Madison wrote:Take this thread for example. You don't like it that some people joked about if she's hot, let her slide, but if she's ugly, then get her fired. How exactly is that a misogynistic comment?
Madison...you said a lot in your last post that I would like to address, unfortunately I'm at work right now so I don't have the time...but I would like to answer this question:
I look forward to reading your full response.
Art Vandelay wrote:The reason that the statement "If she's hot, let her slide, but if she's ugly then get her fired" is misogynistic is because it focuses a woman's worth on her looks. To say that attractive women are more deserving of a warning in this situation than an unattractive woman would be demeans all women because, again, it focuses a woman's worth on her looks alone.
A misogynistic comment refers to hating women. Demeaning women and hating them are two different things. Neither one are right or proper, but still are different things and should be referred to correctly. Hate is a very strong word. Not all of us toss the word "hate" around as if it has no real meaning, and I'm sure you're not just tossing it out there to get a reaction, or else you would have said hate to begin with. What you're seeing on the boards is not hate though. Even you just admitted that the comment was demeaning. Now if you can see the difference in demeaning and hate, we just might be getting somewhere.
Kind of like I dislike criminals, but I hate child molesters. Someone who robs a 7-11 should serve jail time, while I feel child molesters should be executed. Dislike vs hate. See the difference?
Or Rosie Odonnell (SP?) is ugly to me, but I flat out hate Roseanne Barr (SP?), and it's not because of her looks even though I think she's ugly too. I wish no ill will on Odonnell, I just don't find her attractive. However, if Barr fell off the face of the planet, I can't say I might not smile about it. Ugly vs hate. See the difference?
Art Vandelay wrote:As I said earlier in this thread, I'm really not trying to ruin anyone's fun here (and I do realize that, for the most part, the comments that I am talking about are said in jest). I have never said, that people should not be allowed to say what they are saying, or even that they shouldn't say it...just that it is disheartening to me.
No worries here, I just think you're not quite seeing this the way most people do. Hate isn't something that most people feel on a regular basis. Saying someone's ugly doesn't automatically mean that the person hates them, and I don't think you quite understand that. I could be wrong, but that's the impression you give.
I look forward to your full response when you get time.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Art, in reality that woman should be fired regardless of her looks, so the quote you've been using would be giving her leniency, not hating on her, but that's beside the point. This is a case of someone bringing something on themselves. to paraphrase what dave chappelle, for lack of a better person, said, just because a woman dresses like a whore doesn't make her one, but she should expect people to take her to be what she dresses as. if a woman works at hooters, she should expect chauvanistic comments, and likewise, if a woman at hooters rubs chicken wings in a guy's face, a certain extent of comments should be expected.
These women put themselves in a position to be talked about like in this post, it would be different if this thread was about a female lawyer who won her prosecution and the lawyer for the defendent was posting comments like this. and while i agree with your posts in theory, a perfect world this is not. ideally there wouldn't even be places like hooters where women are objectified, but this is not the case. society has set the boundaries of what is and what is not ok, and this falls within the ok. whether it is morally correct or not is open to debate. given the world today, your attack on this post and/or its posters is out of line. now is the fact that it is out of line a sad one? i'd say yes, but that doesn't change that it is.
basically i agree with your post(s) to an extent in application to the world as a whole, but not when focused on the cafe or this thread.
The reason that the statement "If she's hot, let her slide, but if she's ugly then get her fired" is misogynistic is because it focuses a woman's worth on her looks. To say that attractive women are more deserving of a warning in this situation than an unattractive woman would be demeans all women because, again, it focuses a woman's worth on her looks alone.
A woman that works at Hooters worth as an EMPLOYEE (not as a person) is almost entirely focused on her looks (at least the section from the neck to the stomach). That's kind of the point of the establishment is it not? Calling that comment misogynistic would be like saying it's inappropriate for women to expect male strippers to be attractive. You can of course choose to dislike Hooters and say that the company is demeaning to women. You can't argue with patrons of the establishment demanding that said establishment delivers on what it advertises.
Personally, I LOVE Hooters and it has nothing to do with the women...their fish and chips kick ass! My wife of course doesn't believe me but it's the honest-to-god truth. Those are the best fish and chips I've EVER had!