The Political Thread

[J.P.]

At least there is an outburst of creativity sparkled by the "Stable Genius" term.

As for the book, there is an interesting article at GQ
https://www.gq.com/story/michael-wolff-white-house-trump-access

And it starts with this disclaimer:

 

I’m gonna begin this post with the same disclaimer that needs to come with every post about Michael Wolff, which is that Wolff is a fart-sniffer whose credibility is often suspect and who represents the absolute worst of New York media-cocktail-circuit inbreeding. But in a way, it’s fitting that our least reliable president could finally find himself undone at the hands of one of our least reliable journalists.

 

[Arcadia]

Hi Arcadia,

 

Perhaps there was also an element of anti-political establishment about the vote (as well as anti-Clintonism) ? People tire of faceless politicians spewing the same political script. Trump was the outspoken ‘outsider.’ We have a similar thing going on here and it partially explains the ‘success’ of idiots like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson. People almost like the fact that they occasionally speak out of turn, it gives them a kind of man-of-the-people image (in Trumps Case a billionaire man-of-the-people) By calling Trump an idiot I sort of feel like I’m insulting the American people for voting him in but I think they were simply conned. He said what many wanted to hear (about helping ‘ordinary’ people/industry etc) and he opposed Clinton.

Yes, I think there is something to all that ... there is a great deal of animosity and cynicism about government and politicians amongst certain groups. Having worked for local government myself, I'm not particularly cynical about it ... there's a lot of good people there. But there's also some egotistical jerks (just like in any other occupation), so I get why some people feel that way, even if I think they are over-generalizing. But since Trump is the king of egotistical jerks, it's hard for me to understand why they see him as the champion of the people....

 

Let’s just hope that the next election sees him gone

[Arcadia]

At least there is an outburst of creativity sparkled by the "Stable Genius" term.

 

As for the book, there is an interesting article at GQ

https://www.gq.com/story/michael-wolff-white-house-trump-access

And it starts with this disclaimer:

I’m gonna begin this post with the same disclaimer that needs to come with every post about Michael Wolff, which is that Wolff is a fart-sniffer whose credibility is often suspect and who represents the absolute worst of New York media-cocktail-circuit inbreeding. But in a way, it’s fitting that our least reliable president could finally find himself undone at the hands of one of our least reliable journalists.

 

 

Well, that gave me a good laugh! I'm not entirely sure I agree with the author, but I do admit to a certain glee that Wolff has written this mess. Trump deserves it, whether it's true or not. I do so enjoy watching him squirm. :evilinside:

[J.P.]

Okay, I need a second opinion.

 

I was banned at FB by someone I actually quite valued. The reason was a post I wrote about how I felt about the Globes gala yesterday - that the ladies wearing black… things that hardly covered their bodies was a kind of mixed message. And that women should also look at themselves, before they start to blame men alone for giving in to the dominating belief/opinion that women are their bodies and those are another consumer good.

 

Am I so wrong? Misogynous? Sexist?

[J.P.]

I'm talking about women who are raised to be sexually attractive. Why they believe that it's the most important thing in the world.

About why Paris H and Cardashians have more FEMALE following than Malala Yousafzai.

Why do women show their bodies to catch attention. (Madonna, or lately Miley Cyrus in her Wrecking Ball clip)

Why do women think that looking beautiful is equal to being half naked. (That dress of Natalie Portmann would look much better if the neckline would not reveal her boobs) Why do women like to look sexy if they are not aiming for sex?

 

I'm talking about the house I drive by every day that is a home to an online live-strip portal and advertises it with photos of women with nipples covered with tiny stars. Each time i feel angry and that as long as there are women agreeing to this (as much to as being shown in media as objects of desire) nothing will change.

 

Dunno, it's maybe because I wasn't raised as a girly girl and don't see sex as something desirable, but things like that jump at me from literally every corner and it really irritates me.

This is not to excuse Weinstein and Co. But men and WOMEN seem to support a rotten status quo, that promotes that kind of behaviour (e.G. by raising girls in a certain way), maybe even not being aware of it.

[T.o.b.y]

Hooo boy. Well. Okay, we have already discussed religion on this forum in a civil manner, we can do this.

 

I think this is a very, very complex issue.

 

I disagree with you a little but I am not sure how to explain why. I am very tired, my brain is sluggish and I need caffeine. But I will try and nobody get mad at me if you can help it, okay?

 

I think expression of female sexuality can be empowering and a feminist statement. For example, I see no contradiction per se between Emma Watson promoting women's rights and showing her breasts for a magazine if she so choses. The reason I believe this is that there is a long and unhappy history of women being told either that their sexuality was evil or that it didn't exist. There are plenty of places in the world today where women are forced to cover up and blamed for crimes commited against them if they don't.

 

In that light, expressing that you, as a woman, are a sexual being and displaying your body as you, and you alone see fit, can be a positive statement.

 

If we tell women that if they present themselves a certain way, they are in part to blame for unwanted sexual advances, where do we draw the line? What makes one person horny is the next person's turn-off. My modest might be your slutty. Not so very long ago, the sight of a lady's ankle was considered inflammatory.

 

I think it doesn't matter how much is covered or revealed, but why. Both nearly complete nudity and a floor-length coat and headscarf can be statements of freedom, self-respect and autonomy as well as the direct opposites of those things.

 

I don't think we ladies should be telling each other what to wear or not wear. And I also think everyone should have enough self-control to keep their stuff in their pants and their hands by their sides no matter whom they are around and how attractive they may consider the other person.

 

That said, I find the whole "metoo" debate highly confusing because it seems to me like a multitude of behaviors, from serious crimes to simply bad manners, are being lumped together and I find it really hard to talk about things that way.

[J.P.]

Hmmm… so I am strange. Okay, I can live with that.
 

What still puzzles me though - why men don't go to galas with trousers and ties only, or… sheets ;)

 

 

ETA

For example, I see no contradiction per se between Emma Watson promoting women's rights and showing her breasts for a magazine if she so choses.

But WHY? Why do women want to be photographed naked? Why do they think it does anything good, beside helping their career or their bank accounts (and why do this work?) Isn't it sending wrong signals to the youth (as for role models etc.)

[T.o.b.y]

Hmmm… so I am strange. Okay, I can live with that.

 

What still puzzles me though - why men don't go to galas with trousers and ties only, or… sheets ;)

Because unless they're Sherlock, nobody wants to see that...? :-P

 

Kidding! Kidding! Don't hit me! Men are beautiful too, can be anyway... See, I am just as sexist as anybody.

 

Nothing wrong with being strange. You don't sound so strange to me anyway, I think I get where you're coming from. Thing is though, I think I get the other side(s?) as well. It's a complicated mess.

 

Rather than just block you, the Facebook friend / acquaintance might have tried to talk to you first. Sounds more productive to me.

[T.o.b.y]

Sorry, didn't see your edit before I hit send. Why would a woman want to be photographed naked unless it was for money? You would have to ask her but my guess would be, because female sexuality and just plain nudity has been shamed, controled and bad-mouthed for generations. It can be an act of protest against that or a positive affirmation, saying that the human body, even when belonging to a beautiful young lady, is a good thing and nothing to be ashamed of. It can be a statement of freedom - from social conventions, gender role expectations, whatever.

 

Or, you know. It can just be a way to earn money and get attention. That's what I meant earlier, it matters less what a person does but why.

[J.P.]

But it didn't happen to male nudity. It's the imbalance that makes me suspicious.
The elegance by men is still defined by them covered from toes to necks, even if some of them had a lot to show. :)

[Arcadia]

ETA

For example, I see no contradiction per se between Emma Watson promoting women's rights and showing her breasts for a magazine if she so choses.

But WHY? Why do women want to be photographed naked? Why do they think it does anything good, beside helping their career or their bank accounts (and why do this work?) Isn't it sending wrong signals to the youth (as for role models etc.)

 

That's always been one of the great mysteries of my life too, JP ... why is there so much emphasis on showing as much as possible of women's bodies ... and why do women go along with it?

 

But then what Toby says makes sense too. I guess some women are just more comfortable with, or proud of, their bodies than I am. I don't understand it, but I accept that it may be. I'm afraid that's about as far as I can get, though.

 

BTW, for what it's worth, I think your FB friend was unnecessarily harsh. :smile:

[Caya]

Wow, what a minefield of a topic, let's jump right in. :lol:

 

But it didn't happen to male nudity. It's the imbalance that makes me suspicious.
The elegance by men is still defined by them covered from toes to necks, even if some of them had a lot to show. :)

 

That might be the flip sight of what Tobe said about female sexuality having been shamed and bad-mouthed for so long. Men flaunting their good looks would mean that they're either giving good girls bad ideas or (and it's hard to gauge what society used to consider worse) appeal to "them gays" (note, though you should probably know me better than that, I'm using this term to deride the haters, not LGBT folks). So while of course most women have always appreciated the naked (or barely clothed) male form, and there has been plenty of this in the movies since before those learned to talk, men had to present themselves as reputable at awards and such. Booo-ring, but hopefully things will change in time.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Personally, I find myself with floating opinion regarding this.

 

For events and celebrations, or when women feel they are in 'safe' environment, I'd not think twice about supporting them in wearing whatever they want to wear.

I am someone who had never find myself comfortable in wearing revealing clothes, mostly because I don't feel safe doing so and it draws too many unwanted attention, and most of the time, I am not at the right place to draw that kind of attention. However, beside safety, dressing up that way is not my style, although I had opposite feedbacks, I don't feel pretty, I don't feel I have things to show, I feel annoyed when I have to 'look pretty' for occasions. That's why I actually kind of admiring those who are comfortable of wearing anything they want, whenever their body types. I heard people making nasty comments like 'she doesn't have the body/shape to wear things like that / eyesore etc etc' but when I look at the person, she looks happy, comfortable and doesn't give a crap. That is what matters, isn't it? Cloth is just something, similar to attitude, choice of life, it's your right to choose. And if you are happy with yourself, and making yourself happy and feel pretty, who cares what others say? As long as it doesn't harm others. Look away if they must.

I don't think dressing sexy means they are aiming for sex. Some might, but I believe for most, it's expression of confidence, and the matter of feeling good about themselves.

 

The exception of when I frown at women dressing in revealing clothes, in when they are in the setting where they shouldn't. And for that, I apply those things that you said. For example, in places when women are expected to cover up, places when the men are known to be more sexist (and even the women), or sacred cultural places when everyone was expected to be respectful, then by not doing so, they are 'asking' for it. Not because they don't have the personal right to do so, but because they fail to respect the nature of others and they fail to protect themselves or being street smart.

I have been to these places when it's very easy to me to spot clueless visitors who treat foreign places just like their home. It's not only the bodies, it's applicable to money, wealth, views, attitude and behaviors. Although of course, I despise people who harm others in any way, those people are advertising themselves as preys.

Grandma's good old advice, when you go somewhere, observe and do what you see fit because in foreign land, safety and respect first. (I lied, it's not from my grandma)

 

 

[Arcadia]

Do you know the saying "When in Rome, do as the Romans do"? That was always held out to me as the standard by which you behaved in another country/environment. Seems simple enough, until you find out the Romans are doing something you don't approve of.... :smile:

 

And I so do NOT want to see almost naked men on my TV screen, either. I hope their "head to toe" standard sticks around for awhile.... :p

 

[Fantasy Lover]

Okay, I need a second opinion.

 

I was banned at FB by someone I actually quite valued. The reason was a post I wrote about how I felt about the Globes gala yesterday - that the ladies wearing black… things that hardly covered their bodies was a kind of mixed message. And that women should also look at themselves, before they start to blame men alone for giving in to the dominating belief/opinion that women are their bodies and those are another consumer good.

 

Am I so wrong? Misogynous? Sexist?

Sorry J.P, but I kind of agree with your friend. What you said is essentially victim blaming AND confirming the rape myth that if you didn't wear revealing clothes then nothing would have happened to you. Which is gigantic BS because rape happens even though you're wearing a BURQA or a sodding jeans with plaid shirt or you're a child! This isn't about clothes, this is about men sexualising women and harassing them because of poor impulse control!

 

That being said, and I'm playing the devil's advocate now, with the whole #metoo campaign everyone seems to forget one thing: women were willingly to open their legs as a way to climb to the top for decades. Men like Weinstein know that and are abusing it to their advance, as long as that mentality doesn't change, it's just a matter of time before history repeats.

 

As for nude pictures for a magazine I partly agree with you but it's important to see WHO is doing it, people like Kim Kardashian or Miley Cyrus are definitely doing it for attention and money whereas people like Emma Watson are doing it to show body positivity because a women's sexuality has being for centuries as stated before.

[J.P.]

Fantasy, rape is only a peak of a huge mountain. It starts with cat calling, groping, unwanted attention and stupid jokes. And about treating women's bodies as a ware.

 

I have so much to say about it, but hardly can put it into words - it's too much at once. I hope I can write more on the weekend.

[Surelock]

 

But WHY? Why do women want to be photographed naked? Why do they think it does anything good, beside helping their career or their bank accounts (and why do this work?) Isn't it sending wrong signals to the youth (as for role models etc.)

 

According to my friend's wife, some women (not all) have an innate desire to be admired for their beauty, especially by men. It helps them build self-confidence.

 

 

[Arcadia]

I assume that to be true, but I don't think I will ever understand it.

[Van Buren Supernova]

What happened in Hawaii is pretty mess-up. Can't imagine how I'd feel, must be a very suspenseful 38 minutes.

[T.o.b.y]

What happened in Hawaii is pretty mess-up. Can't imagine how I'd feel, must be a very suspenseful 38 minutes.

I had no idea what you were referring to at first. After looking it up - yeah, what a mess! In a novel, I might find this funny, but in reality it must have been awful and also dangerous. Goodness.

[Arcadia]

They replayed the verbal warning on the news, it was terrifying. I'm glad I didn't hear about it until it was over.

 

[Fantasy Lover]

At first I thought you were referring to Trump's insult to Hawaii, but then I saw what happened. Poor Hawaii, it must have been a horrifying 38 minutes.

[Arcadia]

Did Trump insult Hawaii, too? (He must have, he's insulted everyone else... :d)

[Fantasy Lover]

You didn't know? He insulted Hawaii a few days before the false alarm happened, and since I can't quote what he said without getting censored I'll just link it http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jan/12/donald-trumps-s-hole-countries-remarks-and-its-pol/

[Arcadia]

Oh, okay, I see the confusion ... the scare was in Hawaii, but Trump insulted Haiti (and El Salvador, and Africans.) (And about 5 billion other people around the world...) Oh yeah, I heard about it alright. Tore out some more hair.....