Strong women and respect.

Boston

So I cam across this thread, about a New york state senators speech. I'm posting it here also because she makes afew very insightful comments towards the end with regards to female self image.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFFxidhcy0

One of the comments on the brilliant speech was the following

The_Minister wrote: »

Indeed. She needs to lose just a tiny bit of weight, but I can't believe she's over 40.

I don't actually understand why people feel the need to marginal and subjugate someone just because she's a woman. Its the attitude of "don't engage them, just have a dig at their ovaries. However its possible I'm the one out of step with accepted views. Is the above simply a cheeky joke, or is it extremely sexist?


Opinions please?

Nevyn

It is the double standard that it is permissible to comment on a woman's physical appearance and judge them on it rather then who they and what they do, which is sexist.

The comment complains that she is not optimizing her physical appearance for those who will look at her which means she is failing as a woman if you consider that this is the duty of all women to be as pleasing as possible in their appearance and that youthful looks is prized over abilty and achievements.

It's sexist, ageist and degrades her esp when she is speaking as an elected official, as a senator.

But it is unthinking sexism and very few people challenge the reasons and mores behind it and are unaware of the impact of what they are saying. It is often the reaction to a woman stepping out of traditionally perceived gender roles that such comments are made to push them back into them or say why they had to step out of traditionally perceived gender roles cos they are too personally objectionable.

IT is a good example of the point the Senator makes about women being conditioned from an early age to be all the agreeable qualities so that a man will marry them and for men to judge women on those qualities of desirability first and fore most.

Oryx

I thought (at a quick glance) that the Minster was trying to funny in an ironic way. To be fair, that happens all the time here.

The comment doesnt hit a nerve with me, as I see it as emphasising the idiocy of judging a woman by her appearance, rather than condoning and laughing about it.

Or maybe Im just in a good mood today.

I cant look at the speech right now. Work. :rolleyes: My only comment on the sexism of womans status = her looks, is that it is insidious, deeply engrained in our culture, and not gonna go away any time soon.

metaoblivia

I think it's reflective of an attitude some men have that women are there to be pretty and sexually attractive, and women who don't fulfill that are somehow failing as women.

I remember mentioning how much I admired Eleanor Roosevelt once when I was around 12. It caused a bit of a fight between my parents because my father immediately started making disparaging comments about her looks, and my mother got really angry with him because all he seemed to focus on were her looks, not her achievements.

It's a double standard women have to bear. It's not enough for a woman to champion civil rights or give a brilliant speech - she also has to look fabulous while doing it.

Blush_01

Knowing The Minister, I would say that his post was made primarily to spark a comment such as yours, Boston, if not the thread that we're commenting in.

Why can't Irish politicians speak like that, rather than talking like they're the last speaker at an incredibly tedious wedding and they've barely got the will to live left, never mind the will to deliver an impassioned speech.

Boston

Oryx wrote: »

I thought (at a quick glance) that the Minster was trying to funny in an ironic way. To be fair, that happens all the time here.

I think he was taking the piss, but not in an ironic fashion but rather in the making her the butt of a joke fashion.

metaoblivia wrote: »

I think it's reflective of an attitude some men have that women are there to be pretty and sexually attractive, and women who don't fulfill that are somehow failing as women.

I remember mentioning how much I admired Eleanor Roosevelt once when I was around 12. It caused a bit of a fight between my parents because my father immediately started making disparaging comments about her looks, and my mother got really angry with him because all he seemed to focus on were her looks, not her achievements.

It's a double standard women have to bear. It's not enough for a woman to champion civil rights or give a brilliant speech - she also has to look fabulous while doing it.

Not just men with that attitude.

Blush_01 wrote: »

Knowing The Minister, I would say that his post was made primarily to spark a comment such as yours, Boston, if not the thread that we're commenting in.

Trolling so?

Blush_01

Ok, since the basic premise of this is that it's bad to judge someone on appearance as that detracts from their issue, I'd like to make a comment about appearance in general. People hear your point with their eyes as much as their ears. It's generally considered that if you're serious about something you make an effort to present yourself to your best advantage, so people are automatically predisposed to you. It's not fair, and I don't consider it right, but it's how things work.

Compare the expected standard of dress in Irish politics, and what Senator Savino is wearing. In Irish politics, a suit is standard - almost like legal wear, but usually with less colour restrictions. Senator Savino's attire is office casual at best, and unflattering office casual at that. In the Irish senate or Dáil no politician would be seen dressed like that. What they wear might not be flattering, but it most definitely would be smarter, more appropriate for the formality and significance of the setting, if you will.

On the trolling point - possibly, but not 100%. No doubt he believes what he says, and I can see his point (had the thread been about her appearance, and not the speech), but there's a definite grain of inflammatory thought in there too.

People judge other people based on a number of criteria. Nothing in The Minister's comment said anything about his opinion on her stance on the issue she was debating, or his thoughts on her as a politician. He made an off the cuff remark about her appearance. She's a politician, therefore she is public property. If he wants to do that, where's the issue? You don't have to agree. He didn't say that her points were invalid because she wore a clingy top that was unflattering because of its clingyness, and because the neckline is too high for her ample chest, making her look far bigger than she probably is. He didn't say that his disbelief at her age makes her stance more or less correct in his opinion.

When someone will always comment about appearance for whatever reason, whoever is involved, why focus on it when it's as trivial as it is in this instance, and let it overwhelm the significance of what she said, and how impressive she was as a speaker and advocate for the issue at hand, in your mind?

(IMHO, by making such an issue of it you're allowing The Minister's comment to overshadow Senator Savino's speech, facilitating the "nothing but tits and ass" mentality. He's not going to change his stance - his comment was not in any way related to her speech, it was opinion on her appearance. It might have been off topic in the thread, but there's a report button if you have issues with someone's post. Did you ask him his opinion on the content of the Senator's speech? I don't get the impression that you did. You, on the other hand, are a lot more frustrated by his comment than he is. If there was a battle, who do you think would be considered the winner with those results?)

Warfi

Blush_01 wrote: »

Ok, since the basic premise of this is that it's bad to judge someone on appearance as that detracts from their issue, I'd like to make a comment about appearance in general. People hear your point with their eyes as much as their ears. It's generally considered that if you're serious about something you make an effort to present yourself to your best advantage, so people are automatically predisposed to you. It's not fair, and I don't consider it right, but it's how things work.

Compare the expected standard of dress in Irish politics, and what Senator Savino is wearing. In Irish politics, a suit is standard - almost like legal wear, but usually with less colour restrictions. Senator Savino's attire is office casual at best, and unflattering office casual at that. In the Irish senate or Dáil no politician would be seen dressed like that. What they wear might not be flattering, but it most definitely would be smarter, more appropriate for the formality and significance of the setting, if you will.

On the trolling point - possibly, but not 100%. No doubt he believes what he says, and I can see his point (had the thread been about her appearance, and not the speech), but there's a definite grain of inflammatory thought in there too.

People judge other people based on a number of criteria. Nothing in The Minister's comment said anything about his opinion on her stance on the issue she was debating, or his thoughts on her as a politician. He made an off the cuff remark about her appearance. She's a politician, therefore she is public property. If he wants to do that, where's the issue? You don't have to agree. He didn't say that her points were invalid because she wore a clingy top that was unflattering because of its clingyness, and because the neckline is too high for her ample chest, making her look far bigger than she probably is. He didn't say that his disbelief at her age makes her stance more or less correct in his opinion.

When someone will always comment about appearance for whatever reason, whoever is involved, why focus on it when it's as trivial as it is in this instance, and let it overwhelm the significance of what she said, and how impressive she was as a speaker and advocate for the issue at hand, in your mind?

(IMHO, by making such an issue of it you're allowing The Minister's comment to overshadow Senator Savino's speech, facilitating the "nothing but tits and ass" mentality. He's not going to change his stance - his comment was not in any way related to her speech, it was opinion on her appearance. It might have been off topic in the thread, but there's a report button if you have issues with someone's post. Did you ask him his opinion on the content of the Senator's speech? I don't get the impression that you did. You, on the other hand, are a lot more frustrated by his comment than he is. If there was a battle, who do you think would be considered the winner with those results?)

True, but with such a well worded speech given by Savino, it's odd that the first thing he could think of was her appearance.

Imagine Martin Luther King being lambasted for his physical appearance after he gave his 'I have a dream' speech. Although maybe people commented on the fact that he was black. That was accepted in those days. We've now moved on, a person's skin colour nowadays cannot be used to measure a person's worth. I'm aware that it's still a work in progress though.

Women's looks are still used to measure their worth. The media have a field day with it. Large companies make billions from it. Isn't it about time we started to move on from that? Can you imagine the uproar if the media/large companies were playing on a person's skin colour ie saying they're not good enough and need to change their skin colour to a nice white hue?

Loved Savino's speech by the way....very articulate and humorous.:)

kowloon

Good speech, pity we don't have such articulate politicians over here.

The_Minister

:rolleyes:
Boston, you could have least pointed out that I was a responding to a comment where someone had called her hot.
I wasn't the one who brought up sexiness or lack of it in the first place, I just disagreed that she was that sexy.

But of course, you don't like me, and take every oppurtunity to take pot shots at me when you can.

The_Minister

Blush_01 wrote: »

Knowing The Minister, I would say that his post was made primarily to spark a comment such as yours, Boston, if not the thread that we're commenting in..

Actually, someone else had already commented on her appearence, I was responding to that. I felt she was indeed sexy, a bit overweight for my taste, but looked very good for a woman over 40.
I wasn't trolling, I was responding to someone else comment, Boston just really doesn't like me.

Blush_01 wrote: »

Why can't Irish politicians speak like that, rather than talking like they're the last speaker at an incredibly tedious wedding and they've barely got the will to live left, never mind the will to deliver an impassioned speech.

Tbh, that is due in large part to time limitations, and hedging their bets.
If you look at the speeches that they read into the records, they are often very, very good (they can read speaches into the records at the end of the day, when everyone has gone home). Also the Seanad tends to have quite good speeches.
And we do have "I stand by the Republic" and stuff like that.

Tbh, the more I think about it, the media only report one line out of a speech, so you never hear about all the brilliant ones made.

stovelid

Boston wrote: »

Trolling so?

Specifically posting about another boardsie's comment from another forum (whether the comment was right or wrong) on this forum (where it's most designed to cause uproar) could also be classified as same?

WindSock

I don't think people in the LL are going to give a toss who posted what, if it is designed to get a rise from one poster or another or not. Already there have been posts on this thread that indicate these sort of comments and attitudes towards womens appearances rather than their achievements are epidemic as it is. I don't see why it is necessary to single out one poster when one only has to go to AH to see thousands.
Examples of this....who gets more flak here

Brian Cowen or Mary Harney?

Both in governement, both make unpopular decisions (one even has more power to make unpopular decisions over the other) & both not easy on the eye.

Silverfish

People, I will ask you to avoid singling out any one poster's comments on a different forum. If you wish to comment on their comments in this thread, then do so, but please avoid discussing the poster themselves, or dragging arguments from other forums to this one.

Thank you.

iguana

Warfi wrote: »

True, but with such a well worded speech given by Savino, it's odd that the first thing he could think of was her appearance.

Imagine Martin Luther King being lambasted for his physical appearance after he gave his 'I have a dream' speech.

Imagine King had made his speech dressed in a ill-fitting jumper with his hair all unkempt. I suspect quite a few people would have commented on that.

The senator made a good speech but presentation is important. Rightly or wrongly people in a professional environment are expected to look a certain way and to a lot of people their words will carry more weight if they look the part. Imo, Savino's attractiveness is irrelevant but she did look like she had just jumped out of bed and thrown a jumpers on without brushing her hair. And that was the first thing I noticed.

I know from campaigning experience that a huge amount of people aren't interested in anything a grubby hippy has to say, even if what they are saying is intelligent and important. To be taken seriously you have to know your audience and do all you can to get them to listen to you, that includes looking neat.

kowloon

iguana wrote: »

Imo, Savino's attractiveness is irrelevant but she did look like she had just jumped out of bed and thrown a jumpers on without brushing her hair. And that was the first thing I noticed.

Each to their own but I immediately distrust anyone in a suit: whereas someone who dresses the way they feel comfortable looks at ease and like they've nothing to hide, some fecker in a suit is already lying to you before they open their mouth.

Boston

Blush_01 wrote: »

Ok, since the basic premise of this is that it's bad to judge someone on appearance as that detracts from their issue, I'd like to make a comment about appearance in general. People hear your point with their eyes as much as their ears. It's generally considered that if you're serious about something you make an effort to present yourself to your best advantage, so people are automatically predisposed to you. It's not fair, and I don't consider it right, but it's how things work.

Compare the expected standard of dress in Irish politics, and what Senator Savino is wearing. In Irish politics, a suit is standard - almost like legal wear, but usually with less colour restrictions. Senator Savino's attire is office casual at best, and unflattering office casual at that. In the Irish senate or Dáil no politician would be seen dressed like that. What they wear might not be flattering, but it most definitely would be smarter, more appropriate for the formality and significance of the setting, if you will.

Ah yes the Irish politicians in the expensive suits, with high priced cars, eating in exclusive restaurants. The models of fiscal responsibility the world should follow. Are you honestly critising a politician for being too common?

Blush_01 wrote: »

People judge other people based on a number of criteria. Nothing in The Minister's comment said anything about his opinion on her stance on the issue she was debating, or his thoughts on her as a politician. He made an off the cuff remark about her appearance. She's a politician, therefore she is public property. If he wants to do that, where's the issue? You don't have to agree. He didn't say that her points were invalid because she wore a clingy top that was unflattering because of its clingyness, and because the neckline is too high for her ample chest, making her look far bigger than she probably is. He didn't say that his disbelief at her age makes her stance more or less correct in his opinion.

It was completely superfluous.

Blush_01 wrote: »

When someone will always comment about appearance for whatever reason, whoever is involved, why focus on it when it's as trivial as it is in this instance, and let it overwhelm the significance of what she said, and how impressive she was as a speaker and advocate for the issue at hand, in your mind?

I can continue to appreciate someone while feeling disconcerted by abhorrent comments directed at them.

Blush_01 wrote: »

(IMHO, by making such an issue of it you're allowing The Minister's comment to overshadow Senator Savino's speech, facilitating the "nothing but tits and ass" mentality. He's not going to change his stance - his comment was not in any way related to her speech, it was opinion on her appearance. It might have been off topic in the thread, but there's a report button if you have issues with someone's post. Did you ask him his opinion on the content of the Senator's speech? I don't get the impression that you did. You, on the other hand, are a lot more frustrated by his comment than he is. If there was a battle, who do you think would be considered the winner with those results?)

I've no interest in changing the ministers or anyone else's stance. I'm merely interest in engage those who feel these attitude no longer propagate; that they are merely a thing of yesteryear and young people have moved on. I did not ask him his opinion on her speech, that was the topic of the thread and implicit. If his immediate opinion amounted to a dig at her weight, I couldn't care less about his opinion of the content. If you judge people first and foremost on their gender, their social background, their race or their accent, or a hundred other things which say more about the person judging then the judged, well then you loose the ability to make me care what you think.

Warfi wrote: »

True, but with such a well worded speech given by Savino, it's odd that the first thing he could think of was her appearance.

Imagine Martin Luther King being lambasted for his physical appearance after he gave his 'I have a dream' speech. Although maybe people commented on the fact that he was black. That was accepted in those days. We've now moved on, a person's skin colour nowadays cannot be used to measure a person's worth. I'm aware that it's still a work in progress though.

Women's looks are still used to measure their worth. The media have a field day with it. Large companies make billions from it. Isn't it about time we started to move on from that? Can you imagine the uproar if the media/large companies were playing on a person's skin colour ie saying they're not good enough and need to change their skin colour to a nice white hue?

Frankly it was a huge issue in obamas campaign. Opinions more forward slowly.

WindSock wrote: »

I don't think people in the LL are going to give a toss who posted what, if it is designed to get a rise from one poster or another or not. Already there have been posts on this thread that indicate these sort of comments and attitudes towards womens appearances rather than their achievements are epidemic as it is. I don't see why it is necessary to single out one poster when one only has to go to AH to see thousands.
Examples of this....who gets more flak here

Brian Cowen or Mary Harney?

Both in governement, both make unpopular decisions (one even has more power to make unpopular decisions over the other) & both not easy on the eye.

Oh I see. Because something is so common, why make an issue out of one example? I don't think you've thought your logic through very well. I don't recall every agreeing to be fair. When I challenge a bigot is that fair? He or she is only believe what they were raised to believe, if I can't chastise their parents, neighbors and friends, then I should swallow what they say? Isn't that the "fair" thing. The only way to undermine ignorance is to challenge views one person at a time. If you think I'm wrong and that the comment was fine then fair enough, I'll respect that difference of opinion, but don't tell me I should accept the unacceptable from one person simply because I can't challenge the next.

The_Minister, I'd appreciate if you didn't drag the thread off topic into the realms of nuisance. If you object to the thread, theres a report post function as well as helpdesk.

opinion guy

WindSock wrote: »

Examples of this....who gets more flak here

Brian Cowen or Mary Harney?

Both in governement, both make unpopular decisions (one even has more power to make unpopular decisions over the other) & both not easy on the eye.

Its funny you said that cause when I read the first post the first thought in my head was Brian Cowen. Yeah you do have a point about Harney getting more slack, but then, she's been high profile for longer (and I would say is more high profile) and is probably more villified for running a **** health service than he is for inheriting a **** economy from Bertie (another stunner:rolleyes:). But I'd have to say whenever Cowen's name does come up he seems to get just as much slack about how he looks as Mary Harney does

Wibbs

Boston wrote: »

The_Minister, I'd appreciate if you didn't drag the thread off topic into the realms of nuisance. If you object to the thread, theres a report post function as well as helpdesk.

Yes and neither avenue you took either, so I would appreciate it of you didn't drag the thread off topic and back seat mod for good measure. There has already been one warning in this thread. I for one won't be giving another. Take the tit for tat stuff elsewhere. Thank you.

minidazzler

TBH, I don't give 2 sh1ts about her appearence, she is quite attractive actually, proper curvy, in a very good way. But, what she said. Perfectly done!!!

Her speech was excellent, her delivery was perfect, you could tell she was nervous, but that's a good thing, she isn't cocky, nor over-confident, she is simply stating her opinion.

Excellent speech and that is what I would call marvelous woman TBH.

Well done to her.

Warfi

iguana wrote: »

Imagine King had made his speech dressed in a ill-fitting jumper with his hair all unkempt. I suspect quite a few people would have commented on that.

The senator made a good speech but presentation is important. Rightly or wrongly people in a professional environment are expected to look a certain way and to a lot of people their words will carry more weight if they look the part. Imo, Savino's attractiveness is irrelevant but she did look like she had just jumped out of bed and thrown a jumpers on without brushing her hair. And that was the first thing I noticed.

I know from campaigning experience that a huge amount of people aren't interested in anything a grubby hippy has to say, even if what they are saying is intelligent and important. To be taken seriously you have to know your audience and do all you can to get them to listen to you, that includes looking neat.

Not that I'm comparing him to Martin Luther King or anything :pac: But I remember Bertie Ahern getting stick for wearing an anorak alright!

WindSock

Boston wrote: »

Oh I see. Because something is so common, why make an issue out of one example? I don't think you've thought your logic through very well. I don't recall every agreeing to be fair. When I challenge a bigot is that fair? He or she is only believe what they were raised to believe, if I can't chastise their parents, neighbors and friends, then I should swallow what they say? Isn't that the "fair" thing. The only way to undermine ignorance is to challenge views one person at a time. If you think I'm wrong and that the comment was fine then fair enough, I'll respect that difference of opinion, but don't tell me I should accept the unacceptable from one person simply because I can't challenge the next.

The_Minister, I'd appreciate if you didn't drag the thread off topic into the realms of nuisance. If you object to the thread, theres a report post function as well as helpdesk.

Not at all, by all means bring this issue up. I am glad you did. Delighted in fact as I saw the clip that I otherwise probably wouldn't have come across. Unfortunatley I reckon this thread is one that has ulterior motives. It's fair enough I would rather not address those motives as it will detract from the actual point.

iguana

kowloon wrote: »

Each to their own but I immediately distrust anyone in a suit: whereas someone who dresses the way they feel comfortable looks at ease and like they've nothing to hide, some fecker in a suit is already lying to you before they open their mouth.

Some people like wearing suits and they are seen as the 'uniform' of people in professional jobs so some people have to wear them. They aren't lying to you because of the way they are dressed.

Nor did I suggest she should have been wearing a suit. But it would have been a better idea to have had her hair tidied up and off her face and to have worn a smarter top/dress. A simple wrap dress looks perfectly professional.

How you dress makes a statement and if you dress in a way which is at odds with your environment you both detract and distract from the statement you are making with your words.

Mr. Presentable

Boston wrote: »

So I cam across this thread, about a New york state senators speech. I'm posting it here also because she makes afew very insightful comments towards the end with regards to female self image.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFFxidhcy0

One of the comments on the brilliant speech was the following



I don't actually understand why people feel the need to marginal and subjugate someone just because she's a woman. Its the attitude of "don't engage them, just have a dig at their ovaries. However its possible I'm the one out of step with accepted views. Is the above simply a cheeky joke, or is it extremely sexist?


Opinions please?

1) I can't see her ovaries so won't comment on them.

2) Brian Cowen has similar remarks aimed at him on these boards.

3) It's a joke.

Boston

nipplenuts wrote: »

1) I can't see her ovaries so won't comment on them.

2) Brian Cowen has similar remarks aimed at him on these boards.

3) It's a joke.

2)
So its rule by lowest common denominator is it? The limit of whats acceptable on one forum is the meter stick used to determine whats acceptable on them all?

If Brian Cowen ever made a speech like that and someone had a dig out at him about his appearance, I'd similarly take issue.

3)
The jokes which need to undermine and demean someone are the best aye? Come off it.

Mr. Presentable

Boston wrote: »

2)
So its rule by lowest common denominator is it? The limit of whats acceptable on one forum is the meter stick used to determine whats acceptable on them all?

If Brian Cowen ever made a speech like that and someone had a dig out at him about his appearance, I'd similarly take issue.

3)
The jokes which need to undermine and demean someone are the best aye? Come off it.

That's not what I said, and
that's not what I said either!

southsiderosie

Blush_01 wrote: »

Ok, since the basic premise of this is that it's bad to judge someone on appearance as that detracts from their issue, I'd like to make a comment about appearance in general. People hear your point with their eyes as much as their ears. It's generally considered that if you're serious about something you make an effort to present yourself to your best advantage, so people are automatically predisposed to you. It's not fair, and I don't consider it right, but it's how things work.

Compare the expected standard of dress in Irish politics, and what Senator Savino is wearing. In Irish politics, a suit is standard - almost like legal wear, but usually with less colour restrictions. Senator Savino's attire is office casual at best, and unflattering office casual at that. In the Irish senate or Dáil no politician would be seen dressed like that. What they wear might not be flattering, but it most definitely would be smarter, more appropriate for the formality and significance of the setting, if you will.

I don't think you can compare what Irish politicians serving in the national legislature wears to what a state rep in the United States wears. I'm American, and I was surprised when I worked in Dublin how formally dressed the men were around the government buildings. Even in Washington DC, it's mainly the representatives that wear suits. DC isn't "fashionable" by a long shot - it's notoriously boring and conservative when it comes to dress - but the only people you see dressed like Irish politicians in DC are the lobbyists...hmm, maybe there is a connection there.

The other thing is, in American politics there is a strong populist streak. Most politicians don't want to appear to seem "above" their constituents - to the point that some of them will make themselves look ridiculous by trying to look overly casual or like a "good ol' boy" (paging Gore, Al and Kerry, John!). Again, this is in contrast to Ireland - I was amazed when I saw TDs who visited their rural western constituencies wearing dark suits. In the US, a rep from a rural western/mountain district would probably wear jeans and a barn jacket when they went out to meet with voters. So within our political context, wearing a smart suit may not make someone predisposed to you; instead it may signal that you have been spending too much time in the capital/statehouse and not enough time with your constituents.

Herbal Deity

I don't think it was that great a speech. Great oratorical skills, yes. But I felt the content didn't really address the core issues of the gay marriage debate.

Forget looks, far too often politicians in general are judged on their oratorical skills, which have absolutely nothing to do with their level of intelligence or the logic behind their arguments.

kowloon

iguana wrote: »

Some people like wearing suits and they are seen as the 'uniform' of people in professional jobs so some people have to wear them. They aren't lying to you because of the way they are dressed.

Nor did I suggest she should have been wearing a suit. But it would have been a better idea to have had her hair tidied up and off her face and to have worn a smarter top/dress. A simple wrap dress looks perfectly professional.

How you dress makes a statement and if you dress in a way which is at odds with your environment you both detract and distract from the statement you are making with your words.

I know what you're getting at, was just saying I personally felt that way about people in suits. When someone puts a lot of effort into their appearance I get suspicious.

kowloon

More fuel for the fire:

After Hours thread

stovelid

kowloon wrote: »

More fuel for the fire:

After Hours thread

What you mean is that you're adding fuel to the fire,

Nathan251

can't this thread be put in a forum that nobody reads? those are 3 and a half minutes i am never going to get back

Warfi

Nathan251 wrote: »

can't this thread be put in a forum that nobody reads? those are 3 and a half minutes i am never going to get back

3 and a half minutes? What were you doing...reading with your finger under the words?

Blush_01

Boston wrote: »

Ah yes the Irish politicians in the expensive suits, with high priced cars, eating in exclusive restaurants. The models of fiscal responsibility the world should follow. Are you honestly critising a politician for being too common?

No, I am criticising a politician for not dressing appropriately for the gravity of their position. I work in an office where nobody ever sees me and I still have more respect for the role I hold, which I don't particularly like, than to turn up to work with greasy hair, a generally unkempt air and clothes that are obviously too small for me. What I wear may not be much more flattering than what Senator Savino wore, but it most definitely is more appropriate in terms of the smart casual dress code where I work. Irish politicians sense of propriety where their dress is concerned in terms of their public appearance was quite patently what I was getting at - I quite obviously said as much, repeatedly. I'm sorry you were unable to see that. Let me point it out again. Senator Savino was not, in my opinion, dressed appropriately for her role, even if (thanks SouthSideRosie!) standards of dress for political representatives of her status in the US are much more relaxed than they are here. Wearing unflattering, ill-fitting clothing shows little regard for her position and the significance of what she does as a representative of those who elected her. Please do not put words relating to political fiscal responsibility in my mouth.

Boston wrote: »

I've no interest in changing the ministers or anyone else's stance. I'm merely interest in engage those who feel these attitude no longer propagate; that they are merely a thing of yesteryear and young people have moved on. I did not ask him his opinion on her speech, that was the topic of the thread and implicit. If his immediate opinion amounted to a dig at her weight, I couldn't care less about his opinion of the content. If you judge people first and foremost on their gender, their social background, their race or their accent, or a hundred other things which say more about the person judging then the judged, well then you loose the ability to make me care what you think.

As The Minister has pointed out, his post was a response to a comment posted by another poster. Yet you have no issue with that poster calling Senator Savino "hot", you just take issue with The Minister's frank opinion on her appearance. I am actually a little confused. Whether you consciously or subconsciously do so, you judge people. I am judging you right now, based on your comments, and forming an opinion of you as a result. I would be surprised if you haven't made some judgement about me as a result of my posts - if only in terms of the validity of my opinions by comparison to your own. In discounting someone based on the criteria under which they judge someone, you're judging that person yourself. How wonderful it would be if we never passed judgement on anyone, ever. How totally unrealistic. We judge people constantly, holding them up to a series of social markers which we consider acceptable or appropriate and discard those who we judge have not met our criteria. Have you ever fallen out with someone, had someone in your life to a point until you realised you weren't compatible anymore? That involves passing judgement in some form or other.

Boston wrote: »

Oh I see. Because something is so common, why make an issue out of one example? I don't think you've thought your logic through very well. I don't recall every agreeing to be fair. When I challenge a bigot is that fair? He or she is only believe what they were raised to believe, if I can't chastise their parents, neighbors and friends, then I should swallow what they say? Isn't that the "fair" thing. The only way to undermine ignorance is to challenge views one person at a time. If you think I'm wrong and that the comment was fine then fair enough, I'll respect that difference of opinion, but don't tell me I should accept the unacceptable from one person simply because I can't challenge the next.

Ah, see I would disagree. I believe my logic is quite sound - certainly your posts have not sufficiently challenged my opinion to change my mind - do you believe that makes me a bigot? Bigotry implies irrationality, obstinacy or animosity towards an opinion that differs to your own. It doesn't necessarily imply that those opinions are ones which have been bred into you. I'm sure most human beings have come to believe things since they were raised by their parents - should they be bigoted adults are their parents responsible for any opinions they form for themselves as adults? Are their friends and neighbours somehow responsible for their personal mental reasoning? Are you an advocate of nurture over nature in that case?

I also can clearly see your issue with fairness. If you're going to undermine ignorance though, it might be a good idea to look at comments in context. Once again, this is just my opinion, but I think what you have undermined more by bringing this here is your own integrity. Rather than arguing your point in the forum where it arose, you copied it somewhere you felt you would get opinions matching your own - somewhere that you judged people might have similar views. I don't see where The Minister was incorrect in voicing his opinion, nor do I see anything cruel or untrue in what he said. Additionally, I don't see how his comment in any way undermined Senator Savino's strength, or the respect that anyone who is able to form their own opinions might have for her.

If you truly believe people are so gullible that their opinions of Senator Savino will be undermined by The Minister's comment then surely you have your work cut out trying to educate the vast volume of morons out there. I salute your efforts.

I think WindSock might have hit the nail on the head, and put it far more succinctly than I could, although I was trying to find a way of saying the same.

Red Hand

Blush_01 wrote: »

I think WindSock might have hit the nail on the head, and put it far more succinctly than I could, although I was trying to find a way of saying the same.

I think you both hit the nail on the head. I agree.

Boston

Blush_01 wrote: »

No, I am criticising a politician for not dressing appropriately for the gravity of their position. I work in an office where nobody ever sees me and I still have more respect for the role I hold, which I don't particularly like, than to turn up to work with greasy hair, a generally unkempt air and clothes that are obviously too small for me. What I wear may not be much more flattering than what Senator Savino wore, but it most definitely is more appropriate in terms of the smart casual dress code where I work. Irish politicians sense of propriety where their dress is concerned in terms of their public appearance was quite patently what I was getting at - I quite obviously said as much, repeatedly. I'm sorry you were unable to see that. Let me point it out again. Senator Savino was not, in my opinion, dressed appropriately for her role, even if (thanks SouthSideRosie!) standards of dress for political representatives of her status in the US are much more relaxed than they are here. Wearing unflattering, ill-fitting clothing shows little regard for her position and the significance of what she does as a representative of those who elected her. Please do not put words relating to political fiscal responsibility in my mouth.

I get yea. In order for a woman to have any self respect or to gain the respect of others she must first take care of her appearance. It is acceptable to judge a book by its cover and people should be dismissive towards those who don't feel the need to play silly beggars with dress codes. Thank you for your contribution, I will remember to cite in when pointing out to others that yes there are woman out there vain enough to attack and undermine other woman over matter as trivial as dress code, make up and hair do's. It is women like you, not men, who perpetuate the insane notion that young girls are only what they wear and the approval of their pers is the most important thing in the world.

You need to understand that rigid social orderings like dress code have seldom mattered to me and I find it laughable that you assert the need for me to take such things into account now. Heres someone arguing for civil rights, a particular civil right which means a great deal to me and you sit there expecting me to be so god damn vapid and image obsessed that I chastise her for not wearing the latest "smart casual" suit from armani. Come off it.

Blush_01 wrote: »

As The Minister has pointed out, his post was a response to a comment posted by another poster. Yet you have no issue with that poster calling Senator Savino "hot", you just take issue with The Minister's frank opinion on her appearance. I am actually a little confused.

Your confusion may be the result of the fact you didn't read the original post. It's nice to see that hasn't stop you from jumping to uninformed conclusions with regards to what was said. Just like all those "conservative" figures who jump condemn movies they've never seen and burn books they've never opened. But I digress. There was no direct reference to the senator being "hot", there was not reference at all to her apparently before the ministers comment. One user said that he/she would "Hit it". I didn't realise I was under an obligation to crusade against every crude comment made on the internet. I hope you feel you're getting your fair share of my attention.

Blush_01 wrote: »

Whether you consciously or subconsciously do so, you judge people. I am judging you right now, based on your comments, and forming an opinion of you as a result. I would be surprised if you haven't made some judgement about me as a result of my posts - if only in terms of the validity of my opinions by comparison to your own.

Yes I am judging you, I judge you not worthy of my continued attention. Nevertheless I'll solider on through your post in the desperate hope you'll post something mildly thought provoking, insightful or original, hell I'll settle for mildly amusing. I feel such hopes are likely to be met with disappointed, but you deserve five minutes of my attention.

Blush_01 wrote: »

In discounting someone based on the criteria under which they judge someone, you're judging that person yourself. How wonderful it would be if we never passed judgement on anyone, ever. How totally unrealistic. We judge people constantly, holding them up to a series of social markers which we consider acceptable or appropriate and discard those who we judge have not met our criteria. Have you ever fallen out with someone, had someone in your life to a point until you realised you weren't compatible anymore? That involves passing judgement in some form or other.

And with that my hopes have been dashed against the bitter rocks of despair. The important insight you felt the need to share with me is what exactly? That people judge people? Of course they do. Judgements like opinions and arseholes are everywhere. Why on earth should I accept any of them?

Blush_01 wrote: »

Ah, see I would disagree. I believe my logic is quite sound - certainly your posts have not sufficiently challenged my opinion to change my mind - do you believe that makes me a bigot? Bigotry implies irrationality, obstinacy or animosity towards an opinion that differs to your own. It doesn't necessarily imply that those opinions are ones which have been bred into you. I'm sure most human beings have come to believe things since they were raised by their parents - should they be bigoted adults are their parents responsible for any opinions they form for themselves as adults? Are their friends and neighbours somehow responsible for their personal mental reasoning? Are you an advocate of nurture over nature in that case?

Wow that's impressive. You used a huge amount of words to say absolutely nothing. I tried really hard but I can't find a point in. Did you think I wouldn't notice waffle? Judging you based on the waffle above I'd say you've a arts degree of some kind, possible law, more then likely English lit mixed with film studies or basket weaving, but obviously not from a high calibre protestant university.

Do you see what I did there. I attempted to undermine your non existent point by speculating on your personal characteristics even though it was completely non pertinent. Its a bit of a nasty tactic but who cares once you dress well. This is where most users would insert a smilie to point out the obvious sarcasm but I think educated souls like ourselves are beyond such things, nei?

Blush_01 wrote: »

I also can clearly see your issue with fairness. If you're going to undermine ignorance though, it might be a good idea to look at comments in context. Once again, this is just my opinion, but I think what you have undermined more by bringing this here is your own integrity. Rather than arguing your point in the forum where it arose, you copied it somewhere you felt you would get opinions matching your own - somewhere that you judged people might have similar views. I don't see where The Minister was incorrect in voicing his opinion, nor do I see anything cruel or untrue in what he said. Additionally, I don't see how his comment in any way undermined Senator Savino's strength, or the respect that anyone who is able to form their own opinions might have for her.

You mean the context you're unaware because the posts were removed prior to you reading the thread? Is that the context you're talking about? The one I know and you don't? Thank you for pointing out that its just your opinion as I was in serious danger of mistaken it for hard cold fact or divine gospel. Moving swiftly along, there appears to be a great deal you don't see, including the the following

1. I took the minister to task on the forum in question prior to starting this thread.
2. The people on original forum were as appalled as I was.
3. I have never in my life gone seaking support for an opinion I held from a mob.
4. I haven't engaged the_minister on this thread.

I would have posted the video here regardless, as indicated in my original post which you clearly skimmed. The ministers comment put a different slant on the initial posting. Of course you see nothing wrong with the_ministers post, if you'd seen the thread first you'd have attacked the senator over her dress sense.

Blush_01 wrote: »

If you truly believe people are so gullible that their opinions of Senator Savino will be undermined by The Minister's comment then surely you have your work cut out trying to educate the vast volume of morons out there. I salute your efforts.

Yes people are gullible enough. You need to challenge the unacceptable before it becomes acceptable. As for me, I'm taking it one "moron" at a time.

Thus ends the post.

Wibbs

Boston if you can't respond without recourse to calling people morons, then don't respond at all. Alluding to it doesn't excuse it either. Please keep it civil. That goes for everyone. Thank you.

Blush_01

Boston, propriety is important, particularly if you are in the public eye. If Senator Savino was a man I would take issue with him wearing an unflattering polo neck jumper when representing people too. It's indicative of the level of respect you have for your position, and therefore those who put you in that position. If you still cannot understand that that is my point in terms of Senator Savino's appearance then I dispair, because I have made my point as clearly as possible. Your posts are making your original point mute in their extremism, imho.

Crusade if you will. You make assumptions about my intelligence, education and attitudes that are frankly not my problem. How reductionist of you to pigeon hole me as a member of the social group who "perpetuate the insane notion that young girls are only what they wear and the approval of their pers is the most important thing in the world". Comments like that do damage to strong women everywhere, because they undermine them, make their cause sound a little more petty and spiteful each time. Instead of lauding Diane Savino's speech, making the thread truly about strong women and respect, you immediately turned this thread into a them -v- us debate.

You think I'm a moron - I have no problem with you holding that opinion of me, you're the one stuck with the opinion. Thankfully, I know I'm not a moron. You don't get what my point was with regard to bigotry - namely that you attacked a poster regarding a post made in a different forum, then went on to allude to that OP as a bigot and launched into a diatribe on how you shouldn't have to attack anyone who helped a bigot in forming their bigoted opinion such as their parents, friends or neighbours, in order to feel that your point had been made, without considering that maybe the "bigotry" you wage war against is merely the opinion of a logical fellow human, which, met with a similar opinion that seems more logical, could be altered. Bigotry cannot. I find it amusing that you feel so impassioned about women's rights that you will choose to be a knight in shining armour for women who don't need rescuing. Did we have a vote electing you the Robin Hood of women's rights that I missed?

Wibbs

Blush_01 lets get back to the topic at hand. You've had your say but lets move on please.

Blush_01

No problem.

johnnyskeleton

Boston wrote: »

Opinions please?

Liz Warren FTW.

Dont' deny it.

johnnyskeleton

Thaedydal wrote: »

It is the double standard that it is permissible to comment on a woman's physical appearance and judge them on it rather then who they and what they do, which is sexist.

Is it really double standards?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/no-sparing-berties-blusher-in-makeup-budget-253885.html

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2055767318

Thaedydal wrote: »

The comment complains that she is not optimizing her physical appearance for those who will look at her which means she is failing as a woman if you consider that this is the duty of all women to be as pleasing as possible in their appearance and that youthful looks is prized over abilty and achievements.

As per the above examples, is it not fairer to say that anyone who is not up to scratch politically will be roasted for their appearance?

Thaedydal wrote: »

But it is unthinking sexism and very few people challenge the reasons and mores behind it and are unaware of the impact of what they are saying. It is often the reaction to a woman stepping out of traditionally perceived gender roles that such comments are made to push them back into them or say why they had to step out of traditionally perceived gender roles cos they are too personally objectionable.

But by and large, would you accept that it is other women who enforce such roles?

Thaedydal wrote: »

IT is a good example of the point the Senator makes about women being conditioned from an early age to be all the agreeable qualities so that a man will marry them and for men to judge women on those qualities of desirability first and fore most.

Nothing wrong with liking the feisty ones too!