|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Tumescent on 01:11 AM November 4th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
If people didn't buy these shirts or the "throw rocks at boys shirts", they wouldn't be marketed... stuff like this always reminds me of the famous quote by H.L Mencken...
"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
Seriously, would anyone with a shred of class and taste ever wear these sorts of shirts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:50 PM November 5th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Raymond Cuttill on 04:06 AM November 4th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists are fond of phrases like “What goes around, comes around”. ”When you encourage demeaning a particular group, say Jews, Africans or men, it's hard to limit it to that group. Being bitchy or sarcastic or dismissive or putting down someone becomes the normal way of thinking and then anyone becomes the target. Now if women demean men it doesn't mean that men get to demean women but it can mean that women can demean other women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kyo on 09:03 AM November 4th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The Republican, who is a GOP candidate for governor, says the $24.50 t-shirts are "offensive" and "degrading."
Tewnty-four dollars and fifty cents for a t-shirt!? Now that's "offensive" and "degrading"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:33 PM November 5th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
igiplitz bookia dominam sheecolla beamakima
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:48 PM November 5th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
>"igiplitz bookia dominam sheecolla beamakima"
...'the Hell...?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:19 PM November 5th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Don't ask me.
What? Is Harry Potter posting here, now?
Jinx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:06 PM November 4th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Where were these same people when the "BOYS ARE STUPID THROW ROCKS AT THEM" T-shirts were being sold???!!!? Huh?!? WHERE??!!??
Also, I saw something about these "offencive-to-girls" T-shirts on the national news, a night or two ago. Where was the national media with the "BOYS ARE STUPID..." T-shirts??!!??
And still they claim they are not BIASED.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:10 PM November 4th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently it is perfectly OK for girls and women to dress and pose as whores (sexual commodities), but it's still politically-incorrect for men to enjoy and endorse the slut parade.
The offensive tee-shirts are a great example of what a new book by a feminist writer terms "raunch culture."
-------
Female Chauvinist Pigs : Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture (by Ariel Levy)
(from amazon.com's reviews of this book ...) ---
What does sexy mean today? Levy, smartly expanding on reporting for an article in New York magazine, argues that the term is defined by a pervasive raunch culture wherein women make sex objects of other women and of ourselves.
The voracious search for what's sexy, she writes, has reincarnated a day when Playboy Bunnies (and airbrushed and surgically altered nudity) epitomized female beauty. It has elevated porn above sexual pleasure. Most insidiously, it has usurped the keywords of the women's movement (liberation, empowerment) to serve as buzzwords for a female sexuality that denies passion (in all its forms) and embraces consumerism.
....
With the rise of such magazines as Maxim and FHM and the popular video series Girls Gone Wild, raunch culture has never been more mainstream. The reason, Levy posits, is because women are getting in on the act and participating in their own exploitation.
....
"being hot" is a pose, an act, a tool, and entirely divorced from either physical pleasure or romantic love.
....
Girls don't want to be pretty anymore -- they want to be "hot," which apparently means something that used to be called "slutty."
....
But as Ariel Levy explains, the 21st century version of free sexual expression of women, is a carbon copy of what titillates and has been sold to men for years - the playboy bunny, the porn star, which is now being sold to women by women.
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:15 PM November 4th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
the sad fact, as evidenced by who gets married and why, indicates that the shirt in question is actually TRUE. Who needs brains if you've got big tits?! They attract males, which, after all, is a woman's meal ticket. And if they get married, have kids, and divorced, that makes a pretty good income for the big titted beotch!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:42 AM November 5th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I've always been unclear. Is it "beotch" or "BEEEEEOTCH!" ? I'm never entirely clear on the correct form of address for young "women" these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:14 PM November 5th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, thanks to the popular "Vagina Monologues" and campus raunch-feminism, it's now perfectly acceptible to just use the unambiguous C-word when addressing liberated bitches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:24 PM November 5th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I can only presume you mean liberated from having the slightest idea of decency, class or etiquette, because they sure didn't need to be liberated from any other damned thing. Spoiled, greedy brats. Maybe we should keep calling them "women and children", since the two are apparently interchangeable in most cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by TomP on 12:42 PM November 5th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
That's unkind to children. Children can grow up to be responsible adults, after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:56 PM November 5th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I have always been attracted to women who are intelligent, agreeable, polite and maybe a little nerdy. (I never cared that much about her looks.) Unfortunately, those kinds of women are in rather short supply, these days.
Also I find it strange that women once complained about men objectifying and exploiting them. Now that men are FORBBIDEN to do so, they are now doing it to themselves. I mean..., 'the Hell...?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:32 PM November 5th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
let's just face it, guys. There are just A LOT of stupid women running around these days.
It wasn't always that way, but now...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:58 PM November 5th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
i covered this years ago with "Got Candy?" and it's boring to keep writing the same things, but obviously once wasn't enough
here's the scam: when adolescent girls run around in skimpy and sexually suggestive clothes ("Got Candy?") etc., as they've been doing for the past decade, the intent is to frustrate and incite collective male libido -- it's just a variant on the "jailbait" routine, which is as old as civilization
read the "story" of how salome and her mother decapitated john the baptist, for example
two millennia, nothing at all has changed ...
society knows it is playing this game, but it serves many purposes simultaneously, and all those purposes further the power of gynocracy:
females, even very young females, are empowered over males; male libidic-charge is greatly heightened, even if only unconsciously, and the energy from that "ramping up" is then used by "society" for various purposes (fighting wars, building prisons, etc)
most crucially, the "Come On Come On Oh No I'm Innocent!" game permits the matriarchy to sexually stimulate males in a way that's fully deniable, yet manipulable
the inevitable sexual response of some percentage of boys and men -- even if "only" unconscious -- can then be used to further demonize and criminalize ALL male behavior, and to portray ALL males as collectively evil, and thus "deserving" of even more draconian anti-male laws, policies, institutions, and collective mindsets
who benefits? girls, women, and the (putative) "males" that rule US
who loses? take a guess
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Evil White Male Oppressor writes "