South Park - "Stupid Drunken Slut."

[patcox2]

Does anyone else love Southpark for no other reason than their willingness to bluntly state the truth every now and then? Wednesday night the whole premise of the show was "why does anyone pay any attention to Paris Hilton, she's just a stupid spoiled drunken slut." And they used those words, over and over again. In a beautiful comentary on marketing and appropriate role models, little girls were buying the official Paris Hilton Stupid Drunken Slut Video camera so they could tape themselves having sex with their boyfriends.

Whats amazing is that noone else in the media ever had the balls to accurately describe her.

Southpark may be juvenile and poliically incorrect, but every now and then it is like the little boy in The Emporer's New Clothes.

Now I wish they would do an episode on Donald Trump, and the insanity of considering him a succesful entrepenuer when his "success" consists of serial bankrputcy.

[Bouncy Ball]

1. I'm not generally a fan of South Park

but yeah, I'm always amazed someone hasn't totally killed that show so that it never airs again. Nothing's sacred to them, and I love it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

2. Well, considering she is always the butt of jokes portraying her as

well...a drunken floozy, I don't think this commentary is that stunning really.

[0007]

3. I enjoy watching South Park

Donald Trump is a front man only. An entrepenuer is a fucking joke. Try organized crime!!

[tridim]

4. Another South Park that I'm amazed made it to air

Butters poking at Paris' crotch.
Paris putting a pineapple inside herself.
Mr. Slave sticking Paris in his ass.

Thank gawd for cable! :)

[noonwitch]

9. I thought it was pretty funny, too

Mr. Slave is hilarious. I loved it that they used him to point out that 4th grade girls should not be admiring skanks.

[martinolich]

19. ...4th grade girls should not be admiring skanks?

...If GROWN MEN didn't...They wouldn't!.

[redqueen]

30. I love you

:loveya:

Seriously, the parents should control the little kids, but once they hit 16/17/18, they will notice what gets attention from the opposite sex.

[martinolich]

53. ...Love ya back, RedQueen!

:loveya:

[petron]

45. favorite mr. slave quote

<lisp>"Jesus Christ"</lisp>

[Kipepeo]

5. I can't stand the South Park guys

South Park is sometimes funny and I used to enjoy it, but I can't get over the fact that they choose to promote apathy. Remember all the shit they said about voting and how it's not that important, before the election. And their recent movie was mostly an attack on celebrities willing to speak their political opinions.

As for tearing down meaningless celebrities, yeah they'll do it, but they also depend on those meaningless celebrities. In a way, their show is just as meaningless because it just recycles pointless garbage.

Sorry, I hate them. :shrug:

[Tweed]

11. Yeah, they are clever in how they break stuff down

But idiots in what they choose to break down. I hated their voting episode. Just what we needed before the election. More than a couple of DUers have said "The young people didn't vote!"? South Park isn't the only culprit, but it isn't free of blame either. Add "Team America into the equation as well. Matt and Trey use to be cool, but now they are just douches like Roy Schneider

[Kipepeo]

15. Exactly

I think they waste their talent promoting the status quo. Their show isn't subversive anymore. It embraces banality.

I didn't see the voting episode you're talking about but I read some interviews with them before the election where they were saying voting isn't that important and don't buy into all these celebrities telling you that you should vote. Great waste of breath and page-space you morons.
:eyes:

[Tweed]

18. Here's a summary

The South Park middle school mascot is a cow. PETA complained about South Park having a cow mascot so they had to pick a new mascot. School officials decided to allow the students to pick the mascot after they narrowed the choices down to: a GIANT DOUCHE and a TURD SANDWICH. Kyle can't decide who to vote for because he doesn't want either. Toward the end of the show, Kyle's dad breaks it down for him and says "Kyle, most elections are between a GIANT DOUCHE and a TURD sandwich." Har, har, har, so funny eh?

[Kipepeo]

20. They are such geniuses!

:puke:

edited for silly typo, and to add another:

:puke:

[no name no slogan]

85. IMHO that episode made a very important point about our system

With a winner-take-all system, you're bound to end up with the two lowest common denominator candidates. Therefore both candidates try to be as appealing and inoffensive to the most people possible.

It's like the difference between Miller Lite and Pilsner Urquell. Or a McDonald's hamburger and one you've made on your own grill at home.

We were given the choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douche this year, just like we have been every four years. And because of our system, we'll probably have the same choice again and again and again.

It's very rare that we get a truly inspiring, earthshaking presidential candidate-- maybe once in a lifetime, if we're lucky. And I'm sorry, John Kerry was not that candidate. When the choice is for a bad, poorly managed war and a bad, somewhat better-managed war, your choices are not much different

And don't forget, Kyle DID end up voting in the end, after all. For the lesser of two evils, IIRC.

[martinolich]

23. ...I've notice that the female posters seem to have left...and

that the thread has turned into a foul-mouthed "boys club'...No accident, I'm sure...Oh well...the Lounge has never been the "brain trust" of the DU...I think I'll go back to the smart people.

[Kipepeo]

27. I enjoyed your posts martinolich

especially the quote you posted from Thomas Paine, which pretty well sums it up.

Guys who encourage or fund behavior that they later condemn....they don't usually get it.

[martinolich]

34. ...Thanks, Kepepeo..

I appreciate the support...I really can't stand it when the issue of WOMEN's dignity, if it's addressed at all, is always put on the "back burner" - especially from "progressives"...and even MORE especially when those "progressives" are female ...I think Feminists need to STAND STRONG and show ZERO tolerance for gender-based slurs...I find it remarkable that more women don't do this..I remember some years ago reading something journalist Linda Ellerbee said at a speaking engagement..She said "Women should stop taking insults"...AMEN to that..and thanks again for your message!

[Kipepeo]

38. There aren't a lot of discussions

here about sexism in terms of gendler slurs and objectification of women and how those are part of a sexist culture because those threads usually turn into flame wars and get locked.

My observation is that a lot of progressive men can't differentiate between having a sex drive and having to express it in what might be demeaning or offensive ways towards women. The line might be tricky, I admit that, but we usually can't even talk about what the line is or how tricky it might be because it turns into a fight and then is locked.

[martinolich]

43. ...Yes..Your observations are interesting....

..and I believe it in terms of the "flame wars"...I haven't been here long (as you can see by my posts)but one of the things I noticed early on was a seeming "hands off" approach to the occasional gender slur like "pussy" - always a term of contempt...or, even worse, in my mind, the use of the term "so and so is (someone's) "bitch"...I think that is a HIDEOUSLY demeaning and I posted a number of complaints (including to the moderaters who didn't answer)...Of all things, it's a WOMAN who starts disagreeing with me..and in a pretty insulting way, too!...another woman jumped in, more or less agreeing with her...We were going back and forth until some wise woman jumped in and told me that, "you probably weren't here then, but not long ago, there was a long, heated thread about the use of that term"...she didn't say how it worked out, but said "It remains a serious issue for a lot of people".
...I was thankful for that information.
..As to what you said about men not being able to differentiate - It's interesting. I'm not sure that they can't though...You probably notice that when they are seriously interested - or respectful of - a particular woman - they never get insulting....

...Interesting, again, about it "turning into a fight" and getting locked....What exactly is "locked" anyway?...I can tell - from what you and the other woman mentioned, that there's a lot of unresolved sexism out there (and in here too, it seems)

...Get back to me if you can...I enjoy "talking" to you!

[Kipepeo]

76. Check your inbox

and welcome to DU! :hi:

[Beware the Beast Man]

87. You'll be missed.

:eyes:

[indigobusiness]

44. I think you are taking the overt bait

and missing the subtext, and irony...where their message and meaning really resides. You are missing the point.

[Kipepeo]

47. I know subtext and irony

And telling people voting is not that important has neither.

I also know status quo bullshit dressed up as trendy subtext and irony because they dare to sacrafice the sacred cow of political correctness. Which is a joke because that cow has never been sacred.

Oh my God they call Hilton a slut! What subtext! They make fun of Michael Moore and Sean Penn and other celebrities who spoke out against an illegal war! What irony!!

I used to think their point was challenging the status quo, but I realize now it's making eating-the-same-old-shit appealing to a younger generation.

Boring.

[indigobusiness]

49. You don't understand subtext...apparently.

The message wasn't that voting is unimportant. It was that not voting is childish, self-indulgent, and idiotic...but everyone has that right.

The examples you cite make my case for your superficial analysis.

Like I said...you missed the point.

[Kipepeo]

50. That was NOT their point

Did you read the intervews I am talking about? If not, it looks like *you* missed the point.

They said voting is not important and they made fun of Puffy's "vote or die" campaign. They said it's not like the world is going to end if you don't vote. In later interviews after being asked about their previous comments they said that they hadn't meant that people shouldn't vote, only that *uninformed* people shouldn't vote.

I'll search for the links, but really, a fan such as yourself should have known what I was talking about.

Superficial analysis about Hilton being a slut? Really? Do tell what is the brainy subtext beneath that childish exterior!! I am all ears. Please, enlighten me! :)

[indigobusiness]

51. You are suckered by everything,

it seems.

[Kipepeo]

52. And you can insult another's intelligence

without ever putting enough words together to defend their amazing irony and subtext.

Really, give us a few details Professor.

:)

[indigobusiness]

54. No, believe what you wish.

I just challenged your analysis.

[Kipepeo]

56. No, actually you didn't

You always say the same thing really. Something along the lines of: 'You're just not smart enough to get the subtext and the irony and oh it's so meaningful but you just don't get it. blah blah blah'

But then when peple ask you to please explain you have no answer.

I can pick something I think has a lot of subtext ("blue velvet" for example, since I just saw it yesterday and it's on my mind) and when someone asks me to explain because they don't agree, I can discuss.

I don't know why you can't, unless it's just that saying people who don't agree with you "don't get it" is easier.

:shrug:

but I'm still waiting on your 'Hilton is a slut' analysis if you want to give it a go...

[indigobusiness]

64. When you attack someone's work, you'd best be spot on.

It's clear you have no respect for my opinion, which is fine with me, I just wanted to make a point for your consideration.

All I'd say about Hilton is that their point was less about her and more about us.

[Kipepeo]

72. And when you attack someone's opinon

of someone's work you'd best at least have an alternate opinion.

I do have respect for your views, if you would ever explain what they are.

You comment about Hilton here is a start...

Yes, I agree with you that they are also commenting on the society the hero-worships her, but what is so deep about that? To be fair, I haven't seen this episode, and I don't really care to. I don't need South park to tell me that the pop culture icons we hold in high esteem are often meaningless and without substance. And I certainly don't need them to tell me that icons like Hilton are bad role models for young girls.

What would have been actually deep fopr them is if they delved into the two-faced nature of men who both idolize and demonize women like Hilton. Did they go there? I didn't see it, so fill me in.

[indigobusiness]

73. No alternative is required

to point out an attack is off the mark. That's absurd. The work deserves to be defended, the criticism deserves nothing.

Pedantry gets us nowhere.

[Kipepeo]

75. You're not making sense here

You are claiming that my opinion needs to be explined but yours doesn't because you are defending them.

I have never heard those rules of discussion before.

See my post to you below and maybe we can get past whatever this is and move to actual discussion.

[martinolich]

57. ....."challenged"?...you mean like pronouncing "hey you're wrong"!

..Sorry, but you've got to BACK UP the challenge with reasoning...You haven't done that, as far as I can see.

[indigobusiness]

60. I offered an alternative opinion.

Consider it or not, your choice, arguing opinion is futile and childish.

[Kipepeo]

62. Your opinion was only that the first opinion was wrong

But you didn't actually offer an alternative opinion.

To challenge an analysis would be to offer a different way of looking at it. Your argument, on the other hand, essentially boils down to: "You're not looking at it the right way. I can't explain another way of looking at it, but your way of looking at it is wrong."

[indigobusiness]

68. You criticised a work.

It is your place to substantiate your criticism.

[Kipepeo]

74. When you won't substantiate YOUR criticism?

Makes no sense.

When have you cited even one scene or action of their and explained the meaningful subtext? Why not?

Let's take their mocking of celebrities who express political opinions. What is new about that? Please tell me (and I'm not being sarcastic) what is your reading of their treatment of political celebs?

My reading is this: They attempt to elevate themselves above everyone else by making fun of everyone (when actually I think they take more shots at liberals and progressive ideals than they do at conservatives) like high school kids who can only define their own coolness by pointing out how uncool everyone else is. They make fun of liberal celebrities in the same boring way that everyone else does: 'why would those people think we would take their political opinion seriously? they should just shut up and tap dance. they must be full of themselves. they are such a spectacle! etc'

Ok, now tell me how you read it and maybe we can have a discussion and call a truce as well.

[indigobusiness]

77. It seems to me...and let me stipulate: I COULD BE WRONG...that

rather than examine something on its own terms, you are trying to force it to fit a particular paradigm.

Consider the possibility that the motives employed are not the motives assumed.

[Kipepeo]

79. Indigo,

Are you unable or unwilling to explain your interpretation or reading of their treatment of liberal celebrities? If you do not agree with mine (as you never have a problem saying) then what is yours (which you seem to have a problem saying)?

Would you rather pick a South Park episode instead? Please, you choose, go ahead.

I explained my interpretation and you have no interpretation of your own, other than to say that I am wrong and imply that I am obtuse. ??

It is hard to have a one-sided discussion.

Edited to add: It seems to me that you have been saying up until now that I am simple-mindededly taking their work at face value and unable to look beneath the surface. But now you are putting forth that I am unable to take their work at face value and instead am reading too much into it?

[indigobusiness]

81. It seems to me you are sincere.

I haven't impuned you personally. Your argument, on the other hand, seems to be up too close to the details to see the bigger picture.

Just step back and consider the view from a different perspective. That is my suggestion.

[Kipepeo]

84. Arrg, I am being sincere

and I think you are too, but I don't think you realize how insulting you're being.

I don't need to step back and see any big picture. I am offering you my opinion of their work. I can do it in broad terms or in specific ones and have done both. But although you can and do disagree with my interpretation you refuse to offer another and instead offer vague insulting (whether you intend them or not) suggestions about why you think my perception might be wrong or what I can do to take on your perception (which again, you won't clearly define).

I *am* being sincere. I think their work stinks on the whole, though it sometimes can still get a luagh out of me. I don't mean that as a personal insult towards you, as a fan. I can appreciate satire and subtext and have conversations about shows and movies which I think rely heavily on one or both. I don't think their work relies on either of these as much anymore. And regardless, I think their overall message is one of apathy, which serves only to benefit the status quo. :shrug:

You disagree with me, but you can't offer even one examination or example or interpretation of your own? I am tired of talking in circles. :(

[indigobusiness]

90. If you feel insulted, you are choosing to.

And no matter how elaborate your dogmatic rationale becomes, it still remains dogmatic.

Self-contradiction hasn't helped.

You are the one pursuing a circular argument, why not simply stop?

[Kipepeo]

91. Are you being serious?

I imagine you sitting there thinking how best to avoid answering a question or pinning down an opinion of yours and laughing at the frustration you are causing. :)

I am not pursuing a circular argument. I will lay it out one more time:

If you have a different way of interpreting their treatment of political celebrities in their recent movie that does *not* have them come off looking like apathetic jackasses, then please explain what they were doing and what reaction they intended to provoke toward said celebrities or politics in general, etc.

Otherwise you disagree with my interpretation and reaction yet are unable or unwilling to articulate your interpretation or the reaction you have to their portrayal of political celebrities. In which case, I have to get back to work! ;)

(note: I am trying to be specific here. If you would rather offer your critique of a SP episode instead, please go ahead).

[indigobusiness]

94. You are evaluating an artistic effort by imposing

dogmatic value judgment. I couldn't be more clear. Your argument is false on its face.

[Kipepeo]

97. There.

I give up.

I cannot discuss with someone who will not offer their own opinion. The only person talking in circles is you, and I'm starting to wonder if that's not your point...if you think you're putting on some kind of clever internet message board performance art. :freak:

Until next time, Indigo.

:waves:

[indigobusiness]

100. I'm happy do discuss ideas.

Arguing opinion is useless.

Adios.

[martinolich]

63. ...But it didn't fly....which is why

you're now reduced to hurling insults, as Kepepo said.

[indigobusiness]

67. It didn't fly in your atmosphere, perhaps.

Name one insult? Now you are just being a big baby. Oh! Now is that an insult, or an accurate observation?

[martinolich]

83. ..Didn't fly in Kipepeo's either...

:evilgrin:

[Cocoa]

6. kind of an easy target

I don't think this is an emperor's new clothes situation...

[TaleWgnDg]

7. Indeed. Finally, somebody called it as it is . . . and it . . .

had to be in comedic relief! South Park was soooooooooo damn funny when they joked about Paris Hilton being a "stupid spoiled drunken slut and whore" . . . as well as stating that she's a lousy role model for young girls and teenagers today. And it didn't stop there! Included was Britney Spears and others who promenade their T&A across the stage of America!

I'm no fan of South Park, but wow, oh, wow, did they EVER hit the nail on the head w/ this show.

edited to add: here's an url . . . http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1494360/20041201/nas.jhtml?headlines=true . . . and a picture . . .


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[martinolich]

17. ....Yeah, right.....'how 'bout you MALE sluts who provide

..the market for all that T&A...you..and the "South Park Guys" are just that..typical "guys"..happy to get off on the "T & A"...and then condemn the providers...It's a great example of the power and social unaccountability of males - and the abusive which stems from it.

A great American rebel saw the injustice of it all a couple of centuries ago:

"Pity the tender sex for having to engage with men, who are at once, their seducers and their judges"

Thomas Paine.

[TaleWgnDg]

22. Uuuummmmmmm . . . your attack directed at me, personally, is

w/o merit. You don't know me. And you obviously didn't read what I posted.

However, if you read my posted words, I stated that Paris Hilton (and implicitly Britney Spears and others) is/are negative role model(s) for young girls and teenagers due to their objectifying (T&A) their bodies on the stage of America.

I commend your attempts at applying misogyny; however, as for me, it's misguided. I am a feminist. And have done political organization and legal representation regarding feminist issues for many years.

[martinolich]

25. ..Fine...Then why don't you address the "demand" side ...

..as well as "the supply"?

[martinolich]

32. ....Perhaps like many who think of themselves as "feminists"

you never address the CULTURAL aspect of mysogyny...terms like "whore, and "slut" are denigrating and based on a very NON-feminist double standard...They have NO male corollary.

Susan Brownmiller said it best twenty something years ago in "Against Our Will"...."The liberal mind-set, so quick to get the connection between racial and ethnic slurs and the OPPRESSION of those Blacks and Jews..are fiercely obdurate when it comes to the treatment of women...."To be seen as "straight-laced" or "prim"..is the worst sin of all"

[ronnykmarshall]

41. I represent that remark!

:silly:

[martinolich]

8. ..I'm no fan of Paris Hilton, however

enjoying the fact of her being called a "slut" - stupid, drunken, smart or sober, is not exactly the mark of a progressive....When are people - including some women - going to get with the fact that the term "slut" is an ugly gender slur based on that "double standard" we were supposed to have rejected years ago...Same ole' deal...women are penalized for sexuality - called "sluts"...men are congratulated as "studs"...No matter how much i disllike a woman or her behavior, I will never use this ugly term. It's based on a mysogynistic, reactionary concept.

[redqueen]

31. Could you adopt a lot of boys and raise them to be like you?

Seriously.

[martinolich]

37. ..Reply to RedQueen's post..

..I'm not sure if I could try and "raise them like me" in the sense of being female...But I would try to PUT THEM IN THE SHOES OF "ME" in the sense of being a female and what it FEELS LIKE as a female to subjected to these slurs...It would be part of getting them to respect females as human equals.

[redqueen]

39. Oops, I thought you were a guy...

Sorry!

[martinolich]

42. ...No problem!...I think.

there are some fair-minded men who would be able to respond to your question..In fact, I believe there's a book out called "How to raise a non-sexist boy"..and it's written by a man. One of the things he suggests is to encourage the inclusion of a girl in the crowd of boys that boys of that age generally restrict themselves to...the idea is to get to see girls as "people" who are no so unlike them, in that they can enjoy the same activities, etc.

[Kitka]

105. Great to see someone else say this.

I also am not a fan of Paris Hilton in that she really doesn't contribute much to, well, anything... but I don't like the 'slut' arrow.

[Moloch]

10. Yeah I liked the episode...

but the end was a little too gross even for me!

[TaleWgnDg]

24. yeah, I agree re the end of the episode . . . n/t

[StClone]

12. Has South Park ever "Hiltonized" The Chimp?

Such a big target and I can not recall him or any other top official of the Killer Cult. Have they? If not these guys are afraid of Bush or like him.

[NoodleBoy]

16. after giving a speech at the UN about Saddam stockpiling WMD's in heaven,

an ambassador stood up and asked Bush, "Are you stupid, or just really, really high?"

Without flinching, Bush replied, "I assure you, I am not high."

[zbdent]

26. Prime example of Parker/Stone's planting lips on *'s orifice

was "That's my Bush!". Even before the selection was completed, they were planning on having the show. If Gore had won, they would have done it about Gore.

BUT, one minor key was that they were going to portray the "Simple Life" Bush twins as implied lesbians/drunken sluts. Guess what? They were contacted by some Bush representative. TMB totally ignored the Bush twins on the show.

Now, remember, this is from the group that, within 5 days time, "parodied" the handling of the Elian Gonzalez situation.

On Easter Saturday, EG was secured from what essentially could be considered a kidnapping situation. The famous "soldier pointing a gun at the crying kid" picture ensued. South Park/Stone/Parker immediately had the Thursday episode right after that where Janet Reno, dressed as the Easter Bunny, barges in on the home in a re-enactment of the picture and stole away a bunch of Chinese acrobats. Meaning that they had almost the entire show set up and were just waiting for the final scene.

Generally, South Park shows the right-wing lunacy in a much better light than the left-win lunacy. (Cartman is the exception - they play him as over-the-top).

[catzies]

40. Romanian acrobats, not Chinese. Sorry for the correction.

Not that it matters to the point at hand.

[McKenzie]

13. love it and hate it in equal measure

loved early episodes such as "Cartman gets an anal probe" because they were side-splittingly funny and sometimes Stone and Parker managed to make a valid political/social statement. A lot of the later stuff seems to be purposely gross for commercial reasons.

"I'm not fat I'm big boned!"

[Tweed]

14. Paris Hilton is a slut?!?!

How earth shattering! Without South Park, I would have never realized this! I am forever grateful to South Park for opening my eyes. I had no idea Paris Hilton was a slut but now I see clearly. Thank you Matt, Thank you Trey, you are unique geniuses in a time of darkness.

[warrens]

21. Trump, the self-made man

Who started out with a mere $30 million from his old man. Back when $30 million was a LOT of money. Oh, and Fred Trump's connections and the universal esteem in which he, unlike his thug asshole son, was held.

[lies and propaganda]

28. Thank God for South Park

How the hell is that some of our most insightful shows, are cartoons?

South Park
King of the Hill
The Simpsons

They say right on the line of slander and libel all night, so beautiful for someone to have some balls.

"Oh no! Another dog killed himself!"

[TaleWgnDg]

33. If it's humor then it's not libel or slander . . . that's the law . . .

This is why Leno, Letterman, and Larry Flynt (Falwell v. Flynt, U.S. Supreme Court) and others including South Park can throw slings and arrows at people and not be successfully brought to a court of law by someone who claims libel or slander (defamation of character issues). Falwell did. Falwell tried against Larry Flynt and failed miserably.

However, that doesn't obviate a boycott, or if their alleged "humor" goes too far into obscenity which may be successfully litigated against them even if it is so-called "humor." And, frankly, I was wondering where South Park drew the line in the obscenity issue due to its last few frames of this Paris Hilton "slut, whore, drunk" episode re if there'd be any repercussion as a result of showing it on cable.




.

[martinolich]

36. ...If I may comment...

....the "law" is one thing..social "acceptibility" is another...Even given the "humor" of the people you've mentiond...You notice that you will rarely (and rightly so) hear a "nigger joke" anymore...It's apparently O.K., though, to address or refer to women as "bitch".."whore" and the other double-standard slurs.

[indigobusiness]

46. Social "acceptability" is where oppression and bigotry are born.

Living in a free country doesn't seem to suit you.

The blood of wiser men than we was spilled for our freedom from such things.

When the values of "The Free Republic" become the law of the land, perhaps you'll understand.

[martinolich]

55. ...Sorry if you don't like the phrase..

"social acceptabibility"..but I think you should be able to get my point..and that - obviously, I thought...is that I'm AGAINST "bigotry and oppression"...for everyone and yeah, that INCLUDES females...What is your problem with that?

[indigobusiness]

58. It's the concept that concsrned me, not the phrase.

And I only use gender references when they are essential to meaning, not to be politically correct. Man is short for mankind and includes everyone. Why play games?

[martinolich]

65. ..What concept concerns you?..That

demeaning people for the CONSTRUCTION of their bodies (mysogyn) should be as unacceptable as demeaning them for the COLORS of their bodies (racism)?

[noiretextatique]

86. bigotry and oppression are born from privilege

religion and psuedo-science are used to create rationalizations to institutionalize privilege as socially acceptable. south park is reactionary drivel masquerading as cutting-edge social commentary. same shit, different privleged white guys...

[martinolich]

96. ..You're right!...and thanks!

[noiretextatique]

99. welcome, martinolich

:hi: we need you :D

[martinolich]

101. ...Thank you SO much...I mean it....I honestly

..haven't felt at all needed for awhile:loveya:

[gtp1976]

71. slut / whore

I do beleive that this is changing, although slowly. I don't think the stigmata is the same as it used to be especially with younger people. Or perhaps it is just being ignored. I don't know. I do know that people seem to be far more accepting of a females sex drive than they used to be. However, it has been several years since I was in college so my info may not be up to date.

[redqueen]

80. I just wanted to say

That I hope we can all differentiate between instances where a word is used in a hurtful or ugly way, and when it is used in a humorous way.

I don't want anyone thinking I agree with getting my panties in a twist every time I see the words slut, bitch or cunt.

That is all.

[martinolich]

82. ...I think those words are

..hurtful and ugly in and of themselves, for the most part...and I think that they were intended to be...I don't believe there is anything analogous on the male side...not for slut or whore, anyway...

[gtp1976]

88. slut or whore

is analogous. I've heard it being used about males as well as females. And it was intended in no better of a way for a male as it was for a female. Like I said, I think times are changing a bit with young folks...just very slowly.

[redqueen]

89. I hope you're right

I personally believe that as we stop reacting to those words they lose their power to hurt. If someone were to call me something like that I usually either agree or laugh at them. I just do NOT care what they think, and that's all there is to it.

[gtp1976]

104. The only thing...

...is this. I'm not sure absolute sexual equality is possible. And here is why...

Scenario...an equally attractive man and woman walk in to separate rooms filled with people of the opposite sex. (attractive man walks in to a room filled with ladies and attractive woman walks in to a room filled with gentlemen for those of you not following along) :-)

They both pronounce, "I would like to have sex. Will anyone have sex with me?"

Now, how many takers will the attractive man have? How many takers will the attractive woman have? My guess is that the attractive woman will have about twice as many takers as the man. Why?

Because sexual intercourse is for the man to receive and the female to give for all practical purposes. Men will have sex because they can. Women will have sex because they want to. In the end, it is 100% up to the female whether or not sex happens.

Now, should it be this way? I don't know. However, I don't see this changing. I believe in equality, but I also believe that men and woman are "wired" differently. We don't think the same way. We don't react the same way. Our different hormones cause us to feel differently about things.

This is why, in my opinion, a sex loving woman is frowned upon and a sex loving man isn't. Because sex is something that is completely up to the female. I'm not trying to justify it, I'm just trying to give my opinion on why it is and why i don't think it will ever fully change.

Don't get me wrong, I'm stereotyping a bit, and not all people fit the stereotype I presented, but for the most part, this is true.

Your thoughts?

P.S. This could be a great new topic. I've been reluctant to start a thread of my own here because I'm a newbie...is this topic-worthy?

[gtp1976]

106. bump?

Will this get this topic back on page 1?

[gtp1976]

107. guess so. n/t

[noiretextatique]

108. rape

does not fit your scenario.

[gtp1976]

109. true...

...but other than that it does, no?

[martinolich]

110. ...I don't think so...

for one thing, this whole business of how men and women are "different" while true to a some extent - has been, in the opinion of myself and others, greatly overblown...As one biologist put it..."The physical differences between men and women acount for about ONE percent of their respective physiologies".......I remember the seventies when the womens movement really took off...The accent was on the "nurture" rather than the "nature" argument....As the political atmosphere became more conservative - and backs stiffened agaisnt the really revolutionary possibility of true equality of the sexes - we somehow were treated to a plethora of "biological" evidence of the sexes "differences"...It didn't matter how significant the differences were (women are better at small motor skills..big deal!...is this somehow "life altering"?...men are better at spatial reasoning, but women are better with language and verbal expression..None of this makes either sex superior to another - for instance, the "spatial reasoning" thing may make a man a better engineer...but small motor skills may make a woman not only better at sewing, but a better brain surgeon!...better verbal skills may make her a better lawyer, writer, etc.
..The interesting thing is how it's played out...I remember catching a short newpaper column whose headline shouted "Men and Women really ARE Different!....they then went on to list the type of small differences I mentioned..and at the bottom of the report said.."Of course, the similarities between the sexes are far greater than their difference"....Of Course...But what got the headline?

..."Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus"?....As Katha Pollit put it, "It's more like 'Men are from Michigan, Women are from Minnesota".

..The question is, to what extent does this justifiably impact on equal treatment?.

..As to the sexual situation, the idea that "women are 100% in charge" is, I think, faulty...As Noir pointed out, rape - and perhaps the THREAT of rape, doesn't square with that supposition

...In any case, my understanding of the "double standard" which denigrates women, but not men for sexual activity outside of marriage..is rooted in the old concept of children as property - the FATHER's property...Women had to be psychologically pressured to "be chaste" so that the man could RIGHTFULLY claim his children as HIS.

Beyond that, I think sexual responsibility is placed on women by men, simply because it works better for THEM.....The patriarchy, for certain reasons - including the one explained above...sees the need to restrain and "order" human sexuality....But why take it upon themselves?..That's no fun!...Why not simply lay it on women?...In that set-up they get to "have their cake and eat it too"...They get the needed discipline and "ordering"...without having to be inconvenienced by it themselves! ...Makes sense to me!

[noiretextatique]

111. i agree...the similarities are greater than the differences

biological determintation is just a fancy term for stereotyping...that's one of the reasons why i don't like those arguments. and as you mention, what is being served by the "men are from mars, women are from venus" mantra? the backlash against social and economic equality...and the backlash against the outing of the prevalence of sexual abuse, and why it is still so prevalent.
if women are so in charge of sex, then why are rape and sexual abuse so common? biological arguments excuse the perpertrators of abuse, while blaming the victims....he can't help it, he's just wired that way. there was a discussion in GD about why there isn't more outrage directed at women who sexually abuse boys, especially teenaged boys, and why women who abuse girls are not even on the radar as sexual predators. some resent this double-standard, and i can understand why.
doesn't it follow that if women are abuse more often than men, that more women will become abusers themselves? why doesn't that happen more often...or does it? i was telling someone in that thread that at least 4 lesbian friends of mine were abused by women or older girls when they were children.
as to ownership, is it any wonder that butch-looking lesbians are despised, but feminine lesbians are fetishized in porno fantasies? the butch lesbian is despised because she isn't perceived as being available to men...she owns her sexuality, which is still considered a male-only privilege.
a promiscuous woman is a slut, but a promiscuous man is a stud....still.
i was talking with a women recently who told me she didn't know that sex wasn't supposed to be painful and humiliating until she was in her 30's. some women have lived their entire lives without ever having an orgasm, and believing sex is a chore one must submit to, like cleaning a toilet.
just about every women i know has been forced to have sex against her will...some of them by their husbands. and then of course, there is childhood sexual abuse.
hardwiring doesn't explain any of this...socialization does.

[gtp1976]

112. interesting, but

wouldn't you agree that even if we are biologically similar, as long as little girls are dressed in pink and given dolls and little boys are dressed in blue and given trucks and balls that it is unlikely to change in the near future? I don't see parents changing the way they raise girl and a boy somewhat differently.

Girls are taught to be more cautious than boys BECAUSE of rape or the threat of rape. Even though pedophiles probably target little boys and little girls about the same (I don't have any numbers) when you hear of a girl being kidnapped first thought is raped and murdered. That's not necessarily the case with boys.

I don't think I'll see sexual equality in my lifetime. If it ever happens, it will take a lot of time and several generations to undo a lot of the stereotypes we (as a population) have about men and women.

[noiretextatique]

114. oh, i absolutely agree

that the gender role socialization must evolve if we ever hope to acheive equality. imho, and certainly speaking from my experience of growing up in the 60's and 70's, girls of my era were not only taught to be cautious, but also to be afraid and passive. it took me a while to unlearn that, and to learn to how to assert myself...for me, it was an attitude change, as well as learning to defend and arm myself. in other words, i do think girls are still taught to be victims. i am a big proponent of self-defense training, and if necessary, carrying a weapon. i don't like guns, but when i was younger and didn't have a car, i carried a knife...fortunately i never had to use it, but having it was an equalizer. i have a stun gun now...and a serious street 'tude. i do think things are slowly changing, but as in other areas, the backlash has slowed and/or regressed progress.
likewise with boys...if we ever hope to change things, the way boys are socialized also must change.
thanks for the converstation :hi:

[6th Borough]

95. Don't forget "The Family Guy".

Not produced anymore, but great as hell while it lasted.

[Kipepeo]

98. I heard the Family Guy is coming back

_love that show_

[redqueen]

29. What martinolich said.

Fuck south park. Those guys are jackoffs.

[martinolich]

35. ...Thank YOU, RedQueen!

...I appreciate the support!

[FizzFuzz]

59. hey martinolich, glad to have another feminist here

just had a "discussion" turn into a flame war here the other day. Or as the boys who think misogyny is cute and a turn-on, call them, "gender wars--hey buddy watch out fer them cranky ladies".

I absolutely understand your points, and have argued in the same vien repeatedly. There are a couple of men here who see misogyny for the denigration of 1/2 of the race that it is, but there are plenty of boys on this site who think its a funny joke and clearly enjoy wanking off to the sound of women speaking critically (one wonders how they are able to interact on a human to human basis with their own loved ones).

Very rare to see any men take responsibility for their dehumanization and consumption of women, but they are first in line to tear into women whom they label as skanky.

(But for the men here who DO see the point, I want to say YAY! We appreciate you!!)

[martinolich]

61. ...Thank you, FizzFuzz!...It IS good to have compadres and

..Kindred spirits!...I haven't been here long, but the "boys" presence here is unmistakable!...I join you in saying "YAY"! to the men who "get it"...Thanks!

[patcox2]

70. There are derogatory stereotypes about men, too.

Its just that they are different. For example, some people think that all men are knuckle-dragging sexual predators who objectify women and apply a double standard when judging a woman's sexuality as opposed to a man's. The older I get the more I am attracted to the postmodernist view.

[martinolich]

78. ..True, but I don't believe

that they are as enduring or as vicious...There is also another aspect to female gender slurring...On the whole, women are smaller and are physically weaker than men...As a female, I not only feel angry when denigrated by gender slurs...I also feel somewhat afraid - something I don't think men experience when they are stereotyped...Why?...because as Susan Brownmiller ("Against Our Will")points out, verbal abuse is often the step taken before physical abuse...Think about it...More men are murdered than women...but men are RARELY, if ever, killed for BEING MEN...Women ARE killed simply for being women...and when someone wants to hurt you, it's easier for them, psychologically, if they can first "dehumanize" you..it's done in war all the time.."Gooks".."Nips", etc.
...I recently saw a true crime tv show in which a rape victim - a random female to the victimizer - kept saying "I hate girls!..They're just BITCHES!!......uh-huh. I also saw an ad for - of all things - a skateboard company called "Bitch"...and their "logo"..get this...was an "international sign" of a female figure with a GUN tp her head...The inscription?..."Bitch"....The fact that this was a "marketing ploy" to young males...made me feel about as safe as a Jew in Nazi Germany or a black man at a Lynch party....really frightening...and, in light of all the physical abuse perpetrated on females...dangerous and OUTRAGEOUS in terms of it's legality.

[FizzFuzz]

102. I was thinking how to respond to that guy's post. I'm glad you did.

I wanted to lash out, then I wanted to just throw up my hands. Then I wanted to try to explain what's different about the hateful contempt aimed at women--its everywhere, its given an air of legitimacy by being used in hip ads and sexy shows, it has real, life-threatening consequences for US.

But I just couldn't find the words--and I just wanted to swing a baseball bat, to be dead honest.

You really hit the nail on the head.

Did you ever hear the answers to a this poll question: to men-- What do you most fear about women? answer: they might laugh at me.

--to women--What do you most fear about men? answer: they might kill me.

sad, eh? I wonder if any defensive guy here will be able or willing to put down his wall for a moment and try to empathize?

[thedailyshow]

116. I don't understand why some here refuse to get it

when it comes to the pervading nature of sexism that manifests itself in domestic violence and rapes, as well as treatment of women when it comes to their health insurance, their jobs, etcetera.

[belladonna]

66. Hey!!

I like South Park... but then, I have a skewed sense of humor. Go figure :shrug:

[slutticus]

93. I love it too.

I still listen to the music from the musical all the time.



I'm a dork. Yes.

[CarbonDate]

48. I don't know Paris Hilton....

...never met her, myself. All I know is how the media portrays her, which, by the way, is also the extent of what Parker and Stone know about her.

[the Princess]

69. I hate it when they refence me on South Park

Now I'm gonna spend at least a week signing autographs. *sigh*

[MrSlayer]

92. Great show, absolutely hilarious.

South Park rules, very rarely do they have a bad episode. Mr. Slave is one of the funniest characters ever introduced. I loved the "whore off" scene.

Jesuth Chritht.

[Lenape85]

103. I think the episode was great

I've never been a fan of stupid drunken whores, and even though I don't agree with Parker and Stone on several issues, I think they made a great point with that episode.

[Warren DeMontague]

113. Overrated. I found the Beavis & Butthead movie far more intellectually

stimulating.

Politically incorrect or obscenity-laden I can deal with (and some of the songs in the South Park movie were funny, I'll grant that) But Parker & Stone tend to lean a little too far right (witness "Team America", where they Blow up Janeane Garofalo to toss some red meat to dumbfuck Hyuk-Hyuk-Monster-Truck middle Merikkka) in their "satire" for my own, personal, taste.

[talk hard]

115. I prefer Beavis and Butt-Head for my puerile humor.

But every once in while South Park is on a roll.

"What's the matter Kyle? Got sand in your vagina again?"