wtf is the point of this FPP? February 2, 2007 8:20 AM   Subscribe

Seriously, wtf is the point of this FPP? The site's not in english so it seems to me to be a thread that has no other purpose than to comment on the attractiveness of the women who are featured. How is this appropriate for Metafilter?
posted by dobbs to Etiquette/Policy at 8:20 AM (158 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

Hey, Metafilter is more than just America!!!! Or so I hear.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:22 AM on February 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Smells self-linky to me.
posted by empath at 8:24 AM on February 2, 2007


One interesting accidental bit of commentary this site demonstrates is that Russian beauty seems to focus on the face. You know if this was a grassroots American Miss Somethin' contest, it will look a bit like this.
posted by Milkman Dan at 8:25 AM on February 2, 2007


It just seemed weird to me. Weird stuff usually flies here.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:30 AM on February 2, 2007 [3 favorites]


Yea I go for weird semi-jokey. In Russia, hot chick votes for you.
posted by Mister_A at 8:33 AM on February 2, 2007


Judging how the thread is going so far, I vote we leave it up and once it closes we start a new thread with photos of everybody that posted in it so we can make fun of them.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 8:41 AM on February 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


I like attractive women.
posted by LordSludge at 8:42 AM on February 2, 2007


empath writes "Smells self-linky to me."

Deep cover if it is. He comes across as American in his comments and he's been posting for over a year. Besides if he was going to self link his own project why not do so last year for 2006 (or 2005 and 2004 for that matter).
posted by Mitheral at 8:43 AM on February 2, 2007


Who's making fun of the women? We are making lecherous remarks and alluding to the well-known "mail-order Russian bride" stereotype.

PS I am teh hawtnez
posted by Mister_A at 8:45 AM on February 2, 2007




When I end up clicking through to hotornot.com, I just rate a dozen people with twos (no matter what they look like) and then leave. is it just me?
posted by Roger Dodger at 8:49 AM on February 2, 2007


I can't decide whether I want to post in this thread about how objectifying to women that post is, or comment in the original thread about how seriously HOT Оксана is....

Hmm. Dilemma, dilemma....
posted by crackingdes at 8:50 AM on February 2, 2007


The site's not in english so it seems to me to be a thread that has no other purpose than to comment on the attractiveness of the women who are featured. How is this appropriate for Metafilter?

Metafilter hates ugly people.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:51 AM on February 2, 2007


I thought it was an e-commerce site. Silly me.
posted by peeedro at 8:58 AM on February 2, 2007


Burhanistan---
Gimme back my bong.
posted by Dizzy at 8:58 AM on February 2, 2007


boy zone crapolla, can't read Russian so can't even evaluate if this is real crapolla or fake crapolla.
posted by edgeways at 9:00 AM on February 2, 2007


And it's Friday dobbs, take a deep breath. There were a million crap posts on the other days of the week, where was your outrage then?
posted by peeedro at 9:00 AM on February 2, 2007




Ahh, am I to understand the Russian Ambassador is to be admitted entrance to the War Room?
posted by Smart Dalek at 9:09 AM on February 2, 2007


Mine shaft gap, eh Smart Dalek?
posted by Mister_A at 9:10 AM on February 2, 2007


Oh.
That explains why I've been been trying to find the carb on this package of Twinkies.
posted by Dizzy at 9:11 AM on February 2, 2007


can't read Russian so can't even evaluate if this is real crapolla or fake crapolla.

Let's get some babelfish action going, at least.
posted by cortex at 9:12 AM on February 2, 2007


But one of them looks like Cher. No bull.
posted by breezeway at 9:12 AM on February 2, 2007


Do i have to defrost the crapolla first, or can I just put the whole damn thing in my mouth?
Burhanistan?
posted by Dizzy at 9:15 AM on February 2, 2007


I can't wake up Burhanistan.
Please advise.
posted by Dizzy at 9:18 AM on February 2, 2007


Dizzy, even if circumstances seem completely bound up, the final decision is always your choice.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:20 AM on February 2, 2007


I vote for a deletion, please. There is no point to this FPP other than "Number 32 is really hawt, amIrite?". And that's fine in some places, but please, not here.
posted by jokeefe at 9:22 AM on February 2, 2007


When I end up clicking through to hotornot.com, I just rate a dozen people with twos (no matter what they look like) and then leave. is it just me?

I give ugly people 10s and "beautiful" people 1s. Just to try to level the playing field.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:24 AM on February 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Fine.
I'm still not giving you mouth-to-mouth without a release form and a dental shield.
posted by Dizzy at 9:25 AM on February 2, 2007


*grabs Burhanistan, flays every stitch of clothing off of them, shaves off their head, coats them in fruit-punch flavored nougat and narwhal must and begins vigorously humping their bristly bald pate*
posted by loquacious at 9:28 AM on February 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Err, I mean, thank you for the video links. I'm digging your modus operandi, old bean.
posted by loquacious at 9:29 AM on February 2, 2007


Running trough babelfish I'd say it's legit, plus www.nuclear.ru runs banners for it, but still crap.

Actually reading it via babelfish is mildly interesting from a language perspective, but that happens with all non-English sites though babel
posted by edgeways at 9:31 AM on February 2, 2007


loquacious---
you wouldn't happen to have a coupla boxes of Hot Pockets, a quart of Chunky Monkey, and an album cover, would you?
Just asking.
posted by Dizzy at 9:34 AM on February 2, 2007


And the narwhal must makes my lips numb.
posted by Dizzy at 9:36 AM on February 2, 2007


You meant narwhal musk, right?
posted by Burhanistan at 9:37 AM on February 2, 2007


Only Greenlanders are allowed to possess that stuff.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:38 AM on February 2, 2007


Come on, it's Friday. Have a toke and a smile.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 9:38 AM on February 2, 2007


Burhanistan is a them?
posted by Mister_A at 9:38 AM on February 2, 2007


Man, hands off the Cherry Garcia or the Chunky Monkey, but feel free to raid the cereal vault.

And we're in civilization, you wook. Use a rolling tray! That's what they're for!
posted by loquacious at 9:39 AM on February 2, 2007


I'm digging your modus operandi, old bean.

I'm neither here nor there on it, being generally pro-silliness all else aside, but I consider it a given that it will be the target of a callout within a week.

And since MeTa threads are getting titles, I'm going to make a subwager that the title will resemble "I just can't Burhanistand this!"
posted by cortex at 9:39 AM on February 2, 2007


Thank God you're alive!
I was about to load you in my Ranchero and head out to the swamp behind the Old Mill.
posted by Dizzy at 9:40 AM on February 2, 2007


I broke the rolling tray on B-stan's head trying to re-animate him.
That Bakelite stuff gets really brittle after a coupla years on the dash of my Pinto.
posted by Dizzy at 9:42 AM on February 2, 2007


consider it a given that it will be the target of a callout within a week.

A callout on metatalk about metatalk would be kind of strange.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:45 AM on February 2, 2007


I'm warning you...
posted by Mister_A at 9:47 AM on February 2, 2007


I think Burhanistan is a cop.
posted by Dizzy at 9:47 AM on February 2, 2007


This post is a puzzle, and all of you are clues.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:58 AM on February 2, 2007


Those who have not read this thread are therefore clueless. QED.
posted by cortex at 10:02 AM on February 2, 2007


Is it just the narwhal talking, or does loquacious look kinda like Lindsay Lohan?
posted by Dizzy at 10:08 AM on February 2, 2007


Weird awful Lindsay or cute, busty Freaky Friday Lindsay?
posted by Mister_A at 10:10 AM on February 2, 2007


This narwhal talks.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:12 AM on February 2, 2007


Is there a difference?
posted by Dizzy at 10:13 AM on February 2, 2007


Burhanistan just handcuffed me and took me downtown.
Does this orange jumpsuit make my ass look fat?
posted by Dizzy at 10:26 AM on February 2, 2007


Give him the Hunalyzer Burhanistan!
posted by Mister_A at 10:27 AM on February 2, 2007


"Took me downtown".
Paging dirtynumbangelboy.
posted by Dizzy at 10:29 AM on February 2, 2007


(please don't cut my face.)
posted by Dizzy at 10:30 AM on February 2, 2007


So I assume you flagged the post before whining in here, Dobbs? And if you did, why did you feel it was necessary to whine in here, Dobbs?
posted by Dave Faris at 10:32 AM on February 2, 2007


Everybody needs a superabundance of huna, so I wouldn't dare quantify his current levels for fear of imposing observer bias.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:32 AM on February 2, 2007


It just seemed weird to me. Weird stuff usually flies here.
posted by mathowie


Uh huh. Yeah. Sure. Or could it be, Mister Mathowie (IF indeed that is your real name!) that you actually have a crush on Анастасия??? Huh???

Yeahhhhh, I thought so!
posted by The Deej at 10:38 AM on February 2, 2007


Frankly, I like the way this is going. I already get all of my news, entertainment and information from MetaFilter. If I can just get porn as well, we're all set.
posted by chrismear at 10:46 AM on February 2, 2007


It takes one to know one ... I hereby declare the repeated, deliberate and early derails of recent MeTas via youtubage to be obnoxious.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:46 AM on February 2, 2007


Crunchland, yeah, I flagged it but there isn't an appropriate flag, but, please, point out my whining in asking for clarification on etiquette and policy regarding linking to non-english sites.

Now that I know that non-English sites are super okay as long as they're "weird", I'll be sure to head into my bag-o-foreign-bookmarks and start a-postin'. Since most of them don't have female headshots for MeFites to grade, however, I probably won't find much defense in linking to this MeTa post. Sucks to be me, I suppose.
posted by dobbs at 10:48 AM on February 2, 2007


It's only "just silly" if you think that having guys discuss how to buy attractive women -- because obviously all attractive women are for sale -- is "just silly." It's a crappy, frat-house discussion to be having on MeFi. Another vote for delete.

(Not that the discussion is any more juvenile than the site itself, but the site is not exactly the height of ... anything, really. Even weirdness.)
posted by occhiblu at 10:53 AM on February 2, 2007


Unless, "Russian" now equals "weird and silly." Which is also juvenile.
posted by occhiblu at 10:54 AM on February 2, 2007




Mister_A, well that makes more sense. I was just reading about huna between obnoxious youtube derails so I made a weird association that wasn't altogether uninteresting.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:01 AM on February 2, 2007


That's some mashup that huna, eh?
posted by Mister_A at 11:10 AM on February 2, 2007


It's also great to know that MeTa is now fucking useless for discussing policy and etiquette because people want to use it for their own private discussions.
posted by dobbs at 11:18 AM on February 2, 2007


dobbs writes "yeah, I flagged it but there isn't an appropriate flag,"

How about "it breaks the guidelines". It doesn't really matter, it's the number of flags that's important rather than the exact category.
posted by Mitheral at 11:25 AM on February 2, 2007


FWIW, I've been flagging posts as fantastic lately. I wonder if #1 keeps a tally on that...
posted by Mister_A at 11:27 AM on February 2, 2007


Yeah, really, please delete. The advantage of lacking English is that it doesn't even pretend to be about anything but rating chix.
posted by dame at 11:29 AM on February 2, 2007


"...it doesn't even pretend to be about anything but rating chix."

Wrong. It's about rating radioactive chix. Which is pretty rad. I give it 4 curies.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:35 AM on February 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Mitheral, that's what I chose. And, to my recollection, in the past, links to foreign-language sites have always been deleted, even when they have content worth reading! Since this one didn't, I asked why. See that thing at the end of my FPP? It's a question mark. I didn't "whine" and I wasn't "outraged".

Matt's now decided that foreign is cool if it's weird. I think that's an idiotic answer and policy but it's his site so bring on the (foreign) dancing girls so to speak. But please, get over the fact that flagging has not replaced MeTa. If people want clarification on something, they're gonna ask. Apparently, it sucks to be you, too.
posted by dobbs at 11:38 AM on February 2, 2007


Whoa, I not sure if that hostility is directed at me but I wasn't calling you out. I just wanted to let you (and the people following along at home) know that the exact flag doesn't really matter. Jessamyn at least is on record as saying that it's the volume of flags rather than the specifics that's important and they can usually figure out why something is being flagged.
posted by Mitheral at 11:42 AM on February 2, 2007


But the "fantastic" flag goes into another bucket, right? One would hope.
posted by Mister_A at 11:44 AM on February 2, 2007


It's also great to know that MeTa is now fucking useless for discussing policy and etiquette because people want to use it for their own private discussions.

Ah, don't be a boob, dobbs.
posted by breezeway at 11:48 AM on February 2, 2007


This was post was deleted for having hundreds of "fantastic" flags.
posted by The Deej at 11:50 AM on February 2, 2007


How's the peeping, dobbs? dobbs....how's the peeping?
posted by Kwine at 11:52 AM on February 2, 2007


Oh, and I think there should be an "inappropriate use of sperm" flag as noted here.
posted by The Deej at 11:52 AM on February 2, 2007


It's also great to know that MeTa is now fucking useless for discussing policy and etiquette because people want to use it for their own private discussions.

Ah, don't be a boob, dobbs.


Except that he's clearly right. Look around.
posted by gleuschk at 12:06 PM on February 2, 2007


Mitheral, sorry about that. You're absolutely right. I was just pissed at seeing "X new posts" over and over again and every time I popped in it had little or nothing to do with the top. My apologies for the hostility.
posted by dobbs at 12:17 PM on February 2, 2007


topic
posted by dobbs at 12:19 PM on February 2, 2007


Oh yeah?

Well, I hereby declare the repeated, deliberate and whiny recent MeTas to be obnoxious. I'm sorry I don't give three shits about someone's skinned Meta knee, or that flagging doesn't satisfy their infantile craving for instant satisfaction.

Viva youtubage!

Smog - Mother of the World
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:21 PM on February 2, 2007


Either Mat or Jess will delete that thread or not. Nothing is going to be settled by this callout. The post in question falls in that wide grey area (pun intended) of MetaFilter; some will like it, some won't, and many just don't care because there's no img tag. There was a thread about a Jesus porno movie the other day and that was apparently OK - no callout anyway; don't know how many people flagged it. I think this community can survive a bit of self-mocking about buying Russian brides and some bad puns about radiation, etc.

I prefer seeing threads like this hijacked by one-liners and obscure music videos to seeing them devolve into angry "Oh no it isn't!" "Oh yes it is!" shouting matches. People disagree, and sometimes we should agree to disagree. There is no possibility of resolution, so just have some fun and put a pancake on your head.
posted by Mister_A at 12:24 PM on February 2, 2007


links to foreign-language sites have always been deleted

I'm quite sure this isn't true, though in the nature of things it's hard to find a counterexample. I remember a discussion in MeTa (a couple of years ago?) about the idea of posting in other languages (raised by Migs, perhaps?), and the response was favorable; there was at least one foreign-language post immediately following the discussion, and I think there have been others. I can't believe you're serious about this aspect; surely if it were a Russian-language sight with stupendously great artwork, it wouldn't bother you. If you're bothered by the boyzone aspect (which I am as well), by all means flame away, but why focus on irrelevancies?
posted by languagehat at 1:29 PM on February 2, 2007


I've made a post to a site in Spanish Catalan. Yep, not a single person bitched about the language.
posted by Mitheral at 1:40 PM on February 2, 2007


... the boyzone aspect ...

Would you be bothered by a 'girlzone aspect'? If not, why?

Just curious -- not calling out.

FWIW, while I'm sure a lot of people do find the discussion "inappopriate", it was pretty tame as that kind of thing goes. Probably because, as somebody pointed out, us Nacirema mens don't get all that stimulated until we sees boobies or butts.
posted by lodurr at 1:54 PM on February 2, 2007


Nacirema

Is this along the lines of 'murican,' usually uttered derisively by some cross-pond grouchypuss?
posted by Kwine at 2:16 PM on February 2, 2007


Даниличева Юлия Владимировна! О конкурсе Мисс Атом-2006.

I don't really see the point of this fpp, but I must say that's one sexy alphabet they've got over there.
posted by sfenders at 2:21 PM on February 2, 2007


LH, I personally have no problem with links to sites in other languages, but I specifically remember links that have been deleted and their non-english language-ness was given as the reason. One instance in particular was to a site with a lengthy article that some folks commented was a good read. Sorry I don't have a link.

After remembering the reason for deletion in that instance I have stopped myself from linking foreign sites as I thought that was the policy.

My point with this MeTa thread was to get a definitive answer on whether there is or is not a policy against it. (Yes, I think the FPP in question sucks ass regardless of its language and I believe that if it were a single-link post to a beauty contest (which seems to be what this site is) in english it would have been deleted for its plain stupidity. I don't understand how this being in Russian makes it exempt from such a thing or, as Matt says, makes it "Weird".)

I realize my post seems to contradict itself and is poorly worded. I wasn't attempting to call out the post but to get an answer on the English Only policy that I thought existed. I considered making the post without a link but figured for sure I'd then get chastised for not linking to the post that obviously made me think to ask. (Shot or hung, I guess.)

So, yeah, I understand that thinking the FPP should be... nuked because it sucks contradicts my belief that foreign-language FPPs should be cool, but that's because my reason for thinking it should be nuked isn't because it's not english, but that because it's in russian means the only thing to talk about is the looks of the women. If it were a post to a russian site with abstract art or architecture or what have you, a discussion of the contents' physical merit would be the point and would, presumably, lead to interesting conversation which, clearly, will never be the case with links to beauty contest sites regardless of their language.
posted by dobbs at 2:32 PM on February 2, 2007


We Nacirema are a proud and great nation, I'll have you know.
posted by lodurr at 2:33 PM on February 2, 2007


In Soviet Russia, the art abstracts you.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:46 PM on February 2, 2007


Would you be bothered by a 'girlzone aspect'? If not, why?

No, I wouldn't. As for the "why," I'm not sure if you're serious, but it's been a long time since I've bothered to get into discussions with people who think (or pretend to think) that women's "problems" are all in their heads and that terms like "boyzone" merely serve to reinforce a pernicious myth spread by man-hating feminazis who want men to bow down before women and do their bidding. I realize you didn't say any of that, but that's the vibe I get from your question. If you can rewrite it in a more specific form that doesn't seem to presume that feminism is a lot of bunk, maybe we can talk.
posted by languagehat at 2:48 PM on February 2, 2007


My point with this MeTa thread was to get a definitive answer on whether there is or is not a policy against it.

It sounds like the answer is no, then. Squicky, on the stupid side, but not against a definitive policy.
posted by cortex at 2:50 PM on February 2, 2007


There's a fairly obvious difference between a foreign-language site that requires you to read the language at a comprehensive level--such as an article--and a foreign-language site that requires you to look at pictures and click around (which is why, I imagine, LH mentioned the example of a foreign-language art site).

It's weird because, well, it's a weird take on a "beautiful girls" website--which is, in itself, the opposite of weird in terms of what one expects to find on the internet. But a website full of pretty girls who work in the "Russian nuclear sector"? That's pretty weird, if you ask me. At the very least, it's quirky, and mildly interesting, though I tend to avoid the actual comments like the plague when threads like this pop up from time to time.

I don't see the point in attempting to extrapolate the existence of this thread into some succinct policy on whether or not foreign-language posts are acceptable. Some are, some aren't. Ta-da. My guess is that if one were to post such a site, posting one that relies almost exclusively on visual content is a good place to start.
posted by The God Complex at 2:58 PM on February 2, 2007


Claiming that women are somehow "exclusively visual content" is a problem.

Claiming that the part of the site we can't read is what makes it "quirky" is also a problem.

It's a bad post. Not simply for the foreign language aspect, but because the foreign language highlights the fact that it's just a HAWT CHIX! post, since the parts of the site that might contradict such an assertion are inaccessible to the majority of MeFi members.

Would a post on "The Girls of the Ivy League" really stand up here? After all, it's "quirky" that hot girls can also be smart! And even if we can't parse their thesis topics, we can certainly debate their aesthetic properties, as if they were art or buildings!
posted by occhiblu at 3:31 PM on February 2, 2007


I hope the "Girls of the Ivy League" don't include Poison Ivy, from Batman and Robin. I hated that movie.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:40 PM on February 2, 2007


don't give me that look
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:44 PM on February 2, 2007


Would a post on "The Girls of the Ivy League" really stand up here?

No, but "The Women of Secret Undersea Observation Station Delta 97-B" might.

Were I feeling uncharitable, I might suspect you're engaging in a bit of intellectual dishonesty to misconstrue what I said to prove a rather banal point.

After all, it's "quirky" that hot girls can also be smart! And even if we can't parse their thesis topics, we can certainly debate their aesthetic properties, as if they were art or buildings!

Let me guess, when Matt and Jess fail to act on your moral grandstanding, you'll start a whiny thread about this tomorrow full of passive-aggressive posturing, right?
posted by The God Complex at 3:50 PM on February 2, 2007


But I'm very aesthetically pleasing when I give that look
posted by occhiblu at 3:50 PM on February 2, 2007


Some context:

1. wire report on the contest
2. nukeworker.com discussion

The (brief) discussion in 2. makes the mefi thread look half-decent by comparison. There's a lot of riffing on our side on the nuke angle, and a lot of wry (as opposed to complimentary) references to the hotornot phenomenon.

It's a jokey, boyzoneish thread, but I don't think it's so completely awful as all that. But I saw the quirk as "Women of Russian Nuclear Science", not "LOL RUSSIAN IS HARD", and I might be in the minority there.
posted by cortex at 3:53 PM on February 2, 2007


Ha!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:55 PM on February 2, 2007


The only justifications given for this post seem to be:

1. It's ok to objectify women as long they're attractive, because then it's like looking at art.

2. It's ok to objectify women as long as they speak Russian, because then it's "quirky" or "weird."

3. It's ok to objectify women who work in nuclear science, because then it's also quirky or weird.

Or some combination of the three.

None of these statements make any sense to me, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why people are trying to defend them. And so, no, I don't see how "Girls of the Ivy League" would be any different, given the reasoning here for why this post somehow doesn't suck.
posted by occhiblu at 3:56 PM on February 2, 2007


I think it's important to compliment radioactive women early on so they don't get bitter and violent when they grow 100 ft. tall, and suddenly no one wants to go out with them any more, or baby-sit their snotty little bastards. We ogle them over there, so we don't have to shoot them down off the Empire State Building over here. Just saying.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:02 PM on February 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


4. It's ok to point and laugh at someone else objectifying anyone as long as they work in nuclear science and speak Russian, because then it's "quirky" or "weird."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:07 PM on February 2, 2007


Where "ok" should be understood to approximate "[NOT MISOGYNIST]" as opposed to "actually clever" or "laudable."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:10 PM on February 2, 2007


What Flo said. I agree with your sentiment, occhiblu, just not your axioms.
posted by cortex at 4:18 PM on February 2, 2007


But they are very aesthetically pleasing axioms.

*hits self*
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:21 PM on February 2, 2007


I'm so freakin' bored I'm just blathering now. Stepping away... steppin' away.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:22 PM on February 2, 2007


I'd ignored the thread until ths post appeared. After seeing this thread I looked at two of the women on the site. One had a tame photo of herself in a bikini, the other had a photo of herself at some function, one with her daughter, and one during her wedding. This is hardly the height of objectification. One assumes, first, that these women consented--and even participated--in the project (for lack of a better term).

Second, as I said, the actual photos in question, or the few I saw, were tame, and if they were supplied by the women, were only as objectifying as the women themselves wished them to be.

Third, a number of the women are quite... normal. They're not false standards of surgically enhanced and/or unhealthy thin beauty beamed across our airwaves.

So what's this great moral crime being perpetrated, exactly? I already admitted that I'm not a fan of the somewhat sophmoric banter that usually accompanies posts like this, but getting all pumped up on moral outrage over something so quirky and innocuous gives the appearance of crying wolf.

One could even probably construct a reasonable argument suggesting that the very nature of the "Russian Nuclear Sector Women" defies and subverts the typical American beauty queen as a blonde, giggling sack of meat with nary a thought in her pretty head, as the very premise of nuclear science in popular American culture is that of either A) a socially inept highschool reject with an overbite and poor personal hygiene, or B) a wild-eyed mad scientist with disastrous hair, copious sweatstains, and a misguided plan to rule the world from a secret bunker labratory on the top of a Eastern European mountain range.
posted by The God Complex at 4:24 PM on February 2, 2007


In fact, given the impenetrable linguistic barrier the site subjects us to, forcing us to rely on our cultural programming, I'm tempted to suggest it's actually a clever, subversive campaign funded by a feminist nuclear group to destroy not one, but two damaging myths propagated in western culture.
posted by The God Complex at 4:28 PM on February 2, 2007


It's not okay to objectify anyone, period. That includes so-called "positive" as well as so-called "negative" value judgments. Moerover, selecting certain individuals or groups for special treatment by specifically forbidding their objectification assumes that they are a special case and is in itself a value judgment and thus a form of objectification. Failure to fight all forms of objectification by refraining from all value judgment at all times might make life really bland, but it would sure spare a lot of feelings,huh?
posted by breezeway at 4:31 PM on February 2, 2007


In response to something above: I think MeTa is worthless in many ways, except for the blandest of post, or meetup threads. I know there have been at least three occasions where I wanted to talk about Metafilter concerns with the community and I refuse to post it here becasue the level of viciousness and snark are just too high. The signal to noise ration is atrocious at times. If that makes me thin skinned so be it. We can't always go around with armor plating.
I know some will say that a metatalk post averted is a good post (all the while contributing to the general problem), and indeed sometimes that is true. But, people's attitudes and asshole-ishness also stifles and drowns out others.
posted by edgeways at 4:34 PM on February 2, 2007


So, again, how's it different from "Girls of the Ivy League"?

Also, I see no one in that thread mocking the people who put together the site; they are in fact commenting on which of the women is attractive. Saying that the comments posted about the site are somehow not part of the post is a bit disingenuous -- and again, since the site is in Russian, and therefore its stated purpose or any further info about what the site is trying to do is not available to us, I don't know what other comments anyone posting the site would be expecting.
posted by occhiblu at 4:37 PM on February 2, 2007


I'd love to blame all the errors I just made on my Blackberry, but it's really a problem with my thumbs.
posted by breezeway at 4:37 PM on February 2, 2007


occhiblu writes "So, again, how's it different from 'Girls of the Ivy League'? "

Not much, but we've already done Ivy league girls, nude no less.
posted by Mitheral at 5:10 PM on February 2, 2007


Uh, nude. glad that wasn't a single quote.
posted by Mitheral at 5:12 PM on February 2, 2007


So what's this great moral crime being perpetrated, exactly?

No great moral crime. It's just kind of ooky. In that boyzoney way. I mean, come on, the whole reason this was posted was because it was chix, and if they're not as ostentatiously hawtt as might have been expected, that's just more fodder for objectifyin' discussion. I'm not outraged, I don't want the post wiped from the face of the earth, but I tend toward the occhiblu side of this one.

While I'm here, in rereading my response to lodurr I realize it comes off crankier than I intended. Sorry, guy, not aimed at you but at General Sexism. (He's the one teaching the battalion to goose-step over there.)
posted by languagehat at 5:32 PM on February 2, 2007


they are in fact commenting on which of the women is attractive.
I hope that you're not suggesting that this is a reason for deletion in itself.

Btw I don't subscribe to the whole implied argument in this use of 'objectify'. So to me there's no reason to delete something just because you would descibe it as 'objectifying'.

If there can be posts on fisting on mefi I don't see why a mild boyzone thread once in a while is a problem.
posted by jouke at 5:45 PM on February 2, 2007


it's both boyzone, and weird foreign stuff, so it hits 2 categories at once. (i'll post a Mr. Gay Latvia thing if you want some balance) : >
posted by amberglow at 6:06 PM on February 2, 2007


Just make sure you're not objectifying Mr. Gay Latvia.
posted by jouke at 6:09 PM on February 2, 2007


And wouldn't that just make it a gay boyzone? Seems to me, that's only two sides of the die.
posted by breezeway at 6:13 PM on February 2, 2007


The site's not in english so it seems to me to be a thread that has no other purpose than to comment on the attractiveness of the women who are featured

Vot iz ze matter, silly American running dogs, you no like za pretty womens?

I blame moose und sqvirrel.
posted by jonmc at 6:16 PM on February 2, 2007


It's ok to objectify women

It's ok to objectify everybody, actually, and we all do it. And even if it isn't, it'll never stop. Besides, being objectified isn't so bad. I kind of like it, myself.
posted by jonmc at 6:29 PM on February 2, 2007


"links to foreign-language sites have always been deleted"

My very first post was a foriegn-language site. Not only was it not deleted, I doubt anyone read it.

But I do have to say that I perversely enjoy the mental image of the bunch of guys in this thread all looking around at each other, saying "I don't see why the boyzone is a problem," with a lot of nodding.
posted by klangklangston at 6:32 PM on February 2, 2007


"It's ok to objectify everybody, actually, and we all do it. And even if it isn't, it'll never stop. Besides, being objectified isn't so bad. I kind of like it, myself."

Christ, Jon, did your mother never go upside your head when you trotted out stupid shit like this as a kid, or did you just never get it?
posted by klangklangston at 6:33 PM on February 2, 2007


It's ok to do X, actually, and we all do it. And even if it isn't, it'll never stop. Besides, being X isn't so bad. I kind of like it, myself.
I'm saving that one as a general argumentative template.
posted by jouke at 6:37 PM on February 2, 2007


That post is pretty stupid, the comments are mostly garbage and hey, I don't think we've heard enough of what jonmc has to say about it - lets all gather round and hear the sermon of "chill out, dude" part 3 million.
posted by bob sarabia at 6:44 PM on February 2, 2007


Christ, Y, did your mother never go upside your head when you trotted out stupid shit like this as a kid, or did you just never get it?
That one too can be used regardless of the subject matter at hand.
posted by jouke at 6:46 PM on February 2, 2007


It's ok to objectify everybody, actually, and we all do it. And even if it isn't, it'll never stop. Besides, being objectified isn't so bad. I kind of like it, myself.

*looks jonmc up and down*

damn you're hot in that ass hat.
posted by carsonb at 6:50 PM on February 2, 2007


OK, I get it. You guys are all deeply committed to the feminist crusade. Chicks dig that.

(i'm kidding, for crying out loud. for internet geeks, you guys have trouble detecting humor. I quoted Boris & Natasha, for pete's sake.)

I haven't even been on mefi today and I could honestly care less whether this post lives or dies. and frankly, now that I'm unemployed I have more time to kill. But it was enlightening watching everybody rehash the same old tired arguments, including myself.

I support feminism, really I do. I just want to listen to it all the time, and besides, talk is cheap. My mother worked while I was growing up. My wife is smarter, better educated, and makes more money than me and I've got zero problem with any of that. Now that I'm not working, I'm kind of enjoying being a househusband, frankly. I've had more female bosses than male ones. I can't say I liked them much, but that's cause they were my boss, not because they were women. I think rapists and wife beaters are the lowest scum on the planet, and I have a larger jewelery collection than my wife. But feel free to use me as posterboy for MeFi Boyzoneness.

lets all gather round and hear the sermon of "chill out, dude" part 3 million.

well, think about it: if everybody everywhere with an axe to grind, just put it down, wouldn't life be better?
posted by jonmc at 7:01 PM on February 2, 2007


damn you're hot in that ass hat.

thanks. they used imported ass. (see? more humor.)
posted by jonmc at 7:02 PM on February 2, 2007


Jesus Christ the outrage is misdirected around here.

Is this OK because it makes fun of Christians, or what? For the record, I don't give a crap about Jesus porn, but considering that the "Jizzus Christ" post links to a picture of a naked girl with a guy's nut-sack in her mouth, and nobody seems concerned about that, I think I need someone to explain exactly when and to what degree objectifying women is OK and when it's not. Is it "art" because it's low-budget, or because it pokes fun at Christians, or is it actually just what it looks like: a sleazy porn movie featuring the usual degrading acts captured on grainy video?
posted by Mister_A at 7:07 PM on February 2, 2007


I love you Mister_A, in a completely non-objectifying way.

Unintentional rhyme included at no extra charge!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:16 PM on February 2, 2007


Okay - Not claiming to speak for anyone else, or to defend the morality of the FPP or comments, but the comparison as I see it comes down to this:

The Comic Potential Energy of Girls of the Ivy League = mc2, where m=meh, and c=college humor.

The Comic Potential Energy of Russian Chix From the Nuclear Zone = mc2, where m=the Mutant X Gene, and c=Communist Russia, measured in Smirnoffs.

It's comedy physics.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:17 PM on February 2, 2007


It's comedy physics.

The effects of gravity on thrown pies, evaporation rates of sprayed seltzer, that kind of thing?
posted by jonmc at 7:20 PM on February 2, 2007


Mister_A, you ask some tough questions. I would hazard that Jesus likes having his nutsack in that woman's mouth, and though I can guess what might happen next, I'd prefer to leave that doctrinal matter to a more qualified theologian than myself.
posted by breezeway at 7:25 PM on February 2, 2007


Mister_A, I could really give a shit less about objectifying women or is it art or whatever. There are 3 key difference in those 2 threads. 1. The Jizzus link is actually in English, what a novel idea huh? 2. At least the Jizzus thread has more going for it than "wow, look. Women. Russian women." Admittedly it doesn't have just a whole lot, but something is better than nothing. 3. The thread isn't mainly comprised of "Oh, I like this one" "I like that one" "She's so purdy". At least there's some good jokes in it.

But now I've started to defend a post about cheapskate bible-porn that apparently features a woman drinking her own urine. So I'm gonna go get a drink.
posted by bob sarabia at 7:55 PM on February 2, 2007


A drink that isn't urine.
posted by bob sarabia at 7:57 PM on February 2, 2007


Seriously, wtf is the point of this FPP?

My guess: Girls are pretty.

I dunno, something deeper? Oh wait a minute, women I mean, not girls. And definitely not possessed of any esthetic appeal whatsoever. Since they have brains, so they can't be attractive. Everyone knows that. At first we think they're pretty but then we realize they're smart so they can't be pretty. So there's a sudden realization and release of tension and we laugh at ourselves for being fooled at first. Ha, what were we thinking anyway, smart pretty girls, er women. Great thought provoking post.
posted by scheptech at 10:58 PM on February 2, 2007


scheptech, that's pretty articulate. Clean, even.
posted by maxwelton at 1:12 AM on February 3, 2007


Goodness,
Gray-shus,
Great thought provoking post!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 3:18 AM on February 3, 2007


lanugugahat: If you can rewrite it in a more specific form that doesn't seem to presume that feminism is a lot of bunk, maybe we can talk.

You also realize, I take it, that my original question in no reasonable reading presumed that feminism is a lot of bunk.

"Boyzone" and "girlzone", to me, have some pretty clear and equivalent meanings: "Zones" where behaviors marked "boyish" or "girlish" are enhanced, and behaviors not marked as such are tacitly or explicitly discouraged.

I believe in fairness, languagehat. Feminism is not bunk. But if it were "girlzone", that wouldn't be feminism -- that would be the mirror image of "boyzone."

So, my question was simple: Would you be offended if it were "girlzone", and if not, why not? Simple question. As I said, not calling out. I am perfectly willing to accept your answer to that question, which was (partially), "probably not." You left out the "why" part, though, and assuming that the "why" is an attack on feminism is, frankly, a cop out.
posted by lodurr at 11:21 AM on February 3, 2007


General Sexism. (He's the one teaching the battalion to goose-step over there.)

OK, just got down to this point. So, I shouldn't have been so cranky in return.

"General Sexism" can't really be a serious character...can it? (No, unless his posts were deleted, I guess not. Almost too bad.)
posted by lodurr at 11:28 AM on February 3, 2007


For the sake of clarity, I want to add the following text to this statement:

[NOT NUT-SACKIST]
posted by Mister_A at 11:38 AM on February 3, 2007


So, I shouldn't have been so cranky in return.

But mutual crankiness is the fuel that makes MetaTalk spin and generate energy! Anyway, it's a reasonable question, and my answer is simply that "girlzone"—even if boring to many males— simply doesn't carry the weight of cultural dominance that boyzone carries. A female reading a thread consisting mainly of guys going "I'd hit it" or "ZOMG ugly!!" can feel put down and marginalized (quite reasonably, in my opinion) in a way that I can hardly imagine a male feeling, because males aren't marginalized—they run the world. An equivalence between boyzone and girlzone fails for the same reason an equivalence between nigger and cracker fails: the real world doesn't support it. I hope this attempt, even if it doesn't convince you, makes up for my earlier crankiness and refusal to answer.
posted by languagehat at 1:40 PM on February 3, 2007


objectify women

This is why I only date women I'm not physically attracted to. If I acutally found them appealing, it would be objectification.
posted by spaltavian at 4:36 PM on February 3, 2007


Christ, Jon, did your mother never go upside your head when you trotted out stupid shit like this as a kid, or did you just never get it?

Hey, look everybody, klangklangston is super-smart and he's got the over the top histrionics to prove it!
posted by spaltavian at 4:39 PM on February 3, 2007


Yeah, it's too bad his mother never went upside his head when he trotted out stupid shit like... oh.
Damn.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 4:52 PM on February 3, 2007


"This is why I only date women I'm not physically attracted to. If I acutally found them appealing, it would be objectification."

You must delight your whole 9th grade class with observations like that.

"Hey, look everybody, klangklangston is super-smart and he's got the over the top histrionics to prove it!"

I'm so smart it didn't even take me two days to read this thread!
posted by klangklangston at 5:07 PM on February 3, 2007


I'm so smart it didn't even take me two days to read this thread!

!

What was that about 9th grade, again?
posted by spaltavian at 5:09 PM on February 3, 2007


Vegas says klang is giving six points in the pissing contest with spaltavian, with the over/under at 42.
posted by Kwine at 5:27 PM on February 3, 2007


Me, I'd lay the points. Never wager on a bad quarterback on the road-next thing you know, the home crowd is screaming, it's third and eight, he's thrown two interceptions already...he's dropping back to pass...can't find anybody..happy feet...a sinking feeling in your gut as you watch your money circle the drain. But I'm not a gambling man.
posted by Kwine at 5:40 PM on February 3, 2007


I prefer seeing threads like this hijacked by one-liners and obscure music videos

So, yes, by all means: impose your preference on everyone else who uses the site. That's what Freedom's for!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:18 PM on February 3, 2007


Freedom is for frying!
posted by breezeway at 9:16 PM on February 3, 2007


Dear Bears:
I hope the Colts break your neck and you die a miserable death. I hope Grossman gets three head knocks and Urlacher gets his right knee snapped. I hope you will never be able to feel your extremeties.

Thanks....just wanted to say that. Krewe du Vieux rocked!
posted by Pacheco at 12:50 AM on February 4, 2007


This whole thing was my fault.
posted by Dizzy at 8:12 AM on February 4, 2007


So the Colts snuck away from Charm City in the dead of night so many years ago to embrace such bloodthirsty stupidity? Seems they got what they deserved.
posted by breezeway at 8:43 AM on February 4, 2007


That Charm City Dead-Of-Night thingie?
My fault.
posted by Dizzy at 8:33 PM on February 5, 2007


« Older I'm deploying a new (backwards compatible) URL...   |   Midatlantic Meetup Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments