How is posing for lad's mags "degrading?"

[kibbles]

I don't have a link but even if the OP did pull it out of thin air (and I won't make judgments that they did) I still say NOW is an organization that is more about going backward than forward (sorry Blas if I stole a quote)

[Plaidman]

I don't have a link but even if the OP did pull it out of thin air (and I won't make judgments that they did) I still say NOW is an organization that is more about going backward than forward (sorry Blas if I stole a quote)

How are they going backwards?

[kibbles]

How are they going backwards?

By condemning the magazines is one way I believe they are going backwards. The models in the magazine made the choice and wanted to pose for the magazine of their own free will.

I don't think there is anything wrong with someone wanting to look at only really hot people in magazines. That's not to say that they are prejudiced against the average person because I believe that what one prefers to see in mags and on TV doesn't indicate the type of person they are in real life.

[Plaidman]

By condemning the magazines is one way I believe they are going backwards. The models in the magazine made the choice and wanted to pose for the magazine of their own free will.

I don't think there is anything wrong with someone wanting to look at only really hot people in magazines. That's not to say that they are prejudiced against the average person because I believe that what one prefers to see in mags and on TV doesn't indicate the type of person they are in real life.

Have you not read a single freaking link I've posted, or do you just read the first OP that pulled his crap out of his ass?

They do. Not. Condem. The. Magazine. Or. The. People. That. Read. It.

They just Condemed ONE! Count them ONE thing, and taking TEN seconds to do even a little google search would have found this out.

They Condemed the Top 100 HOT women, that were nothing but half naked women who were famous for their bodies.

Nowhere in the magazine did they have anyhting on smart people or anything in any equality other then body. Do you know HOW they condemed? They didn't picket. They didn't rampage.
They *GASP* MADE they're OWN 100! That dealt with women in other lights other then bodies! Omg! That is harsh isn't it.

So no. They don''t hate people that read it. They don't think women are setting them back. They don't think women need to be wearing clothes from foot to head. They just wanted a little more substance in the freaking magazine on women that was MORE then just their bodies.

Wow. A women force that would like to have women being viewed more then just bodies. Shocking.

[Plaidman]

http://www.ffeusa.org/html/statement...rnography.html


More on feminists and porn. Shocking (sarcasm). They are for it. Sex crimes have been around far longer then before porn ever existed.

Was NOW against porn? They once were. No longer.

•When the National Organization for Women considered launching a campaign against pornography, women in pornography protested saying that a ban against it would create a black market of exploitation. Some said their work gave then independence and a sense of accomplishment; banning it would worsen their lives. NOW abandoned its proposed campaign



Even more on NOW and porn: President of NOW is fine with porn and even sexually explicit, as long as it isn't HARMFUL or VIOLENT. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...1806-2,00.html

[kibbles]

They Condemed the Top 100 HOT women, that were nothing but half naked women who were famous for their bodies.

Famous for their bodies? Ok, fair enough..but wasn't the list called the "Top 100 Hot women"? Fight for equal rights and for people who are being forced into the porn industry against their will. But what is the point of condemning a list that gives you exactly what the title says it will??

You might not agree with me and I respect that, but I stand by my opinion. JMO

[Plaidman]

Famous for their bodies? Ok, fair enough..but wasn't the list called the "Top 100 Hot women"? Fight for equal rights and for people who are being forced into the porn industry against their will. But what is the point of condemning a list that gives you exactly what the title says it will??

You might not agree with me and I respect that, but I stand by my opinion. JMO

Because like everyone here for the most part can agree on, what someone thinks is attractive is not attractive to another. However, that list just made a pretty narrow list of skinny, submissive and one asset of butt/boobs. I like goth girls. But goth girls aren't the /win/ and won't sell. Others like big women. Sure as hell they won't be in there.

What is HOT is subjective. Which is really the core of what is the worst part of that magazine. You have to be this weight, size, this breasts/ass to be considered hot or don't bother.

[HEMI6point1]

They are against the fact that alot of them shows women as OBJECTS rather then people. They'll never show women as brains, or healers, or doing anything positive or helpful to this world. A women could solve cancer, made world peace, made other planets accessive able, make BIG guns that go BOOM. They might show the guns. they would never show that women, or even talk about her in a positive light if she was anything but drop dead hot.

If I wanted to read about a woman's life story or huge accomplishments I'll read Oprah's magazine.

Yet again. NO WHERE Does it state that. ANYWHERE.

It was just yet another thing he pulled out of his ass.

Show me a link.

I definitely saw it was from a NOW member who said that. It wasn't an online article, it was from a TV segment about sexual harassment.

[HEMI6point1]

And for the record about half of the women on the Max Hot 100 aren't even that
"hot."

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I think this demotivational is kinda pertinent whilst humorous.

Also, what exactly are you proposing as a solution? Should all publications be forced to cover every aspect of any issue? Should magazines about female accomplishment also talk about how hot they are and visa versa?

The purposes of the magazines in question are, by and large, beautiful women, NOT things that the women of the world have done.

[Plaidman]

If I wanted to read about a woman's life story or huge accomplishments I'll read Oprah's magazine.



I definitely saw it was from a NOW member who said that. It wasn't an online article, it was from a TV segment about sexual harassment.

So, you have nothing but your word of honor that it was on. Even TV segments are online somewhere.

Also, what exactly are you proposing as a solution? Should all publications be forced to cover every aspect of any issue? Should magazines about female accomplishment also talk about how hot they are and visa versa?

The purposes of the magazines in question are, by and large, beautiful women, NOT things that the women of the world have done.

No solutions except a pretty simple one. Anyone can do it.

Don't. Insult. ANYONE, male or female, just because YOU think they're ugly.

Not that freaking hard.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I think I'm well within my rights to be frank, true straightforwardness may not be polite but it's not the same as an insult. Also, wasn't your problem that the magazines glorify only one aspect over others?

Last time I checked, they didn't have a 'ugly bitch of the week' column, just a bunch of pictures of women in underwear. You're beef is that they prioritize looks over brains, despite the fact that this would also make it unfair to prioritize brains over looks.

I, and anyone else for that matter, can prioritize my opinions and my time however I wish. That you disagree with those opinions does not invalidate them.

[kibbles]

What is HOT is subjective. Which is really the core of what is the worst part of that magazine. You have to be this weight, size, this breasts/ass to be considered hot or don't bother.

Because that is what is hot according to that particular magazine. Another magazine may list different women as hot for different reasons.

And I don't have a problem with the magazine's criteria for hot, it's just their opinion that's all.

[radiocerk]

Under no circumstances would I agree that NOW is taking anyone backward. The organization is not outdated by any stretch of the imagination. Women still make less than men on average for doing the same work. And women who dress in a sexual fashion get the reaction of "they're asking to be hit on, leered at, sexually harassed, and worse" when a guy dressed in similar fashion would either be complimented or just thought arrogant.

And you don't have to be wearing anything sexual to be leered at. I get guys talking to my cleavage in a set of scrubs, which may be the least flattering article of clothing in the world. What do you recommend for those who are just busty, even in a turtleneck?

The problem with feminism, and it's actions and protrayals isn't their focus. In order to truly acheive equality of the sexes, we need to change the way people think about the genders. And unfortunately, in the larger picture, men are still based on their monetary success, and women on their value as sex objects. I don't judge guys by their jobs, and I'd prefer not to be judged on the size of my bust or waistline. I'm certain most people feel the same.

I consider myself a feminist. I have nothing against girly pictures, pornography, strippers or even prostitution. I'm against any sort of exploitation in any of these areas. I'm against the devaluing of human beings based on one or two traits, especially appearance.

You can't work to change your appearance. Yes, you can lose weight, to a point. Yes, you can improve your skin, to a point. Yes, you can wear trendy or fashionable clothes, which can improve how others see you. But for the majority of people, male and female, models represent an ideal they can never meet without surgical help. And the apparently endless line of size 0 actresses, and GQ chiseled abs make these things look attainable by everyone. They never mention the 5 hour workouts daily, or the 800 calorie diets needed.

Women are made to think that they need to be "hot" and men are made to think that they need to be financially successful and have lots of stuff. And until those standards are met, no one will love you and you won't be happy. How is that not deplorable?

[blas87]

Anyone who takes to heart the trash in those magazines just does it to themselves, then, and it's their own fault. It's not healthy to starve or deprive your body of food and exercise to the point of fainting or hurting just to be smaller.

I never said I agree with what is in those magazines, personally I think all the diet and exercise and fashion magazines are trash. Trash that rots your mind.

You can find your own healthy weight and body type and your own personal sense of fashion.

It's sad that those magazines tend to prey on the insecure and desperate, but they, if you are willing to sink to that level, it's your own fault. I fell for it once. I had an eating disorder as a teenager.

I got out of it. I am still not 100% happy with how I look, but I don't go by that trash as to how to live my life and be healthy and skinny.