USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!
- Thread starter dxmnkd316
- Start date
- Status
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!
A lot of the "alt" press that you apparently read seems to be very pro-Trump. How do you feel about him?
Especially if Trump wins the election...
A lot of the "alt" press that you apparently read seems to be very pro-Trump. How do you feel about him?
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!
Drumpf is part of the Conspiracy of Conspiracies!!
Drumpf is part of the Conspiracy of Conspiracies!!
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!
You mean the person who funded the Clinton political machine?
You mean the person who funded the Clinton political machine?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!
Huh?
I know there's a theory that Trump is working with Bill to elect Hillary. But I am not familiar with the theory that Trump was connected with Clinton prior to his presidency. Do tell.
Huh?
I know there's a theory that Trump is working with Bill to elect Hillary. But I am not familiar with the theory that Trump was connected with Clinton prior to his presidency. Do tell.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!
Perhaps one should take a look at the monetary contributions made to them in the 90's.
Perhaps one should take a look at the monetary contributions made to them in the 90's.
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!
At the risk of additional flogging of the dead horse, and this writer, I'd encourage those of you who participated in our "floozy at work" debate to check out the latest episode of Bryant Gumbel's Real Sports on HBO. Segment one is on issues faced by female journalists in the sports world.
While they did not discuss directly an Ailes-like problem of quid pro quo sexual harassment, they did discuss at length a couple of the topics we debated, more particularly the issue of the way some of these journalists dress at work, and the issue of do some use their sexuality to advance careers at an early age, and if so, does that open them up to what would really be sex or age discrimination.
For the most part, only female journalists were interviewed. I thought their opinions on dress, or glamming it up, were pretty interesting. There were those that felt it was appropriate because they were trying to use their sexuality to essentially make themselves stand out. And then there were those women who told the interviewer in no uncertain terms that it was inappropriate. When you go to that job, you dress like you are going to a job, not like you are going clubbing at South Beach. That when you dress inappropriately, you can expect to be treated inappropriately, or with a lack of respect or credibility.
The second issue kind of went to my original point which touched off our debate. If you use your appearance and sexuality to get ahead, a) don't be surprised when you are treated like a sex object, and b) I'm not going to generate a bunch of sympathy for you when you are.
One of the journalists, who interestingly enough also works for FOX, was pretty adamant about the fact that yes, she has and does use her appearance and her sex appeal to advance her career. She admitted she will openly flirt with male interviewees, and was proud of it. She said she did so when she saw herself described as "frumpy" when she tried to go more conservative, but "on the road to bonerville" when she glammed it up. She embraced the second path, and does so still.
But then she was asked this question directly: If you use your appearance and sex appeal to get a job or advance your career at 24, is it ok at 44 for the network to say "that's it" and decide you are no longer fit for the position because of your appearance and diminished sex appeal. The young lady was, I thought, pretty cavalier about. Her response was sure.
I took away two points from the show. First, it has always seemed to me that women are a lot harder on other women than men are, and this show seemed to reinforce that. Second, there are female journalists who will openly admit something that I maintain is an absolute fact but some here seem to be in denial about -- there are female journalists (and probably a few male journalists) who are more than willing to use their appearance, their sex appeal, and their flirtations to advance their career, and most of them understand the concept of "live by the sword, die by the sword."
Please don't misinterpret my post. There were also plenty of women interviewed who think that it is unfair they are treated in that way, and more importantly, they are really forced to make the decision as to whether they play it straight and conservative, or use their sex to advance their careers. In general, I agree with them completely.
I doubt anyone's opinion will be changed, but it certainly hit on a lot of the arguments and points we made a short while ago.
At the risk of additional flogging of the dead horse, and this writer, I'd encourage those of you who participated in our "floozy at work" debate to check out the latest episode of Bryant Gumbel's Real Sports on HBO. Segment one is on issues faced by female journalists in the sports world.
While they did not discuss directly an Ailes-like problem of quid pro quo sexual harassment, they did discuss at length a couple of the topics we debated, more particularly the issue of the way some of these journalists dress at work, and the issue of do some use their sexuality to advance careers at an early age, and if so, does that open them up to what would really be sex or age discrimination.
For the most part, only female journalists were interviewed. I thought their opinions on dress, or glamming it up, were pretty interesting. There were those that felt it was appropriate because they were trying to use their sexuality to essentially make themselves stand out. And then there were those women who told the interviewer in no uncertain terms that it was inappropriate. When you go to that job, you dress like you are going to a job, not like you are going clubbing at South Beach. That when you dress inappropriately, you can expect to be treated inappropriately, or with a lack of respect or credibility.
The second issue kind of went to my original point which touched off our debate. If you use your appearance and sexuality to get ahead, a) don't be surprised when you are treated like a sex object, and b) I'm not going to generate a bunch of sympathy for you when you are.
One of the journalists, who interestingly enough also works for FOX, was pretty adamant about the fact that yes, she has and does use her appearance and her sex appeal to advance her career. She admitted she will openly flirt with male interviewees, and was proud of it. She said she did so when she saw herself described as "frumpy" when she tried to go more conservative, but "on the road to bonerville" when she glammed it up. She embraced the second path, and does so still.
But then she was asked this question directly: If you use your appearance and sex appeal to get a job or advance your career at 24, is it ok at 44 for the network to say "that's it" and decide you are no longer fit for the position because of your appearance and diminished sex appeal. The young lady was, I thought, pretty cavalier about. Her response was sure.
I took away two points from the show. First, it has always seemed to me that women are a lot harder on other women than men are, and this show seemed to reinforce that. Second, there are female journalists who will openly admit something that I maintain is an absolute fact but some here seem to be in denial about -- there are female journalists (and probably a few male journalists) who are more than willing to use their appearance, their sex appeal, and their flirtations to advance their career, and most of them understand the concept of "live by the sword, die by the sword."
Please don't misinterpret my post. There were also plenty of women interviewed who think that it is unfair they are treated in that way, and more importantly, they are really forced to make the decision as to whether they play it straight and conservative, or use their sex to advance their careers. In general, I agree with them completely.
I doubt anyone's opinion will be changed, but it certainly hit on a lot of the arguments and points we made a short while ago.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!
That was a great post. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
I think you are unintentionally mischaracterizing a counter-argument, the reaction to the "live by the sword" argument. I don't think anyone would deny that some women deliberately use their sexuality to forward their careers. What I (and I think some others) object to is the idea that somehow they then deserve, or at least invite, some degree of harassment. To me this is the equivalent of saying that a male executive who dresses and postures in ways to highlight his height and square jaw in order to project authority somehow invites the mailroom guy to challenge him to an arm-wrestling contest or a fight.
Projecting certain attributes is what we all do, all the time. Doctors put their degrees on the wall. Rick Perry wears glasses with clear lenses. Women in certain positions dress to accentuate their sexuality in order to be noticed and thought more highly by their bosses or clients. And everybody takes a shower and brushes their hair. We are all always manipulating appearance. I am arguing that we don't incur any reduction of respect by doing so. The long-standing idea that women who dress a certain way are inviting advances is, IMO, a sexist legacy of days when both men and women pigeonholed women as "mother or whore."
The other thing is just because women hold a view does not mean it isn't sexist. The thing about sexist or racist attitudes is they don't discriminate (get it?): as social codes they can just as easily be adopted by the biased-against group. Both masters and slaves think in terms of the power relations that happen to be in fashion at a particular time and place. The number of sexists who are outright mouth-breather Active Sexists is tiny. Most sexism is a passive reflection of the attitudes that are the unconscious baseline of their community. Sexism is typically not the oppression of women by men, it is the despotism over both women and men by an unconscious norm.
From the tenor and obvious sincerity of your post I believe you are not a sexist. I think at least one of your arguments has tendencies towards the "what do you expect?" line of thinking that is underpinned by sexist assumptions, but I can also see how you might give my interpretation of your argument a fair hearing and reject it on logical grounds that have nothing to do with any perceived inferiority (or superiority, which is no less sexist) of women.
None of us has a privileged position to dictate whether something is or is not sexist -- we are all making it up as we go along. By 19th century standards we are all Radical Suffragettes.
From where I stand, today, some of what you are saying makes me a little "sexist queasy," but you have no obligation to accept my judgment.
That was a great post. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
I think you are unintentionally mischaracterizing a counter-argument, the reaction to the "live by the sword" argument. I don't think anyone would deny that some women deliberately use their sexuality to forward their careers. What I (and I think some others) object to is the idea that somehow they then deserve, or at least invite, some degree of harassment. To me this is the equivalent of saying that a male executive who dresses and postures in ways to highlight his height and square jaw in order to project authority somehow invites the mailroom guy to challenge him to an arm-wrestling contest or a fight.
Projecting certain attributes is what we all do, all the time. Doctors put their degrees on the wall. Rick Perry wears glasses with clear lenses. Women in certain positions dress to accentuate their sexuality in order to be noticed and thought more highly by their bosses or clients. And everybody takes a shower and brushes their hair. We are all always manipulating appearance. I am arguing that we don't incur any reduction of respect by doing so. The long-standing idea that women who dress a certain way are inviting advances is, IMO, a sexist legacy of days when both men and women pigeonholed women as "mother or whore."
The other thing is just because women hold a view does not mean it isn't sexist. The thing about sexist or racist attitudes is they don't discriminate (get it?): as social codes they can just as easily be adopted by the biased-against group. Both masters and slaves think in terms of the power relations that happen to be in fashion at a particular time and place. The number of sexists who are outright mouth-breather Active Sexists is tiny. Most sexism is a passive reflection of the attitudes that are the unconscious baseline of their community. Sexism is typically not the oppression of women by men, it is the despotism over both women and men by an unconscious norm.
From the tenor and obvious sincerity of your post I believe you are not a sexist. I think at least one of your arguments has tendencies towards the "what do you expect?" line of thinking that is underpinned by sexist assumptions, but I can also see how you might give my interpretation of your argument a fair hearing and reject it on logical grounds that have nothing to do with any perceived inferiority (or superiority, which is no less sexist) of women.
None of us has a privileged position to dictate whether something is or is not sexist -- we are all making it up as we go along. By 19th century standards we are all Radical Suffragettes.
From where I stand, today, some of what you are saying makes me a little "sexist queasy," but you have no obligation to accept my judgment.
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!
Maybe 30 years ago I had a close friend at work whose wife happened to be a producer at one of our local tv affiliates. With my connection to my work associate, I found myself in many social situations (i.e. drunken parties) with a lot of these tv people, most of whom I really liked.
There were two women I became particularly close to. One I briefly dated and the other became a close friend not only from the parties but also from our time together on a local Red Cross Board.
Both women were reporters, in their late twenties, and extremely bright. One graduated from the University of Minnesota and the other from Northwestern. I also thought both were good reporters. Neither was unattractive, but they certainly didn't fit the "bubble headed bleach blonde" of Don Henley fame.
They both just got rolled over, and it was so unfair. Their writing talent and ability to actually understand an issue dwarfed what some of these little princesses brought to the table, but as the saying goes, they had a face for radio.
The Northwestern graduate eventually decided to switch her focus to production, and to her credit has succeeded on a national level. The other gave up, got married and is happily working in a none news related field. But since that experience I have literally had zero time for news journalists who happily exploit their physical assets to advance beyond those with more talent. End of rant.
I don't consider myself sexist, but I'm sure no one does. But I am pretty sure of where my worldview on this particular subject originates.That was a great post. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
I think you are unintentionally mischaracterizing a counter-argument, the reaction to the "live by the sword" argument. I don't think anyone would deny that some women deliberately use their sexuality to forward their careers. What I (and I think some others) object to is the idea that somehow they then deserve, or at least invite, some degree of harassment. To me this is the equivalent of saying that a male executive who dresses and postures in ways to highlight his height and square jaw in order to project authority somehow invites the mailroom guy to challenge him to an arm-wrestling contest or a fight.
Projecting certain attributes is what we all do, all the time. Doctors put their degrees on the wall. Rick Perry wears glasses with clear lenses. Women in certain positions dress to accentuate their sexuality in order to be noticed and thought more highly by their bosses or clients. And everybody takes a shower and brushes their hair. We are all always manipulating appearance. I am arguing that we don't incur any reduction of respect by doing so. The long-standing idea that women who dress a certain way are inviting advances is, IMO, a sexist legacy of days when both men and women pigeonholed women as "mother or whore."
The other thing is just because women hold a view does not mean it isn't sexist. The thing about sexist or racist attitudes is they don't discriminate (get it?): as social codes they can just as easily be adopted by the biased-against group. Both masters and slaves think in terms of the power relations that happen to be in fashion at a particular time and place. The number of sexists who are outright mouth-breather Active Sexists is tiny. Most sexism is a passive reflection of the attitudes that are the unconscious baseline of their community. Sexism is typically not the oppression of women by men, it is the despotism over both women and men by an unconscious norm.
From the tenor and obvious sincerity of your post I believe you are not a sexist. I think at least one of your arguments has tendencies towards the "what do you expect?" line of thinking that is unpinned by sexist assumptions, but I can also see how you might give my interpretation of your argument a fair hearing and reject it on logical grounds that have nothing to do with any perceived inferiority (or superiority, which is no less sexist) of women.
None of us has a privileged position to dictate whether something is or is not sexist -- we are all making it up as we go along. By 19th century standards we are all Radical Suffragettes.
Maybe 30 years ago I had a close friend at work whose wife happened to be a producer at one of our local tv affiliates. With my connection to my work associate, I found myself in many social situations (i.e. drunken parties) with a lot of these tv people, most of whom I really liked.
There were two women I became particularly close to. One I briefly dated and the other became a close friend not only from the parties but also from our time together on a local Red Cross Board.
Both women were reporters, in their late twenties, and extremely bright. One graduated from the University of Minnesota and the other from Northwestern. I also thought both were good reporters. Neither was unattractive, but they certainly didn't fit the "bubble headed bleach blonde" of Don Henley fame.
They both just got rolled over, and it was so unfair. Their writing talent and ability to actually understand an issue dwarfed what some of these little princesses brought to the table, but as the saying goes, they had a face for radio.
The Northwestern graduate eventually decided to switch her focus to production, and to her credit has succeeded on a national level. The other gave up, got married and is happily working in a none news related field. But since that experience I have literally had zero time for news journalists who happily exploit their physical assets to advance beyond those with more talent. End of rant.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!
What about the people who allow the tactic to work?
What about the people who allow the tactic to work?
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!
I was generic in my statement for a reason.
I was generic in my statement for a reason.
Contact Agent 47 via the vineyard owner.
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!
After many years....holy cow:
http://kstp.com/news/jacob-wetterli...patty-wetterling-investigation/4253499/?cat=1
After many years....holy cow:
http://kstp.com/news/jacob-wetterli...patty-wetterling-investigation/4253499/?cat=1
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!
It takes something like three weeks for DNA tests to complete, so it'll take a while to know if this is the real deal or not. There have been so many false finds over the past 26 years that it's tough to get excited. The difference this time, though, is that Patty Wetterling isn't taking phone calls. As agonizing as it might seem to those who've followed this case, that could be a really hopeful sign.
There's just nothing concrete yet, and won't be for another few weeks.
It takes something like three weeks for DNA tests to complete, so it'll take a while to know if this is the real deal or not. There have been so many false finds over the past 26 years that it's tough to get excited. The difference this time, though, is that Patty Wetterling isn't taking phone calls. As agonizing as it might seem to those who've followed this case, that could be a really hopeful sign.
There's just nothing concrete yet, and won't be for another few weeks.
- Status