren't ever put in an objectified and dominated position, but that they do not occupy a social position where they feel like they are always in this position. A single example of an imaginary reacharound will not set off the archetypal light bulb but will most likely get the reaction "oh, that wasn't so bad." But fine, this happens to me a lot. For fuck's sake, I'm a radical feminist, I'm used to not being understood and having my positions misrepresented and misconstrued.

What bothers me about this thread is the growing alienation I feel from this site, which I still care deeply about and which I still defend. For years, long before I joined, this has been my homepage, and usually one of my first recommendations to people who (clearly lacking in good judgment by asking me) ask my opinion on where to find good discussions online. I've found myself qualifying Metafilter recently in ways that sadden me. "It's a great site, but" is usually the first thing I say and it's because of threads like this.

For all the inane talk about what MeFi is supposed to be, or what women should expect on the internet, or biological just-so stories about gender and porn, this community has the ability to rise above this. Maybe I'm pathological for expecting better, but it seems to me that there is a reason why a lot of us who feel isolated keep coming back and it's something decent. Yet for whatever reasons, when one group of people says that they are upset, another larger and more dominant group responds with "that's stupid" and "you have no right to be upset" and not "I don't understand, please explain to me so that I can see where you're coming from." This is a disease and I'm sick of it.
posted by allen.spaulding at 11:12 PM on December 29, 2007 [12 favorites]


"... So, basically it reads to me like "these silly, hand-wringing 'sexism' comments against gratuitously sexual/objectifying remarks about women means that what women really want is not to be treated with the same respect men enjoy, but instead want men to act in an unnatural way (by not making those comments)." Which made me ask if the men who don't make such comments are therefore "acting like women"?..."
posted by taz at 2:06 AM on December 30

Woman, pleez...
posted by paulsc at 11:21 PM on December 29, 2007


allen.spaulding: You should really go back and read the two monster threads all the way through if you haven't.

This thread you should read in context. This was a really dumb callout and most of what was said here struck me as pure playfulness as a way of blowing off the steam of the previous month's heavy-handed Very Bad Thing discussions. This was not Very Serious Discussion, as you can see by the fact that we're not up to 1000 comments and it's mostly been screwing around between friends. More than a few people made the point upthread of linking to where these things were actually hashed out; think of this as the Coen Brothers Fun Holiday Remake of the Great Metafilter Sexism Threads of November 2007.

Of all the times you could be worried about implicit sexism on MeFi, I don't think this is one of the low points. Really, I think the site wasn't doing that bad before, and these discussions have been a marked improvement, in my opinion. (Well, the other discussions -- this one was mostly just horsing around. It gets a neutral mark.)
posted by spiderwire at 11:30 PM on December 29, 2007


Hm. I don't know how a big chunk of my comment got cut out, but I also made the point in the first graf that the two Threads What Wouldn't End produced some epiphanes for some people and some very eloquent diagnoses of precisely the problem you describe. There were too many to account for here, but in particular occhiblu's sexism comment and some of matt's later semi-official statements of policy were most important, in my view. I think both demonstrated some real progress for the site.
posted by spiderwire at 11:35 PM on December 29, 2007


Believe me, I read those threads. I refrained from speaking out then because I wasn't convinced that my voice would be heard in a way that could create positive change. Now I sort of get the feeling that the lesson to be learned is that MeFi can almost meet the challenge during moments of intense scrutiny, so cut it some slack during regular business hours.

Personally, I think this thread can be summed up in a way that people probably are avoiding: once a moderator has acted, the community will tend to align itself in a way to rationalize it after the fact. Had the offending thread been deleted and the opposite position was taken in this callout, I imagine most people would be defending the position, without a significantly different shift in overall opinion. It's why I find Jessamyn's comments incoherent. Either way, this thread just feels like more of the same.
posted by allen.spaulding at 11:37 PM on December 29, 2007


Though I don't self-identify as a radical feminist, I think you're right on the mark, allen.spaulding; it sounds like you're talking mutual respect and I say amen to that.

There's never enough listening going on. I see it as a people problem; it's my problem, too.
posted by breezeway at 11:38 PM on December 29, 2007


"It's a great site, but" is usually the first thing I say and it's because of threads like this.

That we even discuss matters like this puts Metafilter head and shoulders above most online communities I can think of. I'm not trying to be a jerk by saying this, Allen, but if the sexism of Metafilter is so bad that it makes you qualify a recommendation to visit the site, your other internet haunts must be downright Utopian.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:40 PM on December 29, 2007


Spiderwire, all you've done here is attempt to trivialize the discussion by posting jokey bullshit. I sure wish you'd stop.
posted by ryanrs at 11:41 PM on December 29, 2007


(On not-preview, perhaps you already have. Thanks.)
posted by ryanrs at 11:42 PM on December 29, 2007


Taz - I think women most definitely do want the respect men get - I just think they imagine men get more respect than they actually do.

Read my post however you choose, it's your prerogative to do so. As I already held my hands up to the potential hamfistedness of the comment both you and Miss Lynster shredded, it just seems a little disingenuous to pick a specifically negative understanding of my words in order to create another argument.

And I won't respond to your "are men not doing this acting like women" comment because it's patently a trap. If it's not obvious to you that I'm not saying women want men to act effeminately, then I apologise for the lack of clarity of my words.
posted by benzo8 at 11:44 PM on December 29, 2007


taz: the way I was parsing his comment was not "[women don't really want the same respect men get]" but rather "[women want far more than just equality]"



I think the problem is rooted in the fact that each gender relates to itself in a very different manner. The extremely lazy version is "men are competitive with each other, women are supportive of each other".

There's far, far more to it than this and those two statements are only very broadly more true than false, but stereotypes aside I think it's at least accurate to say there are significant differences in the type and tone of intra-gender relations.*

What I'm getting at is that with each gender expressing support and respect in different ways, attempts to truly adhere to equality will produce at best disjointed and uncomfortable results. Based on life experience in general and these sexism threads in particular, I have to agree that it often seems like each gender wants equality on its terms, and only those terms.

What to do?

. . . well, come to it, I don't see any plausible solutions that work for everyone other than splitting the site straight down the middle: ManFi and FemFi. Segregation has worked for absolutely nobody in the course of history, but the physical imposition of semantic constructs upon society produces a nice calm before the explosion into all-out civil warfare.

*For starters, when Bob gets a beautiful new girlfriend, I am not at all happy for Bob. In fact what I really want is to slit his throat, burn down his hut and take her back to my cave. It doesn't even matter if Bob is a friend or not - we men are unnecessarily zero-sum about this sort of thing.
posted by Ryvar at 11:53 PM on December 29, 2007


I don't want to attack you, benzo8. I do disagree, though, with the idea that we don't want equality, and I'm not sure about the we want men to "act like women" thing, because I guess I'm not understanding it.
posted by taz at 11:53 PM on December 29, 2007


heh, Ryvar.
posted by taz at 11:55 PM on December 29, 2007


Taz, OK - let me try and rephrase it a little more clearly. If often feel that women expect men to act *as a woman would do* in an "ism" situation, not to act like a compassionate man.

For instance, in the context of this discussion - an obviously sexist comment is made in front of a man and a woman; the woman is outraged, having dealt with perceived sexism her whole life in a society that is obviously weighted towards men; the compassionate man understands how the woman feels but can't feel the same outrage, so makes a disapproving comment and moves on. The woman then feels that the man is, by not being as outraged as she, somehow condoning the comment he just condemned.

Now, I understand that this kind of situation doesn't always happen, that there have been examples of entirely different things happening in this situation, and a thousand other qualifiers that try to avert arguments about generalisations and "I don't behave like that!" but my undeniable experience is that this kind of thing happens a lot.

Ryvar actually explains what I mean pretty well - men and women can never be equal if we continue to divide ourselves into "men" and "women". My belief has always been that the only equality we can find is if we divide ourselves into "humans" and, oh "humans".
posted by benzo8 at 12:02 AM on December 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


If women would just accept that they're objects, this whole issue would disappear. Come on, women, stop being so obstructionist.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 12:09 AM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


Tex, your comment might have been funny if less people actually thought that way.
posted by ryanrs at 12:19 AM on December 30, 2007


No way, Tex's comment could not have been more perfect.
posted by allen.spaulding at 12:23 AM on December 30, 2007


I agree about humans and humans, but I think that comments about humans that refer to how sexually desirable they are or aren't just don't belong in most posts/threads. If the post is "The 10 Sexiest Men in the World" it would be strange not to see comments about how sexy Guy #2 is or isn't, say - but in a post about Guy 2's game development work or political platform, or athletic accomplishment or Flickr photos, it would be odd and unwelcome to have comments about how sexy he is.
posted by taz at 12:23 AM on December 30, 2007


But as an offhand comment, Divine_Wino, every time you post I imagine jonmc giving it to you up the ass, doggie-style. So hawt! I particularly enjoy it when he gives you the reach around. I mean that in the most respectful way.

You know, I'm really tired of how gay male sexuality is paraded around as a political tool against sexist comments. Could someone please inform me of how this is different than just saying, "ha, I just called you a faggot, now you know how it feels... faggot."
posted by Subcommandante Cheese at 12:24 AM on December 30, 2007


But as an offhand comment, Subcommandante Cheese every time you post I imagine Brad Pitt giving it to you up the ass, doggie-style. So hawt! I particularly enjoy it when he gives you the reach around How does that make you feel?
posted by allen.spaulding at 12:26 AM on December 30, 2007


way better than reading this thread. Throw in Orlando Bloom and I'll swear off mefi forever.
posted by Subcommandante Cheese at 12:30 AM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


It's just this weird argument we've gotten into a million times since I've been around metafilter and I've never managed to find a way to express why "I'd hit it" comments are offensive. It all just keeps getting shrugged off as being PC or women being over-sensitive. It builds up after a while.

I think it is safe to say that a majority of Mefi users or at least people who post in Meta would agree that "I'd hit it" is offensive and sexist. But no one said that, they said a woman "was hot" which I do not consider to be the same thing. "I'd hit it" is offensive because it is only used to refer to women who are either unattractive or are not normally seen in a sexual setting. It is never used to refer to hot girls. It implies that the man is lowering himself in having sex with the women and reduces her to a mere sexual object, which is usually out of context.

Saying a girl "is hot" on the other hand simply means that the man finds the girl sexually attractive. In certain contexts this could be offensive, but in others it is fine. I agree with the general idea of lowering the boyzone noise in threads, but sometimes it comes off like some of you want to expunge any expression of male sexuality from the site.

The "she is hot" comment in the post was stupid, but it was not sexist. It was referring to a picture that was basically titled "look at my boobs" for fucks sake.
posted by afu at 12:30 AM on December 30, 2007


"... I'm not sure about the we want men to "act like women" thing, because I guess I'm not understanding it."
posted by taz at 2:53 AM on December 30

That's refreshingly honest, I guess, but you do see, I hope, that it is pretty important that you do (understand it, that is), for the remainder of the discussion, in which you comment, to be meaningful?

Because, otherwise, when you post things, like:

"... Here's how I read it, with my interpretation in brackets:

The problem with "Oh, noes - sexism!" ["oh noes" means it's silly and overwrought] comments on Meta [comments that are arguments against making gratuitous remarks about how hot or not a woman is when it has nothing to do with the subject] seems to be that women don't want sexual equality [women don't really want the same respect men get] - they want men to act like women [they want men to act against their nature]. ..."


You might see how us MeFites with Y chromosomes can, so easily, be confused.

As a start, what do you imagine those of us (MeFites with Y chromosomes) have, as our "nature?"
posted by paulsc at 12:31 AM on December 30, 2007


That was my question.
posted by taz at 12:36 AM on December 30, 2007



The "she is hot" comment in the post was stupid, but it was not sexist. It was referring to a picture that was basically titled "look at my boobs" for fucks sake.


Yeah, man, she was totally asking for it. On a side note, I'm fairly sure the title of the picture was "don't look at my boobs," but I guess you're right, when women say no, they really mean yes.
posted by Subcommandante Cheese at 12:37 AM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


Ryvar actually explains what I mean pretty well - men and women can never be equal if we continue to divide ourselves into "men" and "women". My belief has always been that the only equality we can find is if we divide ourselves into "humans" and, oh "humans".

Benzo8 ftw.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 12:40 AM on December 30, 2007


"That was my question."
posted by taz at 3:36 AM on December 30

Nope. This, as I read your comments in this thread, was your question:

"So, basically it reads to me like "these silly, hand-wringing 'sexism' comments against gratuitously sexual/objectifying remarks about women means that what women really want is not to be treated with the same respect men enjoy, but instead want men to act in an unnatural way (by not making those comments)." Which made me ask if the men who don't make such comments are therefore "acting like women"?
posted by taz at 2:06 AM on December 30

Night and day difference, taz, between assuming what Y chromosome bearers might have as an integral "nature," and what such persons, under social pressure, might represent, in comments on Internet sites.

Surely, you see the difference.

If not, let me spell it out. The difference is chauvinism.
posted by paulsc at 12:45 AM on December 30, 2007


Yeah, man, she was totally asking for it. On a side note, I'm fairly sure the title of the picture was "don't look at my boobs," but I guess you're right, when women say no, they really mean yes.

Great googly moogly. Stop. Just stop. It's a glamour shot with her breasts as the center piece. If you don't look at her boobs, the picture is a failure. I'm not sure what kind of intense commitment to strict literalism it requires to see "face is up here" as a serious request for the viewer to look away from her chest, but either you have it or this is the most disingenuous thing I've read all day. Which is saying a lot, considering how much of today I've spent reading this thread.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:45 AM on December 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


Yeah, to address this specific post: Many of her pictures are basically about how hot she is, making "she's hot" relevant to the post. When your girlfriend actually asks you to fuck her, it's not rape, because she actually is asking for it.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 12:56 AM on December 30, 2007


men and women can never be equal if we continue to divide ourselves into "men" and "women". My belief has always been that the only equality we can find is if we divide ourselves into "humans" and, oh "humans".

Exactly! It's not sexist to ogle women. It's only sexist for women to notice that they're being ogled.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 12:56 AM on December 30, 2007


I'm not sure what kind of intense commitment to strict literalism it requires to see "face is up here" as a serious request for the viewer to look away from her chest, but either you have it or this is the most disingenuous thing I've read all day. Which is saying a lot, considering how much of today I've spent reading this thread.

Actually, after reading the artists' comment on how the photo competition she entered the picture in only values women who look like 'bimbos', as well as her comment on how it was posted as a "sort of sociological experiment," and how everyone loves her for a picture where they can see cleavage, but she gets few comments on a photo about something she cares about, I'd be pretty hesitant to say that the only statement she's making is "look at my boobs."
posted by Subcommandante Cheese at 1:12 AM on December 30, 2007


Exactly! It's not sexist to ogle women. It's only sexist for women to notice that they're being ogled.

Hooray for missing the point entirely! It's when it gets to the point that ogling, accompanied with whoots and phwaws, is all that's going on, regardless of context, that things become distasteful.
posted by h00py at 2:04 AM on December 30, 2007


And that didn't exactly happen either here or in the blue, so I'll offer apologies for just doing that silly gainsaying thing and toddle off for some wine now.

Don't mind me.
posted by h00py at 2:31 AM on December 30, 2007


er, naysaying um devil's advocate, shite you know what I mean, right?
posted by h00py at 2:33 AM on December 30, 2007


Could any of this be that many, many people either don't know how to be polite or think being polite is kow-towing to the man?
posted by maxwelton at 2:33 AM on December 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


Not yet. He is from England and just annoyed because I am German.

I thought chuckdarwin was an annoying, whiny, American anglophile who can't resist telling the internet at any available opportunity how he lives in England and isn't that just so special?
posted by cmonkey at 2:42 AM on December 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


It's when it gets to the point that ogling, accompanied with whoots and phwaws, is all that's going on, regardless of context, that things become distasteful.

Right. If only we pay bare lip service to these women's supposed achievements, whatever they might be, a barrage of hyper-sexual comments magically becomes inoffensive. It sounds like we agree.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 2:48 AM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


I think it's not only yer Roundup Boys who are wily, "Tex".
posted by h00py at 2:58 AM on December 30, 2007


I'm not really sure why there needs to be a massive debate about a basic request to keep your penis in your pants in public. Of the several thousand people who are likely to read a FPP and its comments, the number who will care who you want to fuck or don't want to fuck is negligible. Therefore, comments around that particular desire are not really adding to the conversation, and are making some people who might otherwise participate in it feel negatively about a space that is theirs to share as well.

So, just knock it off. Why is that so difficult to do?
posted by DarlingBri at 3:03 AM on December 30, 2007 [5 favorites]


allen.spalding: What's a radical feminist?

I'm not really sure why there needs to be a massive debate about a basic request to keep your penis in your pants in public.

Because no one displayed their penis, yet some keep insisting that "OMG, he's flashing us, stop!" The various sides are seeing things very differently.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:17 AM on December 30, 2007


Brandon Blatcher, let me rephrase that then:

Please keep your libido in your pants. Nobody cares but you.
posted by DarlingBri at 3:22 AM on December 30, 2007


Hey, fuck you. Seriously.
posted by chuckdarwin at 3:23 AM on December 30, 2007


<serious type="mefi" align="neutral good" class="pedanticism">

This thread is now about how spiderwire didn't put his alignment values in the pedanticism class.
posted by Mikey-San at 3:30 AM on December 30, 2007


Or didn't create an ID for that specific serious element that required . . . oh fuck it
posted by Mikey-San at 3:32 AM on December 30, 2007


Wait, do my last two comments make me CSSist?
posted by Mikey-San at 3:32 AM on December 30, 2007


Hey, fuck you. Seriously.

Who?

Please keep your libido in your pants. Nobody cares but you.

Dude called a woman hot, that's it. Not sure what you're talking about.

Yeah, it was immature and unneeded, but honestly, the response to that stupid comment reads less like justified anger and more like pile-on responses dealing with previous sexist crap, which makes me want to defend the stupid comment as opposed to agree with you. It was an off the cuff comment, aren't there larger battles to fight?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:45 AM on December 30, 2007


In the big sexism threads, quite a few members requested more vocal self-policing. That's what this is.
posted by ryanrs at 3:56 AM on December 30, 2007


You know, most of the sexist stuff a woman has to put up with is stupid, off the cuff comment type crap. That doesn't make it OK, that makes it death by tiny paper cuts.
posted by DarlingBri at 3:57 AM on December 30, 2007 [5 favorites]


Who?

cmonkey, in particular... but if I start handing out 'fuck yous' to people who deserve one, I'll be here all day.

Today marks the first day since I joined that I'm embarrassed to be seen here. I'm seriously thinking of telling y'all to stuff your $5 up your fucking arse.
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:21 AM on December 30, 2007


Spiderwire, all you've done here is attempt to trivialize the discussion by posting jokey bullshit.

i don't think it's possible to trivialize this discussion any further than it already is

---

I'm seriously thinking of telling y'all to stuff your $5 up your fucking arse.

i rest my case
posted by pyramid termite at 4:46 AM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


Are you declaring victory or something?
posted by ryanrs at 4:57 AM on December 30, 2007


As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler fat people approaches one.
What's the name of this law, anyway? Surely there is one by now.


Arbuckle's Law




See? It is possible to further trivialize this discussion.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:03 AM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


chuckdarwin: no offense but you do ride that horse particularly hard. and you should develop a thicker skin about it. Hell, I just got a mefi mail from a dude about the mustache thread where the guy said he clicked on my user name and dicovered that I 'haven't made it past 1978,' whatever that means. In 1978, I didn't even have facial hair, it wasn't too popular on 2nd grade.

Also, last night I dreamed that I was boiling an egg and I overboiled it and it burst and kidney bean came out of the yolk. Freaky.
posted by jonmc at 5:04 AM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


Out of the yolk, or was it kind of connected to the side of the yolk like an embryo?
posted by nowonmai at 5:09 AM on December 30, 2007


out of the yolk I guess. It all happened very fast.
posted by jonmc at 5:10 AM on December 30, 2007


Are you declaring victory or something?

---

Arbuckle's Law

See? It is possible to further trivialize this discussion.


it's way too early in the morning for champaigne
posted by pyramid termite at 5:10 AM on December 30, 2007


Also, they're doing a Beverly Hillbillies marathon on TVLand this weekend. Sadly they're not showing the episode where Jethro becomes a beatnik. That one was really funny.
posted by jonmc at 5:25 AM on December 30, 2007


Also, last night I dreamed that I was boiling an egg and I overboiled it and it burst and kidney bean came out of the yolk. Freaky.

According to scientists, this means that you want to have a mustache like a motorcycle cop.
posted by cmonkey at 5:26 AM on December 30, 2007


Oh well. Just call me Ponchmc.
posted by jonmc at 5:28 AM on December 30, 2007


You know, most of the sexist stuff a woman has to put up with is stupid, off the cuff comment type crap.

Fair enough and good point.

That doesn't make it OK,

Never thought the comment was ok, it just seemed that some people were taking it as an opportunity to air grievances about their past sexist experiences. That's fine but if we're going to say" keep it your pants", maybe we should include "keep it in your therapy sessions".
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:33 AM on December 30, 2007


I'm seriously thinking of telling y'all to stuff your $5 up your fucking arse.

1. It's Matt's $5 and I'm not sure what he did to offend you.

2. Look, either flame out or don't, but please don't threaten to flame out. It's whiny, petty and immature, especially in a Metatalk thread you started to complain about supposedly terrible post. Be part of the solution, not the problem.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:38 AM on December 30, 2007


chuckdarwin, you've been an asset to the site, in my opinion, and I hope you don't flame out. I do think you should probably chill out a bit, though. I'd suggest a breather, away from what Leonard Cohen called "that hopeless little screen".
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:45 AM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


aye ChuckD, listen to flapjax. A day or two away and return replenished and up and ready to be up and at'em for the new year.
posted by ClanvidHorse at 6:12 AM on December 30, 2007


"up and ready to be up"

err.. whatever... I really should stick to only posting when I am hungover on a Sunday.
posted by ClanvidHorse at 6:14 AM on December 30, 2007


the two Threads What Wouldn't End produced some epiphanies for some people

Some of whom seem to have forgotten whatever they learned.

either flame out or don't, but please don't threaten to flame out. It's whiny, petty and immature


Heartily seconded.
posted by languagehat at 6:19 AM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


"I'd hit it" is offensive because it is only used to refer to women who are either unattractive or are not normally seen in a sexual setting. It is never used to refer to hot girls. It implies that the man is lowering himself in having sex with the women and reduces her to a mere sexual object, which is usually out of context.

I agree with the overall point you are making, I think, but your analysis of "I'd hit it" misses the mark. Without going into plate-of-beans level of detail, "I'd hit it" gets used for "hot girls" all the time. Like any sexist/misogynist piece of language, it can be used in all kinds of nuanced ways, to emphasize attractiveness or lack thereof, to disempower a strong woman, to produce markers of "inside/outside" in male groups, to emphasize heteronormativity, and so on.
posted by Forktine at 7:17 AM on December 30, 2007


Just to reiterate for people who seem to have forgotten:

Any given "I'd hit it" is not that big a deal. Arguing over whether this one crossed a line or that one didn't is completely and thoroughly a waste of time.

Taken in aggregate however, these sorts of things:

a) are repetitive
b) are entirely lacking in creativity

and most importantly

c) cause people who we would rather stick around to wander off to other sites where they don't have to wade through this crap.

Basically, "Metafilter: We're less of a boyzone than Fark" is a fairly tepid slogan. We can do better, and by doing so we can attract and keep a far more interesting group of people than then internet lowest common denominator.
posted by tkolar at 8:14 AM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


Please, pyramid termite and spiderwire, a lot of people don't see this as a trivial subject, and your comments are dismissive and disheartening. There is no need to try to silence people with excessive noise.

Unfortunately, the more these issues are discussed, the worse the atmosphere is becoming. It should be obvious to anyone who participated in any of the other threads that the "heh heh and she's hot too" comments are sexist. If that is not obvious, then there should at least be no more question that they shouldn't be included, as they make a good post substantially less good. I personally became completely uninterested in the post after reading those comments. In no small part because I knew the ensuing discussion would be pointless, filled with people who don't get it, who then come to Metatalk and don't get it but louder.

I don't know how to explain this anymore, obviously the flag is useless for this sort of thing because you can't eliminate only one part of a post, and calling it out leads to ostracization, dismissal and dealing with willful obtuseness. Also, if it's not called out perfectly, then of course we can just pile on the Metatalk poster and forget about everything else. And then the jokey comments that aren't actually funny. I at least hoped that even if these things couldn't be deleted, that there could be a raised consciousness for new participants, and healthy debate. But sadly, some of the people who have participated in all of the threads have learned nothing at all, and those who are newly exposed to the issue and understandably defensive don't appear to be invested enough to listen. The new audience is thicker and dumber, the old audience is entrenched.
posted by Danila at 8:19 AM on December 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


@chuckdarwin
Dude, you are acting more immature than I with my "also, she is hot" comment.

"Today marks the first day since I joined that I'm embarrassed to be seen here. I'm seriously thinking of telling y'all to stuff your $5 up your fucking arse."

I don't think this is what we want to bring MF down to.

The news are that I contacted Guðleifsdóttir through her web site and refered her to the two threads. Here are some quotes of her email:

"i just read thru all the comments following your post, and enjoyed the read."

"..Sure, maybe you should have left that out if your aim was to bring
attention to just the copyright infringement issue, but to me, it
just strikes me as something a normal guy would say, in a very
harmless way.. So no, it doesn't offend me."

"But i have to wonder if people honestly can't see that there's more to
my photography than that, considering the wide range of subject
matter, and effort i put into my photographs.."

"anyway, im happy about all discussions about my work, negative and
positive."

So can we all go back to normal mode now? Thanx!
posted by yoyo_nyc at 8:33 AM on December 30, 2007 [4 favorites]


Any given "I'd hit it" is not that big a deal.

I find it interesting that people keep bringing up the "I'd hit it" comment when it didn't actually occur in the original post.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:38 AM on December 30, 2007


While I didn't think it was a great post, I do want to point something out:


FPPs are NOT essays. They are links to interesting things found on the web.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:47 AM on December 30, 2007


Question: Is it the specific phrasing that is offensive? If yoyo had just included those photos as parts of her work, or said "and takes some nice self-portraits" (or something similar), are we all cool?
posted by Bookhouse at 8:53 AM on December 30, 2007


Plus, I know her a bit (I'm on her profile) and she deserves better than a frat-boy masturbation post on the blue.

Actually, making a whole MeTa post just to edge in the fact that you can let us know you "know her a bit" seems more masturbatory.
posted by signal at 9:06 AM on December 30, 2007 [4 favorites]


Please, pyramid termite and spiderwire, a lot of people don't see this as a trivial subject, and your comments are dismissive and disheartening. There is no need to try to silence people with excessive noise.

in the original context of the fpp and the initial call-out it IS trivial - even the target regards it as such - any attempt at making a major deal out of this is absurd

and you are not being silenced - lose the drama

and try to remember that it's not all about you and what you feel
posted by pyramid termite at 9:11 AM on December 30, 2007


Brandon Blatcher wrote...
I find it interesting that people keep bringing up the "I'd hit it" comment when it didn't actually occur in the original post.

"I'd hit it" is a convenient shorthand for any generic statement that drags a woman's sexual acceptability into an unrelated discussion. Feel free to substitute "She takes pictures and there was an interesting copyright dispute around them . . . . also, she's sexually acceptable!" if it will make it easier for you to understand the basic point.
posted by tkolar at 9:28 AM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


try to remember that it's not all about you and what you feel

Try to remember that you don't define the site any more than any one other person does (except maybe mathowie and even then...) but you are responsible for whatever tone you set with your own comments. To my read, spiderwire's tone was "this is all a joke lalala" I'm not trying to be all THS ARE SRS THRED here but if you think the whole thing is stupid, I don't understand why you don't just, you know, walk away instead of sticking around just so you can call everyone stupid. It's like you hit some sort of buffer overflow and all that's left is DONTCAREDONTCAREDONTCARE.

yoyo_nyc, that was pretty interesting.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:34 AM on December 30, 2007


If yoyo had just included those photos as parts of her work, or said "and takes some nice self-portraits" (or something similar), are we all cool?

Speaking only for myself, I would have been fine with that.
posted by DarlingBri at 9:46 AM on December 30, 2007


To my read, spiderwire's tone was "this is all a joke lalala" I'm not trying to be all THS ARE SRS THRED here but if you think the whole thing is stupid, I don't understand why you don't just, you know, walk away instead of sticking around just so you can call everyone stupid.

i don't understand why people are accusing me of silencing them when i'm the one who's being told to shut up

there's more to it than just stupidity - there's an element of hypocrisy involved, too

especially when you consider that i had been quiet since 8 this morning and danila calls me out at 11, 3 hours later

but i wouldn't want to confuse anyone with the facts - you know, those things that hardly ever are referenced in threads like these

but i'll shut up now so the rest of you can go on talking with feeling anyone's silencing you - because, obviously, that's a privilege only SOME can enjoy

how people are ever going to solve anything here when they can't even be honest with themselves is beyond me
posted by pyramid termite at 9:49 AM on December 30, 2007


Today marks the first day since I joined that I'm embarrassed to be seen here. I'm seriously thinking of telling y'all to stuff your $5 up your fucking arse.
posted by chuckdarwin at 7:21 AM on December 30 [+] [!]


You never paid me $5, so I'm not sure why I should stuff it up my arse. Now, you also said "y'all," so perhaps you meant $5 as shared among roughly 50,000 members, in which case I should stuff a penny up my arse. That's not too bad either, although the $5 is a paper bill, while the penny is an inconvenient metal disk, increasing the chances of rectal irritation or, gosh forbid, a sphincter injury.

I guess in the end I'd be okay with either, so long as we don't somehow move into the larger coin territory, which might be a little more painful. Especially if you are Canadian, in which case that nasty $2 coin comes into play... ouch.

Anyway, let me know.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:53 AM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


I think you meant 1/100th of a cent.
posted by found missing at 9:55 AM on December 30, 2007


I was rounding up.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:57 AM on December 30, 2007


Speaking only for myself, I would have been fine with that.

Yeah, me too. Without being all special snowflake about it, my issue is that they were just links to three jpgs, not pages with photos/comments/titles (the photos are all also on Flickr, yes?). So, there was no context, no "hey she actually TOOK these photos" indication, no indication of what the accompanying article on Speigel Online was.

The photo of her with the low-cut blouse, for example, has a completely different interpretation if you read it with the notes/comments, and the headline which is "face is up here..." Taking it out of context just to make a "she's hot" point removes a lot of good information about her as a photographer and the context in which these racy photos of her were taken and presented. If you want to get all liberal-arts-education about it, it removes her agency as an actor in the creation and distribution of her own image and reduces her to just a good looking woman with a nice rack, which she ALSO IS, but there are lots of hot women with good racks in the world and we don't make MeFi posts about them just for that.

It's not a huge deal to me personally, it's just a lazy shortcut in a pretty complicated and otherwise interesting story.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:00 AM on December 30, 2007 [3 favorites]


But sadly, some of the people who have participated in all of the threads have learned nothing at all

Danila, I'd like to submit for your consideration the startling proposition that some of us may have participated in all of the threads (to death, in my case), learned a good deal, and still refuse to accept every accusation of sexism as proof that something is, in fact, sexist. The proof of whether someone has "learned" -- which, by the way, is an only slightly condescending way of putting it, as though there was some great legion of the unwashed in desperate need of having their consciousnesses raised to, I guess, your level -- should not be whether someone agrees with you. I think there's a huge danger in pointing to (as someone put it upthread) a stupid Beavis-ism and clanging the sexism danger bell; it dilutes the currency of serious claims of sexism, and ultimately just wears people out, to the point where eventually no one will give a damn when a serious charge is made, and -- worse still -- calling something out as sexist will be reduced to a moronic herf-derf/fish-in-pants Metafilter in-joke.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:06 AM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


Increasingly, as I read these threads, I have begun to think that women online (at MeFi and elsewhere) should simply turn the boyzone’s energy against itself. Everything we say should be accompanied by a photo of naked breasts. This will distract the boobie-obsessed, in much the same way as when the stars of a heist flick throw bits of hamburger to neutralize the Doberman on guard duty. Having thereby distracted the boyzone brigade (now engaged in a frenzy of wanking), the rest of us -- well-behaved people, whether female or male -- can go on to have a civilized conversation about our plans for world domination.

Since it seems evident that the boobie-obsessed can never, ever resist noticing, commenting on or otherwise responding to an exposed rack, we need never fear that conversation on the merits of our ideas will be required.
posted by GrammarMoses at 10:16 AM on December 30, 2007


This call out blows. Talk about making an issue out of a non-issue. Rebekka obviously enjoys photographing herself in artistic yet provocative ways. It is difficult to ignore that. And I don't think she'd want it ignored. And that's fine. It's fine to be proud of your body.
posted by Skygazer at 10:21 AM on December 30, 2007


GrammarMoses, as to your point...

wait, is that a photo of naked breasts?
posted by found missing at 10:23 AM on December 30, 2007


You know what I loved? In old movies, when women became exasperated by the male characters, they would put their arms akimbo and call out an accusatory "You mere man!"

God, that was a great phrase. It's originally from Isiah 22:17, and is such a cutting expression of dismissal of hubris. I think it is due for a comeback.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:27 AM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


To my read, spiderwire's tone was "this is all a joke lalala"

This callout was a joke and deserved to be treated as such. I came into the thread after people had started in with all the "this is darwinist" and "picasso was a hottie" nonsense and was trying to noise it into oblivion. I also tried a few other tactics, none of which worked. Maybe I should have posted some long poems or something.

Anyway, I failed, and acknowledged as much three or four times as soon as people came back to the thread (at 12:30 in the evening, go figure) and tried to steer it back into this-are-serious-thread territory. I did that because it is an important subject, and I'm not going to mock people who are having a serious discussion about it, inappropriate though the the subject and timing may be.

Please, pyramid termite and spiderwire, a lot of people don't see this as a trivial subject, and your comments are dismissive and disheartening. There is no need to try to silence people with excessive noise.

Of course the subject isn't trivial -- it's crucially important -- but the thread is. I'm not particularly pro- or anti-PC behavior, but I do think that if we're too quick to criticize the stupid, trivial transgressions, then we tend to indirectly blunt our responses to the serious transgressions. In other words, keep your powder dry. If every dumb, vaguely-offensive post or comment is an excuse to start a massive flamewar, then the posts that are truly sexist, misogynist, homophobic, etc. will get lumped in with mildly-immature crap, and as a whole we become more concerned with generating outrage than creating a positive atmosphere.

That's not to say that we should ignore these problems any more than we should blindly tolerate them -- but proportional response should be the guiding star here, in my view.

Unfortunately, the more these issues are discussed, the worse the atmosphere is becoming.

Exactly. That's why we need to maintain some separation between the serious issues from the "please don't do this again, it's immature and stupid" issues. I tried to keep my satire over-the-top and to step out of mockery-mode from time to time, but if defending fratboy rights and invoking the Umbral Rights League wasn't sufficiently absurdist, or too absurdist, or whatever, then I apologize. The thread was already absurd at that point.

I mean, I entered the thread with a joke about the Iliad and an attempt to point out that this entire discussion was a distraction from actually discussing the artwork, but hey, no one listened to that, so you get jokes about synesthesia and HTML markup instead. Be thankful I didn't try to turn the thread into a story about airships like last time.
posted by spiderwire at 10:30 AM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


It's sexist to say she's hot?

It's sexist to reduce a good artist to mere tits and ass, yes.


Is it possible to mention a good artist is hot without reducing her and her art to mere tits and ass?

I doubt anyone but an American would be so obsessed with sex as to require that level of circumspection.
posted by scarabic at 10:42 AM on December 30, 2007


kittens for breakfast wrote...
clanging the sexism danger bell [...] dilutes the currency of [...] claims of sexism, and ultimately just wears people out, to the point where eventually no one will give a damn when a [...] charge is made

I've edited the content there a bit, not for the purpose of misrepresenting kittens but to say that at a more abstract level it is very true: continued discussions of this type will turn sexism into a tired trope on Metafilter.

The benefit of using the flagging system is (supposed to be) that we don't need to have this discussion. We can just flag things and move on.

To that end, I have a question for the moderators: Why wasn't this post removed and sent back to the poster with a note saying "try again with a little less gratuitous sexism"? In my imagination, the post has been flagged with "offensive" up the wazoo. Is that not the case?

I realize that there will always be border cases where things are slightly offensive but have good content, and so there will occasionally be threads like this. However, in this case there seem to be a significant number of people who found it offensive enough to come here to comment on it.

There seem to me to be three possible cases:

1) There aren't many flags on the post. The people in here (including me) represent a dedicated bunch, but we are in fact out of the mainstream on this one.

2) There are a ton of flags on the post. In which case, WTF matthowie/cortex/jessamyn?

3) There are a substantial number of flags on the post, but not enough to warrant sending it back for a rewrite. This is a judgment call for the moderators to make, but I will humbly submit that the judgment may have been in error in this case.

Mostly I'm curious which of these three cases this fell under. Care to share?
posted by tkolar at 10:47 AM on December 30, 2007


Rebekka Gudliefsdottir may have externalized her awareness of her own beauty too much for me ever to be comfortable in conversation with her; I don't think I could stop imagining her point of view wheeling around the room like an invisible bird, testing her self-image against all available backdrops, or wondering if she thinks she knows exactly what I'm thinking when I look at her (and wondering is she right?), but I do think she is trying to do something really interesting with herself in her photographs.

I think she is trying in part to make her beauty and her sexuality (in an extended sense) continuous with the beauty of the landscape which has shaped them and been shaped by her ancestors in turn for the last thousand years or so. It makes me realize how much the beautiful people in the other pictures I see can seem cut flowers in a vase, destined to wither and be discarded in a matter of days without issue or consequence as the world gets uglier and uglier around them, among other things.
posted by jamjam at 10:49 AM on December 30, 2007


I think there's a huge danger in pointing to (as someone put it upthread) a stupid Beavis-ism and clanging the sexism danger bell; it dilutes the currency of serious claims of sexism, and ultimately just wears people out

I understand your point, but I don't think pointing out sexism constitutes "clanging the sexism danger bell." It's true that the callout is overheated (and tainted by chuckdarwin's concomitant complaint about his own post), but we should be able to say "hey, this post has some sexist crap in it" without it turning into a huge deal. Ideally, the conversation would have gone like this: "Hey, this post has some sexist crap in it." "Yeah, that last sentence is pretty lame." "I deleted the last sentence" (posted by mod). Thread closed or converted to discussion of beer and aardvarks.

The problem is that any mention of sexism is met with "What's sexist about that?" "OMG not this again!" "I'm being SILENCED!!" and it all turns into a shitfest. This is not the fault of the person who mentioned the sexism, it's the fault of the responders.

As for "serious claims," it's a misunderstanding to think that only egregious examples are a problem. What wears women out is not (just) the ass-grabbing and "show us your tits!" but the endless, unstoppable stream of casual remarks that to the speaker seem like a harmless expression of vibrant masculine enthusiasm (often featuring the word "hot") but to the hearer are one more drop of acid. Of course there's no way of eliminating it from the world, but surely it's reasonable to hope we can minimize it here on MeFi.

As for wearing people out, I hear you, but frankly any discussion of sexism wears some people out, and I think exasperating a few people is a reasonable tradeoff for making the site more woman-friendly.
posted by languagehat at 11:11 AM on December 30, 2007 [7 favorites]


I think she is trying in part to make her beauty and her sexuality (in an extended sense) continuous with the beauty of the landscape which has shaped them and been shaped by her ancestors in turn for the last thousand years or so.

Are you for real?
posted by Krrrlson at 11:13 AM on December 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


"Ideally, the conversation would have gone like this: "Hey, this post has some sexist crap in it." "Yeah, that last sentence is pretty lame." "I deleted the last sentence" (posted by mod)."

Sorry, if there's going to be deletions it should be the whole post. We've been through the "mods editing posts and comments" discussion before and it seems to me the consensus was all or nothing.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:20 AM on December 30, 2007


I understand your point, but I don't think pointing out sexism constitutes "clanging the sexism danger bell." It's true that the callout is overheated (and tainted by chuckdarwin's concomitant complaint about his own post), but we should be able to say "hey, this post has some sexist crap in it" without it turning into a huge deal. Ideally, the conversation would have gone like this: "Hey, this post has some sexist crap in it." "Yeah, that last sentence is pretty lame." "I deleted the last sentence" (posted by mod). Thread closed or converted to discussion of beer and aardvarks.

I'm still not really convinced that "she's hot" -- in reference to photos taken with the intent of showing that the subject is, in fact, extremely hot -- is sexism, though. True, it doesn't display a whole lot of class. I can see how it would make some women uncomfortable, or at least kind of annoyed (possibly even exasperated, given the prevalence of such comments here and elsewhere). It definitely wasn't written with the feelings of women in mind, I'll put it that way. But I think "sexist" is too extreme. I agree it's a comment that didn't need to be there, and that it should have been quietly snipped from the post.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:25 AM on December 30, 2007


What wears women out is not (just) the ass-grabbing and "show us your tits!" but the endless, unstoppable stream of casual remarks that to the speaker seem like a harmless expression of vibrant masculine enthusiasm (often featuring the word "hot") but to the hearer are one more drop of acid.

But then, this is the problem. How is calling a woman 'hot' offensive to anybody? Here's a radical, alternative proposition: it's possible to say a woman is beautiful, hot, sexy, cute, or has a great body in a manner that isn't sexist. And the casual dismissal of all such praise as "masturbatory fratboy" behavior (ah, Mefites and their own "but that's ok" prejudices) isn't just stupid and wrong, but it's also pretty insulting and repulsive behavior in itself. This callout and its attendant chorus of victims is a perfect example of this bad faith at work.
posted by nixerman at 11:28 AM on December 30, 2007


Sorry, if there's going to be deletions it should be the whole post. We've been through the "mods editing posts and comments" discussion before and it seems to me the consensus was all or nothing.

I think it should be okay for the mods to suggest partial deletions to the poster, if needed. I strongly suspect that, in this case, the poster would have been all too happy to comply if he'd had any idea that what he wrote would trigger a tropical shitstorm (as opposed to the shit tsunamis that related issues have triggered in the last month or so; this one is kind of mild).
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:29 AM on December 30, 2007


it's possible to say a woman is beautiful, hot, sexy, cute, or has a great body in a manner that isn't sexist

Nixerman, yes, it's possible -- but oh, so rare. The point is, it's almost always irrelevant. In this case, the photographer is clearly using her beauty as part of her message. It helps her that she happens to be a lovely blonde. (It certainly helps her get noticed, at least.) Such a comment is likely to be better received by *all* readers, as DarlingBri said earlier on her own behalf.

Imagine, if you will, a community weblog in which a discussion of the achievement of any given man -- artist, engineer, musician, diplomat, astronomer -- was accompanied by casual mention of the guy's penis size.

"Wow, nice work on that Human Genome Project! Plus the dude is HUNG."
posted by GrammarMoses at 11:42 AM on December 30, 2007


I'm still not really convinced that "she's hot" -- in reference to photos taken with the intent of showing that the subject is, in fact, extremely hot -- is sexism, though

It's up to women to decide what's sexist.

How is calling a woman 'hot' offensive to anybody?

It's up to women to decide what's offensive.

Sorry, if there's going to be deletions it should be the whole post. We've been through the "mods editing posts and comments" discussion before and it seems to me the consensus was all or nothing.


In general, I agree with the sentiment, but I think that discussion was specifically about comments, not posts, and as kittens says, the poster would probably have been happy with such a suggestion.
posted by languagehat at 11:44 AM on December 30, 2007


"Wow, nice work on that Human Genome Project! Plus the dude is HUNG."

Bad example, since the original commented on that the photographer was hot, not that she had big boobs or some such.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:46 AM on December 30, 2007


Milton Berle had to deal with that constantly.
posted by found missing at 11:47 AM on December 30, 2007


Brandon Blatcher wrote...

Bad example, since the original commented on that the photographer was hot, not that she had big boobs or some such.


So what's the deal with you today? Are you in hyper-literalist mode or something?
posted by tkolar at 11:49 AM on December 30, 2007


As for wearing people out, I hear you, but frankly any discussion of sexism wears some people out, and I think exasperating a few people is a reasonable tradeoff for making the site more woman-friendly.

Reasonable? I think it's freakin' AWESOME. More flameouts, more! If you (general you, of course) think we'll miss you desperately, why not give a big flameout and see? We're still in the 12 days of Christmas, you know!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:53 AM on December 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


Funny you should mention that, found missing. I was thinking about Uncle Miltie... though, in this case, not exactly in an "I'd hit it" sort of way.

And Brandon Blatcher, you're being too literal -- the import is the same.
posted by GrammarMoses at 11:53 AM on December 30, 2007


nixerman wrote...
How is calling a woman 'hot' offensive to anybody?

Here, read this comment.

And this comment.

Also, this comment.

Now, if by the time you read the third comment you noticed some similarity to the first two, this is good. It means that some residue of what you're reading is actually remaining in your brain instead of being immediately and uncritically ejected.

If you can keep that facility working for any length of time, perhaps you could go visit the two monster threads on this topic, or just reread this one a few more times. Eventually it will stick.

Good luck.
posted by tkolar at 11:55 AM on December 30, 2007


Uncle Miltie isn't the only big dick in this thread.
posted by found missing at 11:59 AM on December 30, 2007


It's up to women to decide what's sexist. It's up to women to decide what's offensive.

This is working from the logic that there's some kind of vaginal hive mind or something, LH. If you can find something that all women, ever, agree is sexist, then I will grant you that it probably is. If you're saying that no one with a dick is even entitled to an opinion on the subject, I have no idea why either of us are even here, do you?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:08 PM on December 30, 2007


The point is, it's almost always irrelevant.

Who are you to decide what is and isn't irrelevant to a post? And -- here's another radical idea -- even if it is irrelevant, so what? Must FPPs now to be written by lawyers? Must each and every link conform to a single, precise "purpose"?

Imagine, if you will, a community weblog in which a discussion of the achievement of any given man -- artist, engineer, musician, diplomat, astronomer -- was accompanied by casual mention of the guy's penis size.

Is this just hyperbole or do you seriously think yoyo_nyc's behavior is analogous to this example?

"Wow, nice work on that Human Genome Project! Plus the dude is HUNG."

What if yoyo_nyc had instead said the artist was really 'cute'? Or what if he'd said the artist has a "great look"? Or if he's said she had great hair?

I suspect what's really bothering some people here are their own cultural prejudices captured in the word 'hot'. But before you start laying out religious dogma, you might try being objective here, even for just a moment. Objective here means making an effort to set aside your own feelings, insecurities, prejudices and conditioning and trying to examine the issue in a neutral manner. It means rather than leaping to condemn a poster or commenter as sexist and win points in some imaginary game, you give him/her the benefit of the doubt.

So, again, consider: is it really such a problem for men to comment on women's appearances on the blue? Should we forbid any such praise or derision of the female body? Or is the problem rather specific phrases, words, and attitudes that ought to be prohibited? Or maybe the problem is a more broad-based lack of cultural sensitivity and extreme partisanship?

It's up to women to decide what's offensive.

This is nonsense. If sexism is to participate in any kind of scientific reality then it must be subject to rigorous analysis. It ought to be possible for any rational person to come along and say, "Yes, I can see how X promotes an unhealthy and disrespectful attitude towards women." If sexism is just whatever happens to make so-and-so feel bad then, yes, matteo is pretty much right.
posted by nixerman at 12:09 PM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


What wears women out is not (just) the ass-grabbing and "show us your tits!" but the endless, unstoppable stream of casual remarks that to the speaker seem like a harmless expression of vibrant masculine enthusiasm (often featuring the word "hot") but to the hearer are one more drop of acid.

Damn skippy, languagehat; that's why, way back when this thread was about the moderation, I was unsatisfied with the mods' choices and explanations. I think one or two of them are being a little too human, and reacting quite naturally to being cornered by taking a stance that they'd usually find uncomfortable.

But the issue is confused by chuckdarwin's earlier post on the subject, and the inability of a bunch of dicks, many of whom I consider friends, to separate what a user says in one thread from what he's said in another. That's an understandable failing (just because I understand someone doesn't mean I don't think they're being a dick, though) and one that it may seem chuckdarwin doesn't help, but once you start dragging him around for who he is, you stop dealing with the truth of the matter at hand and start, well, being a dick. And if, like in this case, the matter under scrutiny is whether sexist language ruins a crappy post, killing the messenger says to the world that you reject the message, though you may have simply found the messenger insolent.

Where is this going? Nowhere, really. It's up to the mods, and how welcoming to women (not all women, just the ones who might turn away from run-of-the-mill sexist objectification) they want this site to be.

Maybe the number of offended women is small enough for the mods to write off; there's probably some calculus for this sort of thing. Maybe the site can afford to lose more women. I wish it wouldn't, though.

I have little to learn from some dude telling me about his tastes in sexual objects. I have a lot to learn from the women who might throw up their hands at his display and never come back.

I'm sure some people can't separate my relatively thoughtful comments here from my frequent comments elsewhere about fucking tigers, or flinging shit, or jacking off with dolphins (and I'm also sure that, weirdness aside, that kind of hypersexualized joke post is a big part of the same problem we're discussing here. Food for thought). Thing is, my comments here have been aimed at the truth.

I think chuckdarwin's in the same boat, and he's being pilloried by a bunch of people, mods included, who either drag other users' personas from place to place for ammunition, or just wait 'til judgment has passed and jump on the bandwagon. Either way, it's not cool, but we are all humans in front of computers here, and humans aren't cool most of the time, anyway.

Can't expect much better, but we could all try. That includes mods as well as foul-mouthed fantasists like me; hopefully, by trying to include more people, more will feel welcome and we can raise our expectations without a lot of hand-wringing from the dick gang.
posted by breezeway at 12:09 PM on December 30, 2007


I expect we'll soon see a post titled If I'd Hit It.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:16 PM on December 30, 2007


I think chuckdarwin's in the same boat, and he's being pilloried by a bunch of people

I think he's being pilloried for using a weak accusation of sexism as a proxy for airing a personal grievance, and thereby cheapening the issue. To my mind, lowering the level of discourse like that is nearly as distasteful as actual sexism.
posted by spiderwire at 12:21 PM on December 30, 2007


I read the two big threads and thought they were incredibly productive: assumptions I'd made were questioned, I saw the "I'd hit it" comments–which I'd previously just scrolled past–in a different way, and felt I wasn't the only one. My initial knee-jerk opposition to a sexism tag was altered completely by the realization of the good that might come of it, i.e. the retention, via heightened awareness of latent (or overt) hostility toward women, of the luminous female mefites who might otherwise abandon the boyzone.

That said, I think this is a weird case. The photographer in question trades in the coin of hotness. Based on yoyo_nyc's correspondence and her own flickr titles, etc.. it's clear that Rebekka is not just aware of but partakes in, albeit ambivalently, the male gaze she elicits. The last line of the fpp is puerile, but is not just a totally random notation of fuckability, as would be the case with the well-hung geneticist, or the fine game designer someone'd hit.
posted by generalist at 12:34 PM on December 30, 2007


The problem is that we need to be exclusionary. Either we exclude those women who take easy offense, or we exclude those men who can't be polite in conversation. They can't both co-exist in peace on MeFi.

One of the problems in making this decision is that we know it's better to be polite, but we've traditionally been rather rough-and-tumble.

We were a boisterous Eastenders pub house, full of drunk acquaintances telling rude jokes, sharing nasty gossip, flirting with the neighbour, boasting of ourselves, and pinching the waitress on the ass.

Now we are supposed to be genteel. If there's going to be sexism, it better be a better class of sexism. Pretend we're gathering at the yacht club, people, the yacht club. We're civilized drunks, now.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:38 PM on December 30, 2007


But spiderwire, the question is whether or not this example of sexism is weak, and what kind of tone and behavior even weak examples of sexism encourage.

That the question comes from chuckdarwin is a tangent, albeit a damaging one: it's easy for those who don't want to consider whether their commentary might be offensive in a sexist way to elude that difficult question by targeting chuckdarwin's motive for posting.

People come here for all sorts of reasons. Quite a few are probably here just because opportunities to justify petty tangential beefs abound. It's a shame, though, that the flip side of the coin they mint is that quite a few people don't come here anymore for one reason.

The meat of this callout is the sexist language in the post, and whether its casual objecification is acceptable here. It's been established as acceptable by the moderation. Now the issue is whether that acceptance is harmful.

The issue of who chuckdarwin is, is just a convenient excuse for missing the point.
posted by breezeway at 12:44 PM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


Imagine, if you will, a community weblog in which a discussion of the achievement of any given man -- artist, engineer, musician, diplomat, astronomer -- was accompanied by casual mention of the guy's penis size.

Imagine, if you will, a community weblog in which a post about some guy's self-portraits in tightie whities is accompanied by mention of his dick size.

Let me examine the front page for individual women:

Paris Hilton
Kim Phuc
Stephanie Merritt
Five strippers
Three female foster children
Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir
Women among the 50 most loathsome people in America
Lilly, apparently a child who likes maps
Liz Hurley
Barbara Pym

& checking the more insides:

Amy Taubin
Stephanie Zacharek

Furthermore, several of the posts certainly involve the work of women: The police officer taking care of the feral cats, for example, is female. The films being discussed in the movie post probably have some female actors.

In the FPPs, one of these women is mentioned as being hot - the one who, for example, takes cleavage pictures of herself for a beauty contest. If this is not an aberrant sample, I can't read this as a trend of FPPs that needlessly and obsessively focus on women's attractiveness.

It's up to women to decide what's sexist.
It's up to women to decide what's offensive.


Epic identity politics fail. I know quite a few women whose reaction to the self-portraits under discussion would probably be "She's hot."
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 12:53 PM on December 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


We were a boisterous Eastenders pub house, full of drunk acquaintances telling rude jokes, sharing nasty gossip, flirting with the neighbour, boasting of ourselves, and pinching the waitress on the ass.


Mind telling me where to find this place online, ALSO full of really smart people and even-handed moderators? Because *that's* where I want to be. Not at some fucking yacht club.
posted by Ryvar at 12:55 PM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


We were a boisterous Eastenders pub house, full of drunk acquaintances telling rude jokes, sharing nasty gossip, flirting with the neighbour, boasting of ourselves, and pinching the waitress on the ass.

But you tipped well, so I didn't mind.
posted by jonmc at 1:04 PM on December 30, 2007


That the question comes from chuckdarwin is a tangent, albeit a damaging one: it's easy for those who don't want to consider whether their commentary might be offensive in a sexist way to elude that difficult question by targeting chuckdarwin's motive for posting.

It's not a tangential question, it's crucial to the entire issue; all else aside, if any hint of sexism is a hair-trigger, insta-ban offense, then people can and will use it as a proxy for settling personal grudges or, more likely, invoking shitstorms just for the fun of it. That happened a couple of times in the huge threads last month and it seems no one noticed it.

I find it highly encouraging that we've been able to have frank discussions about the actual negative effects of "I'd hit it"-type comments, but discouraging that some people seeme to have takem that as a green light to start psychoanalyzing other posters, visiting their intentions, and generally comparing relative offensive-ness. As I said earlier, this is not a contest to see who has a higher granularity of indignance.

My point was simply that we can be critical without being bloodthirsty; there's been plenty of ridiculous bullshit posted in this thread along the lines of, "But she's hot, therefore she's asking for it," which for my money is in a whole new zipcode of disgusting when compared against the original post, which is just dumb and immature.

The meat of this callout is the sexist language in the post, and whether its casual objecification is acceptable here. It's been established as acceptable by the moderation. Now the issue is whether that acceptance is harmful.

Nonsense. The moderators and everyone in this thread with a lick of sense said that it was wrong, but that it didn't merit the nuclear option. That is in no way, shape, or form equivalent to calling the last sentence of the post "acceptable," and you should be ashamed for accusing all of those people for condoning it when they quite clearly did no such thing.

Not all discrimination is equivalent, and this sort of myopic, scorched-earth response is appallingly counterproductive.
posted by spiderwire at 1:07 PM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


It's up to women to decide what's sexist.
It's up to women to decide what's offensive.


And of course all women will agree on these things. No, then we'll be stuck catering to the most easily offended among them, I guess.
posted by jonmc at 1:07 PM on December 30, 2007


I know quite a few women whose reaction to the self-portraits under discussion would probably be "She's hot."

That's fine (although I note that it doesn't necessarily imply that they would also think the post was OK). Women have the right to decide it's not sexist; men don't. (And yes, kittens, I myself am a man; I'm not putting forward my opinion as dispositive, just backing up what I perceive to be the overwhelming weight of female opinion on the subject. If a lot of women were telling me it was fine, I'd back off and recalibrate my meter. As it is, I'm pretty sure it's only guys who are saying "I don't see the problem! What's sexist about saying a hot babe is hot?")
posted by languagehat at 1:09 PM on December 30, 2007


On non-preview: jonmc, old buddy, I thought you were getting the picture a while back. If you see any women here saying it's fine to say "she's hot" in a post, please let me know. Otherwise, you're putting the "man" in "straw man."
posted by languagehat at 1:11 PM on December 30, 2007


In Pursuit of Over-Dramatic Displays, an Actual (Very Short) Play
Or
The Circles We Keep Going Around and Around in

Jim: Hey, Bob, remember that knock-knock joke you told about chicken farmers?
Bob: Heh, yeah, that was hilarious.
Jim: Well, actually, uh... I found it really offensive.
Bob: ....
Jim: I was born on a chicken farm, my parents are chicken farmers, and I come from a long line of very proud chicken farmers. We've always had to put up with a lot of jokes and put-downs by town-folk, and it really hurt, a lot, when I was growing up. I don't want to make a bit deal out of it, but, you know....
Bob: You've got to be kidding me.
Jim: Look, I just would appreciate it if you could be a little more sensitive.
Bob: It was just a joke! A stupid little joke!
Jim: Yeah, but it offended me. A lot.
Bob: What, am I not supposed to tell jokes about cow-farmers, either? How about horse-breeders, are they off limits, huh? Should I just not talk about farmers at all, is that your point?
Jim: Bob, all I'm saying is, your joke offended me.
Bob: I have a RIGHT to tell jokes! Don't you dare tell me what I can and cannot say! I LIKE my jokes! Don't you DARE try to censor me! It's my freedom to speech, dammit, and you can shut the hell up!
Jim: Look -- it was just an offensive joke.
Bob: It was NOT offensive!
Jim: Well, I found it offensive.
Bob: Oh! My! God! You are being SO over-sensitive! You think that was offensive? You really think that was offensive? I have heard SUCH worse jokes about chicken farmers! I have seen chicken farmers outright RIDICULED, and you're getting in my face about a little joke? Get over it!
Jim: I can't say anything about that other stuff, but, you know, I'm just talking about that joke.. It offended me, that's all I can say.
Bob: Oh, grow the hell up. It was a joke!
Jim: It offended me.
Bob: Yeah, well, that's your problem, isn't it? Why don't you go cry to your therapist instead of boring me with your issues?
Jim: I'm just saying -- you told the joke, it offended me. I'm just asking for a little sensitivity.
Bob: Sensitivity, my ass! Get over it!
Jim: ....
Bob: ...You know what, I'm sorry. I didn't mean it. You're a cool guy, Jim, and I never meant to offend you.
Jim: Thanks, Bob. I really appreciate it. I know you didn't mean anything by it.
Bob: Hug?
Jim: Hug.
The hugging commences. Yay!
posted by Ms. Saint at 1:11 PM on December 30, 2007 [7 favorites]


On non-preview: jonmc, old buddy, I thought you were getting the picture a while back. If you see any women here saying it's fine to say "she's hot" in a post,

I'm more speaking in the larger scheme of things, hat. I think we'd agree that it's near impossible to get any group as large as an entire gender to agree on every instance of possiblee offensiveness, so if one person is offended I guess we'll have to cater to that.
posted by jonmc at 1:18 PM on December 30, 2007


Women have the right to decide it's not sexist; men don't.

You'd better be careful, or I'll start claiming my right to unilaterally decide, for all men, what is sexist against men. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Or, we could aim for equality, rather than divisive groupings and identity politics.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 1:20 PM on December 30, 2007



And Brandon Blatcher, you're being too literal -- the import is the same.


I disagree and think your equation of the comments is part of the problem here.

The original comment simply stated that "...and also, Guðleifsdóttir is hot 1, 2,3." Nowhere in there was "I'd hit it" or "reduced to mere tits and ass" or "defined solely in terms of her beauty" or "man she has big boobs", yet directly saying and acting as though that was what said.

If being literal means taking the comment as it is instead of projecting past comments from other people on it, then fine.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:21 PM on December 30, 2007


Nonsense... and you should be ashamed for accusing all of those people for condoning it when they quite clearly did no such thing.

I understand your point, spiderwire, and I've certainly both painted with too broad a brush and been confusingly didactic in making my points. I don't think you're wrong, and I imagine there is an interesting discussion to be had about the motivations of many of the posters in the room, but the way you've shouted your reprimands at me is a conversation stopper and a fight starter.

I'll choose the former, and leave it at that.
posted by breezeway at 1:56 PM on December 30, 2007


Mind telling me where to find this place online, ALSO full of really smart people and even-handed moderators? Because *that's* where I want to be. Not at some fucking yacht club.

Ryvar, as a yacht club board member I am deeply offended.
posted by nicwolff at 1:57 PM on December 30, 2007


In response to TheOnlyCoolTim:

Paris Hilton - subject of internetwide “I’d hit it/never hit it” debates, including (but not limited to) here
Kim Phuc - a child
Stephanie Merritt - a young, intelligent woman who also happens to be attractive -- admirable restraint! Way to go, MeFites!
Five strippers - [eye roll]
Three female foster children - children
Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir - ‘nuff said
Women among the 50 most loathsome people in America -- and why shouldn’t they be?
Lilly, apparently a child who likes maps - a child
Liz Hurley - a model, the only woman in the FPP, and mentioned in passing
Barbara Pym - treated respectfully, as an actual writer, which is possible because she 1) was of a certain age and 2) is now dead

Not exactly dispositive.

And Brandon Blatcher, you certainly have a right to disagree, but the point I was making was "she's hot" and "he has a big cock" both allude to a person's putative fuckability, and are therefore analogous.

The original comment simply stated that "...and also, Guðleifsdóttir is hot 1, 2,3." Nowhere in there was "I'd hit it" or "reduced to mere tits and ass" or "defined solely in terms of her beauty" or "man she has big boobs", yet directly saying and acting as though that was what said.

In my example, the mention of the dude's endowment was also a throwaway remark. The geneticist was not "reduced to" or "defined solely" by his penis. In fact, that attribute was irrelevant to the larger topic of his work on the Human Genome Project. That's the point.

And yes, penis size is a more specific attribute than general hotness. I was attempting to use an example that I felt would help to make a point about how demeaning it can feel to be judged by (not solely, but simultaneously) by one's physical attributes; the attribute of penis size -- always a sensitive one* -- seemed to be an example that would penetrate* the fog of self-justification that always arises* whenever this topic comes up*.

*Yes, I'm 12. Let he/she who is without sin...
posted by GrammarMoses at 2:00 PM on December 30, 2007


And yes, kittens, I myself am a man; I'm not putting forward my opinion as dispositive, just backing up what I perceive to be the overwhelming weight of female opinion on the subject.

Fair enough. I will admit, though, that for a second you seemed to be channeling EB in an unfortunate way; in general, it's probably best for those of us of the XY persuasion to avoid appointing ourselves the Speaker for All Women, as I'm sure you agree. That said, I'm not seeing how you're divining the overwhelming weight of female opinion on the subject, if the subject is this particular post. This thread has featured significant contributions from probably no more than two dozen people, and maybe half are women. Not all seem to agree that the post was a marauding act of sexism. The person who seems most insistent on its being a sexist affront is a man whose motives are kind of questionable. Your perception and mine, honestly, don't completely match up.

If a lot of women were telling me it was fine, I'd back off and recalibrate my meter. As it is, I'm pretty sure it's only guys who are saying "I don't see the problem! What's sexist about saying a hot babe is hot?"

I don't see what's sexist about saying a hot babe is hot when she's essentially saying, "Look at me! I'm a hot babe and I am HOT!" I don't think there's much room for ambiguity when it comes to her motivations: one of the photos was taken precisely for entry into a beauty contest. Like I said what feels like a million years ago now, this is not the Alison Stokke thread -- we're not talking about someone photographed while playing a sport and subsequently turned into stroke material. This is someone who took sexy pictures of herself doing not much other than being sexy, and then placed the photos in a public forum so that others could admire her sexiness. The same can be said for any woman in Playboy, and while I think making an FPP about a Playboy spread would be tacky and not anything that would thrill most women on the site just on GP, I don't think pointing out that the subject of such a thread is hot would be sexist. This is a fine distinction, but I'm starting to think that it's a pretty damn important one.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:06 PM on December 30, 2007


If you see any women here saying it's fine to say "she's hot" in a post, please let me know.

It shows up a lot, and it has yet to upset or anger me. Ditto re: "I'd hit it."
posted by JanetLand at 2:10 PM on December 30, 2007


I'm seriously thinking of telling y'all to stuff your $5 up your fucking arse.

It'll cost you $20 to watch -- same as in town.

tightie whities...accompanied by mention of his dick size

The David Beckham Bulge: Stuffed Armani Briefs? Or, not?
posted by ericb at 2:17 PM on December 30, 2007


I understand your point, spiderwire, and I've certainly both painted with too broad a brush and been confusingly didactic in making my points. I don't think you're wrong, and I imagine there is an interesting discussion to be had about the motivations of many of the posters in the room, but the way you've shouted your reprimands at me is a conversation stopper and a fight starter.

Yeah, well, I'm a jerk. I think that if you believe it's an important topic, then it's incumbent upon you to be careful with your wording.

That is, if your entire point is that the subject should not be taken lightly -- which I agree with -- then painting with a "broad brush" isn't just "confusing," it's hypocritical. First, because you're purporting to take the matter seriously but treating it recklessly. Second, because you're accusing people of the same sort of insensitivity that you're displaying. Third, because you're cheapening the accusation, which empowers those who don't take the matter seriously by conflating all types of sexism into the same Very Bad Thing pool.

Furthermore, "apologizing" with "well, that may have been offensive, but you're still a jerk" is disingenuous. I doubt you would accept that defense coming from someone who'd accused you of misogyny, and I don't accept the faux-concession in this case, either. I made a comment directly targeting chuck, and you called me out, so please don't accuse me of starting a fight with you. You are neither confusing nor didactic. I'm glad you understand my point and I'm glad I stopped your conversation.
posted by spiderwire at 2:18 PM on December 30, 2007


For what it's worth, I apologize for any excessive rancor.
posted by spiderwire at 2:41 PM on December 30, 2007


Also, 400.
posted by spiderwire at 2:41 PM on December 30, 2007


for a second you seemed to be channeling EB in an unfortunate way

Believe me, I think about EB all the time when this subject comes up. I miss his impassioned advocacy but not his belligerence; I try to imitate the former but not the latter. (And yes, I know I occasionally fail.)

in general, it's probably best for those of us of the XY persuasion to avoid appointing ourselves the Speaker for All Women, as I'm sure you agree.

I certainly do; it's something EB warned me about in the strongest terms, and I try to avoid giving even the appearance of wearing that badge. Women speak for themselves; I just try to keep them from feeling they're the only ones who care about this stuff.

Hi, JanetLand! I'm aware of your tough hide, but I think you'll agree you're an outlier.
posted by languagehat at 3:23 PM on December 30, 2007


Metafilter: the censorship, it's OK to like!
posted by Mick at 3:33 PM on December 30, 2007


I'm aware of your tough hide, but I think you'll agree you're an outlier.

Quite possibly. My age might play a part as well -- I used to get all bent out of shape over these issues, but these days, eeenh, it just doesn't seem important.

My hide, however, is still soft and luscious, thank you very much. :)
posted by JanetLand at 4:05 PM on December 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


The tacked on "plus she's hot!" was indeed superfluous, and yes, sexist; chuckdarwin's post really was worse than this one; but the thing that's standing out most to me here is how much of a ridiculous trainwreck of a thread this is. Seems to be settling down a bit and getting better now.

To tie in something from way upthread to something more current: I don't quite agree, languagehat, that the determination of sexism is properly and entirely the province of women; what I can affirm to, however, is that it is not for men to tell women what isn't sexism. That's the dangerous road. I still get a slight tinge of distaste for the monolithic grouping/absolute statment in that, but it's very clear to me that it's the sort of thing where it's perfectly acceptable to round up to 100% for the sake of clarity.

And at all costs, avoid the "well, I'm not offended" construction, which got used upthread several times, and never seemed to me to acquire a modicum of excusability. It's some perfected version of simultaneous hijacking of female concerns to make it about men, belittling of those concerns, and complete missing of the point.
posted by Arturus at 5:04 PM on December 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


I don't quite agree, languagehat, that the determination of sexism is properly and entirely the province of women; what I can affirm to, however, is that it is not for men to tell women what isn't sexism.

I don't understand the distinction you're making (if men can determine what is sexism, then it logically follows they can tell women that something isn't sexism), but I'm perfectly happy to go with your formulation, since in practice that's what I'm concerned about.

My hide, however, is still soft and luscious, thank you very much.

Heh. Mine too!
/incredibly youthful granddad
posted by languagehat at 6:43 AM on December 31, 2007


(if men can determine what is sexism, then it logically follows they can tell women that something isn't sexism)

I suck at formal logic (hey, it's the internet), but I believe that unless sexism is biconditional, then the inverse proposition doesn't logically follow.
posted by spiderwire at 8:54 AM on December 31, 2007


I suck at formal logic, too, so I'm not even going to try to defend my statement in those terms. It just seems intuitively obvious to me. If men can't tell women what is or isn't sexist, then (it seems to me to follow, in normal human logic rather than the formal kind) it's women who define what's sexist. At any rate, I was talking to Arturus. Hey, where'd that guy go?

*looks around bar, sees most of the chairs are upside down on tables, realizes bartender has been giving him meaningful looks for a while now, staggers out*
posted by languagehat at 11:44 AM on December 31, 2007


:: locks door and pours a Black and Tan::

thinks to self:

"I don't understand, I was giving him meaningful looks, he had a nice hat on, why didn't he talk to me? Maybe I should post this on AsMe..."
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:33 PM on December 31, 2007 [2 favorites]


*gives hat, blatcher meaningless looks*
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:44 PM on December 31, 2007


*shit, forget to take out the cortex!*
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:13 PM on December 31, 2007


I think it's rather interesting that the gender split on MetaTalk sexism thread-starting is skewed heavily toward the male side. I wonder why that is.
posted by zebra3 at 2:56 PM on December 31, 2007


[tactless, obvious jokey response underscoring the basic motivation for said threads]
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:00 PM on December 31, 2007


I think it's rather interesting that the gender split on MetaTalk sexism thread-starting is skewed heavily toward the male side. I wonder why that is.

Because most of everyone here is dudes? I'd be really curious in a gender-split analysis between all the parts of the site and a ballpark idea of the M/F skew generally. cortex, you free this evening?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:55 PM on December 31, 2007


Heh. I'll think about it. There's a sub-problem here: creating a decision process for identifying gender from a free-form field field.

The simplest solution would be to whitelist a series of male and female identifiers (male, m, guy, dude, man, o->, etc) and count hits for each gender and everything else as "unknown". Maybe refine it with a second pass that lets a human evaluate any non-null strings for gender identity as well.

After that, it'd be pretty trivial to do the breakdown, really.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:00 PM on December 31, 2007


LH: my point isn't really one that hinges on the logic of the statement. I can rephrase it like this: there's a possible reading of "men do not define what sexism is" that comes off something like "men cannot participate meaningfully in discourse regarding what is/isn't sexism", which is something I can't affirm at all. The point I was trying to get at that men telling women that something isn't sexism is the most fraught part of this discourse, and the part that needs to be dealt with most carefully (to the point of being something that really, shouldn't happen at all), but that men can still participate meaningfully in the overall discourse.

Which I guess, can be reduced to the statement that men participating in the positive "this is sexism" is something that is possible to do, although something that's still somewhat dangerous, as EB proved; although I also thing there are other elements to the discourse of determining sexism that can't be reduced to "this is sexism" or "this isn't sexism", and that some of these areas are possibly the safest for men to participate in.

Does that clarify?
posted by Arturus at 4:16 PM on December 31, 2007


I wonder why that is.

'cause MetaTalk is a boyzone (NOT PENISIST).

But let's go down the list anyway

This one is started by a woman, saying something is sexist.

This one is by a guy calling a woman's comments hysterical

While here we have a woman wishing to continue a discussion about sexism.

Then there was this thread, started by some jackass who tried bring up discussion about a change in policy/interface.

and here's other guy bitching about the deletion of a crappy thread


Here a guy attempts to point a derail about sexism to Metatalk
. THE NERVE!

Finally, other guy attempts to get a post deleted, feeling it's crappy and sexist.

That's seven links your provided, three of which were created by women and three by men and one in particular by an extremely handsome manly man, so four of the seven were by males. Of the four created by males, 2 were attempting to direct derails about sexism to Metatalk, one (by an extremely intelligent, strong and virile man) was attempting to be neutral and the last was just more shit from crazy ass fourpanels.

So, the guys are alright.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:04 PM on December 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


The simplest solution would be to whitelist a series of male and female identifiers (male, m, guy, dude, man, o->, etc) and count hits for each gender and everything else as "unknown". Maybe refine it with a second pass that lets a human evaluate any non-null strings for gender identity as well.

After that, it'd be pretty trivial to do the breakdown, really.


I would suspect, based on gut instinct and no actual data, that a larger percentage of the null identities are women; while I do a crappy job of obscuring my gender in my comments, because it got tiresome after a while, part of me just yells "Unsafe! Stop!" when I think about announcing my gender on my profile page (not for Metafilter specifically; just in general).
posted by occhiblu at 6:38 PM on December 31, 2007


The simplest solution would be to whitelist a series of male and female identifiers (male, m, guy, dude, man, o->, etc) and count hits for each gender and everything else as "unknown". Maybe refine it with a second pass that lets a human evaluate any non-null strings for gender identity as well.

After that, it'd be pretty trivial to do the breakdown, really.


I would suspect, based on gut instinct and an actually surprisingly large amount of data, that cortex is a big big dork.

You know, it's interesting that the free-form gender field hasn't been mentioned much amidst these boyzone discussions. I remember thinking when I first signed up for MeFi that it was a nice touch that made the site feel like a more inviting place -- the usual binary gender fields (or even pre-determined ones) often get on my nerves, and I like how Matt dealt with that from the very beginning.

Thankfully, cortex's lust for information will finally fix that. I vote for some natural-language analysis up in here! Everyone knows that biological differences and hard-wired neural programming and hormones 'n' stuff causes men and women to write differently. With a little bit of linear algebra and some Bayesian metrics we should be able to start classifying people based on post content in no time!

Just kidding, cortex.
posted by spiderwire at 7:15 PM on December 31, 2007


Kidding or no, I defy you to provide me with a NLP gender-identification routine that will actually work worth a god damn. Especially against the rarified set that is metafilter users.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:32 PM on December 31, 2007


Kidding or no, I defy you to provide me with a NLP gender-identification routine that will actually work worth a god damn. Especially against the rarified set that is metafilter users.

Oh, yeah, you'd like that, wouldn't you? Well, it's a good thing I have important New-Year-sy type things to do, or I'd go and look up... some articles on the topic right now... or maybe I could just code it myself... I've done some NLP routines before; it couldn't hurt to just... try it...
posted by spiderwire at 8:18 PM on December 31, 2007


I'm feeling mighty rarefied right now. Rarefied and tender.

I think I've finally turned into the other white meat. Thanks a lot, Metafilter.
posted by taz at 1:50 AM on January 1, 2008


I had always suspected that this site was populated by a large number of sexist fuckwits; this thread proves only serves to underscore that suspicion. Even more damning is the fact that certain people are so defensive about the obvious sexism here.

I also feel that the personal attacks against me are completely out of line.

I don't see how I can continue to contribute to this site.
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:33 AM on January 1, 2008


Bye.
posted by spiderwire at 5:06 AM on January 1, 2008


I don't see how I can continue to contribute to this site.

Having recently gone through a phase like that, I'd advise you to just go off and do other things and come back if and when you feel like. The site works best if you're using it with a generally positive frame of mind, so if you don't have that, just take a break. It's all good.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:32 AM on January 1, 2008


DLTDHYOTAOYWO
posted by signal at 7:36 AM on January 1, 2008


Bye.

Eat shit.
posted by chuckdarwin at 7:44 AM on January 1, 2008


chuck, Brandon's right on; if you're peeved at the site, the best thing is to just leave it where it is for a while and disengage. If time passes and you're glad you're gone, cool, stay gone; if you find you miss it, cool, come back. But getting into a row here about how you don't want to spend time here is just going to drive you and everyone else crazy, and it's not worth it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:46 AM on January 1, 2008


crazy like FOXES!!!!
posted by generalist at 8:16 AM on January 1, 2008


Ethereal Bligh is dead, long live Ethereal Bligh!
posted by Justinian at 9:05 AM on January 1, 2008


Please stick around, chuckdarwin. I love your stuff.
posted by jamjam at 10:48 AM on January 1, 2008


chuckdarwin writes...
Eat shit.

On the other hand you could just keep it up until you get banned, at which point you won't have to worry about the whole "coming back when you've cooled off" thing.
posted by tkolar at 10:52 AM on January 1, 2008


Meh, the account isn't even disabled. You'll be back.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:35 PM on January 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


he just can't stay away

chuck, you embarrassed yourself in this thread. get over it. forget it. everyone else will long before you do. move on.
posted by caddis at 7:13 PM on January 1, 2008


Any word on the gender split here, or did you mods decide to do something fun instead?
posted by zebra3 at 6:04 AM on January 2, 2008


Yeah, it turns out my new xbox didn't get stolen by elves or anything, so, yeah. Gimme a couple of months.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:42 AM on January 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


You people are fucking ridiculous.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:38 PM on January 3, 2008


Q. why did mickey divorce minnie?

A. she was fucking goofy.
posted by taz at 6:34 PM on January 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


"hey, I'm fucking despair!"

[have we gotten to the point where we can just call out the numbers of jokes we like?]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:25 PM on January 4, 2008


Yes. NUMBER 17!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:33 PM on January 4, 2008


If I remember correctly, #17 = "I'm fuckin' dis custard"?
posted by taz at 7:46 PM on January 4, 2008


Close enough!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:00 PM on January 4, 2008


Weeeeeeeeee!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:52 PM on January 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Theeeeeeeeeeey!
posted by tkolar at 10:59 AM on January 6, 2008


Do I know it?? I wrote it!!
posted by Skygazer at 9:25 AM on January 18, 2008


« Older Your new games. What are they?   |   Possible CES meetup Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments