Are these really racist and sexist?

[HEMI6point1]

I think that "racist" and "sexist" is used too much in reaction to certain things people say or write.

Cases in point....

1. I was looking at post on an automotive forum I frequent and there was a thread started on Jaquar's reliability issues since being taken over by Tata Motors.

One person wrote, "Let's stop dancing around the issue. I knew this would happen since Tata took over. Typical Indian company only caring about profits and not about quality."

Another said, "Holy racism batman! Your comment should be deleted."

My question is, how is it racist? A little ignorant perhaps, but not racist.

I will admit he wasn't exactly off-base. When a major car magazine was testing out their high-end model (I think the XJ?) a hood latch sensor fried and the car broke down on them. Yeah, quality....

2. Here is an ad for a, ahem, lady's product:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZFY2I-EWQY

Now look at the top comment - "just don't fucking wear a low cut top." I posted it on my Facebook one day and said, "If you don't like men looking at your cleavage just do like the top comment says instead of wasting 10 dollars on a freakin' napkin."

No less than 30 minutes later I got a PM saying, "You're being sexist. A woman should be able to wear what she wants without having to worry about being leered at and stared at."

I responded by saying, "I didn't say leered at or stared at. I wouldn't like that either. But if a woman is wearing a low-cut shirt and she is endowed enough, a decent, non-creepy hetero male is going to glance at her cleavage. If a woman doesn't like it, again, just don't wear a low cut top. Simple!"

What I said is what everyone else was probably thinking when they saw the ad. Not sexist. Oh, and do a search for the spoof while you at it.

[protege]

I will admit he wasn't exactly off-case. When a major car magazine was testing out their high-end model (I think the XJ?) a hood latch sensor fried and the car broke down on them. Yeah, quality....

The same has been said for certain model railroad products that come out of China. Some years back, Walthers (major manufacturer/mail order house) got blasted because of problems with some of their Proto 2000 locomotives. Several models suffered from poor quality wheels and gears. They'd crack, causing irritating noises after only a few hours of use.

Since those particular models cost a pretty penny (anywhere from $100 and up) customers were pissed, and quit buying them. Sure, there was a fix--swap out the cracked gears and wheelsets for Athearn (US-made) parts...but seriously? Sorry, but if I'm going to drop $100-plus for something, it better damn well do what it's supposed to.

Even now, several years on, quite a few people are hesitant to buy Walthers locomotives, and usually refer to that line as "Chinese-made shit." Can't say I blame them. It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the products in question simply being low quality. It doesn't matter that the products are now made by another Chinese manufacturer, the damage is already done.

[Andara Bledin]

"Typical Indian company only caring about profits and not about quality."

Unless there is empirical evidence that most companies from India do this and that it is any different than any other company on the globe, then, yes, this absolutely is racist. There's really no need to mention the nationality of the company.

If there's actual hard data (and not just anecdotes) about it, however, then it becomes just a statement of fact, though it could still be bigotry.

As for the YouTube ad, I'm thinking the agency that created it is the sexist party. The woman in the ad is incapable of dressing herself without the aid of some 'secret' miracle device just for people like her. If the blouse works at the club, then it should work at the office just as well. The fact that she can't manage to cope in both situations is suspect.

Besides, it's not like people haven't been using things like that for ages for just that purpose, either. It's the women's equivalent of a dickey and is great for giving a layered look without having to pile on more layers. And there's nothing wrong with that either.

[Ladeeda]

Attributing a trait to an entire racial demographic is the definition of racism.

Assuming males are so brainless they cannot control their actions around rather mediocre physical manifestations of an opposite gender is VERY sexist.

The fact that you question both causes one to wonder where you fall on both scales.

[HYHYBT]

Putting profitability above everything else is a characteristic of most businesses everywhere, so attributing it to one country is, if not racism per se, then the geographical equivalent. Is there even a word for that?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Yes for all the reasons previously mentioned.

I might suggest the Indian example is more nationalist than it is racist, if only because it is quite common to see that sort of logic when a major player coming from a specific country tarnishes the name. I remember cars like the Yugo brand eventually making Serbian manufacturing persona non-grata to a lot of car buyers. It's interesting that Zastava, the manufacturing group that made it was acquired by Fiat and went on to acquire Chrysler. I guess what I'm saying is, there may be nationalistic based reasons that aren't technically race. Still, those are assumptions skating on BS that tends to become more unstable as those manufacturers find the problems and fix them. American manufacturing took a while to recover because so many people's perception of them was stuck in the 1980's when everything else WAS better.

As for the top, it's a sexist comment. I'll just flip it, when I get dressed there is no combination of things I can put in that are justification for leering if we're talking in the normal styles. Low cut is far from rare. That is always on the person who leers.

[HEMI6point1]

Yes for all the reasons previously mentioned.

*snip*I might suggest the Indian example is more nationalist than it is racist, if only because it is quite common to see that sort of logic when a major player coming from a specific country tarnishes the name.*snip*

As for the top, it's a sexist comment. I'll just flip it, when I get dressed there is no combination of things I can put in that are justification for leering if we're talking in the normal styles. Low cut is far from rare. That is always on the person who does it.

1. Agreed. And it appears that Tata Motors have heard the complaints and comments and are working to improve quality. Good for them.

2. Did I say "leering?" Did you read my response to the person? Glancing is a perfectly natural thing to do when you see a member of the opposite sex that you find attractive. Leering is a totally different thing, if I was a woman I wouldn't like it either. Point is, it's not sexist. I'll repeat one of the Youtube comments: If you're that paranoid about showing some boob then wear a polo neck sweater.

[Ginger Tea]

Mike J does a lot of infomercial riffs, I've not seen many but the common theme with infomercials seem to be people utterly incompetent at simple tasks, then shown this wondrous product and everything in their life seems all the more perfect.

Skoda played up to their bad rep and similar cold war car companies after their buyout and had the badge man on the line let the car go by thinking he was on the wrong line or more than Skoda's were coming down.

Triumph a former UK motor cycle name is now an Indian owned or at least manufactured line, I did not know this at the time of pointing out a name I recognised as British to my cousin almost a decade ago, he had very few words to say about the quality since either outsourcing abroad or being bought as a name by an inferior company, I would have to Google to see which way it panned out.
it wasn't because it was now foreign made, but genuinely poor reviews at the time and his biker rally friends opinions after trying them.

Edit:
With motoring manufactures being bought and sold or broken up into nothing more than a name and a replica parts division, it's hard to keep track on who owns who, then you loose the feeling of national pride when you find out country A's treasured brand is now owned by country B made in C but still marketed as A's

[guywithashovel]

I see it has been covered already, but the Indian remark does strike me as racist. I don't see how it's any different from seeing the police arrest someone of a particular ethnicity and hearing someone say, "Typical _____! He can't go into the store without taking something!"

As for the cleavage thing, I'll just say that if you don't like people looking, cover up. Leering is never okay, but you can still take some precautionary measures. Consider me: I don't want people looking at certain parts of my body. For example, I don't want people looking at my chest. Why? Because I have a condition that caused me to develop "man boobs." I'm not overweight, either. It's a hormonal thing, and no number of push ups I do is going to get rid of the darned things. Therefore, I never go shirtless in public.

[Ladeeda]

As for the cleavage thing, I'll just say that if you don't like people looking, cover up. Leering is never okay, but you can still take some precautionary measures.

As for those sluts in Burqas, they should keep their eyes covered and stay inside if they don't want lewd comments and to be raped. And those chicks who wear sundresses when it's 90 degrees should expect to get hit on, since they dare to show ankles, or even knees.

[guywithashovel]

As for those sluts in Burqas, they should keep their eyes covered and stay inside if they don't want lewd comments and to be raped. And those chicks who wear sundresses when it's 90 degrees should expect to get hit on, since they dare to show ankles, or even knees.

What?

I swear, it's almost impossible to even try to have a conversation anymore.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, was said about rape. And I (as well as several other people) said leering was never okay. I just said the least one could do was cover up (goes for both sexes, btw), and I even used an example that involved myself.

Is it really that hard to understand.

[BlaqueKatt]

I just said the least one could do was cover up (goes for both sexes, btw), and I even used an example that involved myself.

Is it really that hard to understand.

shifting the blame to the victim of the unwanted attention, you may as well just say "she was asking for it".

The burqua is an example of that wrong thinking taken to an extreme. And now that most women in those cultures ARE wearing burquas, they're demanding women with "sexy eyes" should cover them or risk being raped, because "it's the least they could do." The poor men just can't help themselves.

[gremcint]

As for the cleavage thing, I'll just say that if you don't like people looking, cover up. Leering is never okay, but you can still take some precautionary measures. Consider me: I don't want people looking at certain parts of my body. For example, I don't want people looking at my chest. Why? Because I have a condition that caused me to develop "man boobs." I'm not overweight, either. It's a hormonal thing, and no number of push ups I do is going to get rid of the darned things. Therefore, I never go shirtless in public.

yeah but if you do go shirtless in public are pulled into an alley and raped and then blamed for it because you were shirtless?

[siead_lietrathua]

woooah, this thread wasn't about rape i thought. it was just about unwanted glances, which is NOT the same thing in a long shot.
see, i know lotsa chicks that hate glances (not leering even a casual glance) that cover everything and still rant if a man's eyes stray below the chin, and silly bra-bibs like that are targeted to those kind of women. whereas women like me that don't give a shit laugh at them for wasting their money.

yes, rape is terrible, and yes victim blaming sucks. but can't we just make fun of stupid bra-bibs and acknowledge that it's a silly damn thing without having to jump with the the extreme of potential-rape for no bra-bibbage?

noone said anyone deserved assault or unwanted glances. all they said was if a person doesn't like the idea that someone might glance at their own exposed skin, then just don't expose it! this goes for sexual and non-sexual body parts. if you hate your pinkies being stared at, wear gloves. don't make it up to the rest of the world not to look at your pinkies in a casual glance.

[HEMI6point1]

Thank you for trying to get this thread back on track.

While I'm here, here's another one for you guys:

I've noticed that if a woman says that she would only date white Italian men, "it's a dating preference and that's her choice." If a man says that black girls aren't his type enough to date he's considered "racist and should be open to everything."

If a man is going to be called racist, then so should the woman. Even though both are really not.