Imus and Nappy-headed-ho's

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Hime

Very thought-provoking article. I especially agree with the description of sexualizing language being used to "put women in their place." I have seen so many conversations among men about Hillary Clinton, Ann Coulter, Condoleeza Rice, Nancy Pelosi and other powerful and influential women come down to "But would you do her?" It's an obvious and stupid defense mechanism against the idea of a woman having power.

I think you're giving men too much credit here with the idea that they are intentionally trying to keep women down... I think they're just horny. I've seen plenty of men discussing the thoughts and philosophies of Clinton, Coulter, et al. and when that conversation fizzles out, what's wrong with asking "would you do her?". Are women "in power" no longer sexual creatures? Are men supposed to pretend that they don't size all women up that way?

I don't see Imus' "sexist" remarks as being any different than if I were to comment on the nice asses of the wide recievers during a football game. I'm just not that into football and the mind wanders, kwim?

[Hime]

Originally Posted by jinx

I think you're giving men too much credit here with the idea that they are intentionally trying to keep women down... I think they're just horny. I've seen plenty of men discussing the thoughts and philosophies of Clinton, Coulter, et al. and when that conversation fizzles out, what's wrong with asking "would you do her?". Are women "in power" no longer sexual creatures? Are men supposed to pretend that they don't size all women up that way?

I don't see Imus' "sexist" remarks as being any different than if I were to comment on the nice asses of the wide recievers during a football game. I'm just not that into football and the mind wanders, kwim?

I don't think it's intentional on the part of most men, I think it's a subconscious reaction to the fear of women in power. And it's different when it's accompanied by thoughtful discussion, as you said -- I'm more thinking of the guys who talk as though a woman has no worth if she isn't sexy, like if someone quotes Madeline Albright and he says "ew, that troll?" That's a fear reaction, and it is misogynistic.

And on the other side, I presume from your comments that you are a woman. Have you ever known a guy who clearly had no respect for you, but wanted to get into your pants, so he wouldn't listen to what you said but would constantly fawn over you for being attractive? I have been in that situation more than once, and I find it extremely demeaning. When I am talking to you, I am not a "sexual creature," I am your fellow human being, and I expect to be evaluated on my ideas and talents, not on my rack or my hairstyle.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by jinx

I think you're giving men too much credit here with the idea that they are intentionally trying to keep women down... I think they're just horny. --snip--

Originally Posted by Hime

I don't think it's intentional on the part of most men, I think it's a subconscious reaction to the fear of women in power.--snip--

And the score at the end of the first inning: jinx 1, Hime 0.

And now a word from our sponsors.

Fear of women in power? Come on, seriously?

[Hime]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Fear of women in power? Come on, seriously?

Of course -- just look how much advice given by guys in the relationships section comes down to "come on man, you can't let her CONTROL you."

No one should be controlled by anyone else. That is outstanding advice.

[Hime]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

No one should be controlled by anyone else. That is outstanding advice.

But 90% of the time they're not talking about real control, they're talking about letting a woman make any decision, even a relatively insignificant one. I've seen guys get upset because they are with women who make more money than them, because they are with women who are more attractive than them, because their bosses are women, etc. Just because you don't believe that *you* object to women in power does not mean that you speak for all men.

And if you're going to disagree with and ridicule everything I say, why don't you just put me on ignore?

[Hime]

Besides which, this site has a large enough component of kinky folks that I am sure that I'm not alone in saying that it can be fun and even liberating to be controlled. Few take into consideration the idea that it is possible for a man to have a submissive personality without being a "pussy."

Oh.. now that is different... I am very often extremly BAD!

If you have issues with your SO making more than you, you are not a misogynist, you are a fool.
However, just because a guy thinks a woman is a bitch or disagrees with her does not mean it is because he is threatened by her or is a sexist. I often do and hate it when they jump to that conclusion it is cheap and weak.
It should not be done without a good reason.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Hime

Besides which, this site has a large enough component of kinky folks that I am sure that I'm not alone in saying that it can be fun and even liberating to be controlled.

Originally Posted by tw

Yes I too can call myself Al Qaeda if to recruit wacko of extremists. Would that make me a member of bin Laden's Al Qaeda? If I call myself Wendy, then I must serve hamburgers? If I wear diapers, then I want Ann Coulter to do me?

Would Ann Coulter call me a 'nappy assed ho'? Am I kinky enough for her? Or must I be more submissive? Thanks to CBS, I cannot call Imus for advise. Even the Governor cannot help me.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by tw

Would Ann Coulter call me a 'nappy assed ho'? Am I kinky enough for her? Or must I be more submissive? Thanks to CBS, I cannot call Imus for advise. Even the Governor cannot help me.

Damn - yesterday was the day when tw was all flippant and quirky and funny. And I missed it.

Have to wait until the next one now...

[lumberjim]

nappy headed hoe

[SteveDallas]

You know, in retrospect, that was sooooo obvious!

[tw]

One that got Wolfowitz fired.