The Sarah Palin Stripper contest in Vegas (SFW)

[jst5150]

The caption is here (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Gov-Sarah-Palin-presidential-inauguration-Contestants-Alaska-Governor-Sarah-Palin-Las-Vegas2C-Nevada/ss/events/pl/082908govsarahpalin/im:/081024/ids_photos_ts/r1222883186.jpg/) on Yahoo News.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20081024/i/r1222883186.jpg

Fortunately, this IS softcore P&CE ... :)

[Gary]

What?...no report on the Obama minstrel show?

[Williebee]

Pick one. They're both equally inappropriate.

[jst5150]

Also, one happened and one did not. One was one of the most popular stories on Yahoo news and one is something made up for ... well, I don't know. If the latter had occurred, I'd probably put it here too. However, I'm more a T&A guy than a racist. So, T&A won.

However, the moment that the event Gary mentioned pops as one of the 10 most emailed items on Yahoo news, I'll link it too so this is balanced.

[Williebee]

Jason, no offense was intended. My comment was more directed at yet another example of how far the respect level for our governmental leaders has fallen. For example, I don't remember any stories of a "Jackie O" stripper contest. Would they have dared back then?

Then again, maybe it's just because I had to go back 45 years to come up with an individual at that level who was hot. :)

[MattW]

Sexism is ok to express openly and laugh at.

Racism isn't.


Right Hillary?

[Williebee]

Sexism is ok to express openly and laugh at.

Oh, no. The only thing it's ok to openly laugh at and make fun of these days is married white males. Just watch the tv commercials. I heard a media instructor the other day say that Advertising Execs got so desperate for something to make fun of that they brought back cave men (Geico). "They're still people. But they aren't real. So they're safe."

[jst5150]

Willie, my rebuke was toward Gary, not you. :)

This is satire. And in the environment it takes place, it's proper satire. And that's really all I was pointing out with the photo -- that this was SNL, just done in Vegas vice broadcast from New York.

Had Gary asked, "Where's the Barack Obama or Joe Biden strip show," then my comments wouldn't have been so pointed and would have laughed along. Alas, Gary chose racism rather than sexism, went off message and now we have a continuance. Again, I point to SNL's parody. Vegas' is no different; just less clothes. And we know why there's no O or B strip show: they are men and she is a woman.

And the source is Reuters, not some half-quacked, uncredible blog or "news site." So, it's getting more run past this one post.

[WendyNYC]

And the source is Reuters, not some half-quacked, uncredible blog or "news site." So, it's getting more run past this one post.

A strip club to have a contest like this = appropriate for the venue

Reuters to be "reporting" on it = so very not

IMO.

[jst5150]

For example, I don't remember any stories of a "Jackie O" stripper contest. Would they have dared back then?
Well, Jack Kennedy. He had Marilyn Monroe in his living room (and elsewhere based on all reports). So let's not go cuckoo and believe we were living in more earnest times then. ;)

[Celia Cyanide]

I have that bikini.

[MattW]

Stars and stripes forever.

[mscelina]

Hmm...wonder how much trouble they had keeping those glasses on when hanging upside down from stripper poles?

*sigh*

This is so sad.

[jst5150]

Hmm...wonder how much trouble they had keeping those glasses on when hanging upside down from stripper poles?
Perhaps like the mouse in "Scrooged": staples?

[mscelina]

probably super glue would be my bet.

[robeiae]

Super glue would mess up their hair. Staples couldn't do much damage.

[Snowstorm]

My comment was more directed at yet another example of how far the respect level for our governmental leaders has fallen. For example, I don't remember any stories of a "Jackie O" stripper contest. Would they have dared back then?

Actually, I think it's more a reflection on how Palin is not respected.

Or, maybe it's just another excuse for a par-tay!

[Don]

I have that bikini.

YouTube or it didn't happen! :roll:

[whistlelock]

So, is the strip show sexism, satire, or the free market?

[Bravo]

sexism.

[Snowstorm]

Free market (with satire tossed in): look at the publicity this place has received! And I'm sure those gals aren't forced to participate, the same of the people in the audience.

Besides, if this place really wanted to ensure equality, they could always have a McCain Stripper contest.

[cethklein]

I want a show of hands, who didn't see this coming?

Anyone?

No one. Ok.

[Bravo]

Free market (with satire tossed in): look at the publicity this place has received! And I'm sure those gals aren't forced to participate, the same of the people in the audience.


the strippers mightve consented, but what about palin?

[robeiae]

Glad to see you're still avoiding most of the Palin-bashing threads, Bravo...

;)

[Bravo]

did you really think i could avoid strippers wrapped in the american flag?

[robeiae]

did you really think i could avoid strippers wrapped in the american flag?
But that's been the take on Palin from day one, no?

[Snowstorm]

the strippers mightve consented, but what about palin?

She doesn't get to choose how she's poked fun of or satired. That's just the joys of being in the public eye.

[kuwisdelu]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a celebration of the sexuality of one of the candidates sexism.

I mean, I'd fully support a John Edwards look-alike swimsuit contest if he were on the ticket, too. Would that be sexism as well?

[robeiae]

If someone hung Obama in effigy, what would you call that?

Come on..."celebration of the sexuality"?

[kuwisdelu]

If someone hung Obama in effigy, what would you call that?

That's based on hate, nothing more.

Come on..."celebration of the sexuality"?

Celebration of hotness? Whatever you want to call it. What about my second question?

[robeiae]

What about my second question?
But that's the thing: it's ONLY about Palin. That's the problem.

And you know, the boneheads that hung Palin in effigy claimed it wasn't about hate--it was art. Did you believe them?

[mscelina]

If there was a male stripper contest for Edwards lookalikes then yes, it, too would be sexism. These are politicians. These are not people who exploit their (alleged) sexuality in their career. It would be equally inappropriate for someone to cut Obama's face onto a porn film.

Come on, already. The definitions of 'sexism' don't change just because you have a problem with the object of it.

[Snowstorm]

... I don't see a celebration of the sexuality of one of the candidates sexism.

I mean, I'd fully support a John Edwards look-alike swimsuit contest if he were on the ticket, too. Would that be sexism as well?

Well said.

And a MUCH better example than mine (a McCain look-alike contest). :D

[kuwisdelu]

But that's the thing: it's ONLY about Palin. That's the problem.

By that logic, if I wanted to build a strip club somewhere, and didn't want it to be considered exploitation of women, I'd have to build a male strip club on the other side of the street, too.

And you know, the boneheads that hung Palin in effigy claimed it wasn't about hate--it was art. Did you believe them?

No. Hanging someone is expressing the opinion that one wants to kill them. Looking at strippers is expressing the opinion that they are hot. I think it's a pretty obvious difference.

If there was a male stripper contest for Edwards lookalikes then yes, it, too would be sexism. These are politicians. These are not people who exploit their (alleged) sexuality in their career. It would be equally inappropriate for someone to cut Obama's face onto a porn film.

Come on, already. The definitions of 'sexism' don't change just because you have a problem with the object of it.

I didn't say it wasn't inappropriate or even disrespectful. I just said I don't think it's sexism. Sexism is "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex" according to my dictionary. I fail to see how this is any of those.

[Snowstorm]

... the boneheads that hung Palin in effigy claimed it wasn't about hate--it was art. Did you believe them?

Not for a bloomin' second. That's just sick and NOT the same thing as a look-alike stripper contest. It doesn't matter to me who the person is, Palin, McCain, Obama, such things are perverted.

[Bravo]

She doesn't get to choose how she's poked fun of or satired. That's just the joys of being in the public eye.

wow, i disagree completely with that.

i love satire myself, heck i thought the script for nailin paylin was one of the funniest things of the year, but i think just like the line between erotica and porn, you know sexism when you see it.

i think a lot of these things are geared towards republican males who have been openly turned on by palin, but that doesnt make it right or any less sexist.

the goal here is to knock a powerful woman down several notches, to sexualize her so that she's accessible and less threatening. i cant stand palin, i absolutely hate her policies, hate her folksiness, the whole spiel, but this is not poking fun of those aspects: it's poking fun of her sexuality.

[kuwisdelu]

I guess it just depends on your views on sex.

Of course, I also don't have any problem with stripping or prostitution, so think what you will.

[aruna]

the goal here is to knock a powerful woman down several notches, to sexualize her so that she's accessible and less threatening. i cant stand palin, i absolutely hate her policies, hate her folksiness, the whole spiel, but this is not poking fun of those aspects: it's poking fun of her sexuality.


I agree with you, but I'd describe it otherwise: as making a sexual object of her, which is something I loathe, be the person male or female, whether I like or dislike them. Extremely bad taste.

[robeiae]

By that logic, if I wanted to build a strip club somewhere, and didn't want it to be considered exploitation of women, I'd have to build a male strip club on the other side of the street, too.
No, not at all. I'm not discussing "exploitation," here. I'm only talking about the statement being made by the contest organizers. They're doing a Palin contest because there's a big enough chunk of society willing to right it off as just "fun," even though it's also just sexist.

[mscelina]

By that logic, if I wanted to build a strip club somewhere, and didn't want it to be considered exploitation of women, I'd have to build a male strip club on the other side of the street, too.



No. Hanging someone is expressing the opinion that one wants to kill them. Looking at strippers is expressing the opinion that they are hot. I think it's a pretty obvious difference.



I didn't say it wasn't inappropriate or even disrespectful. I just said I don't think it's sexism. Sexism is "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex" according to my dictionary. I fail to see how this is any of those.

Wow, kuwisdelu--I'm disappointed in you. If you can't see that a stripper contest is the objectification of Sarah Palin, of how equating her with women who exploit their sexuality as their career choice isn't sexist then I'm gobsmacked. They have removed the image of Palin as a powerful, intellectual woman deliberately, thus stereotyping her as a woman who has to use her body instead of her mind to impact the world around her. It's not expressing her 'hotness'--it's a complete denigration of who and what she is. Period.

[Bravo]

why do you think conservative males flip out over hillary clinton?

it's because she does not fit the standards of female sexuality. there's this insane visceral reaction towards hillary because she wears pants not skirts.

this is the flip side to it. the goal is to control women's sexuality (esp. powerful women's) and to ensure that they are always readily available and accessible for guys.

[robeiae]

No. Hanging someone is expressing the opinion that one wants to kill them. Looking at strippers is expressing the opinion that they are hot. I think it's a pretty obvious difference.

Not for a bloomin' second. That's just sick and NOT the same thing as a look-alike stripper contest. It doesn't matter to me who the person is, Palin, McCain, Obama, such things are perverted.I'm not equating the two things. The reason I brought it up was to nudge thoughts towards "double standards." In the case of the hanging, the Palin version was criticized, no doubt. But what would happen if someone had done the same thing to Obama?

And of course, there's background and history that contributes to the difference. And that was also my point. The background that contributes to the blase attitude about this contest is that of stripping being primarily an activity engaged in by women.

[kuwisdelu]

Wow, kuwisdelu--I'm disappointed in you. If you can't see that a stripper contest is the objectification of Sarah Palin, of how equating her with women who exploit their sexuality as their career choice isn't sexist then I'm gobsmacked. They have removed the image of Palin as a powerful, intellectual woman deliberately, thus stereotyping her as a woman who has to use her body instead of her mind to impact the world around her. It's not expressing her 'hotness'--it's a complete denigration of who and what she is. Period.

I think you're reading too much into this. Why can't something just be fun? Of course, you could be right, that could be there motive--but that's jumping to conclusions. If that is their motive, it IS sexist and wrong; but without knowing that, I can't call it sexism.

[robeiae]

They're doing a Palin contest because there's a big enough chunk of society willing to right it off as just "fun," even though it's also just sexist.

I think you're reading too much into this. Why can't something just be fun?
I'm playing Lotto this week, for sure.

[kuwisdelu]

I'm playing Lotto this week, for sure.

You haven't explain why it's sexist, only claimed that it is.

[Bravo]

i did.

at least i thought i did...

[mscelina]

How can you read too much into sexist behavior? You can't quantify it. Are there acceptable degrees of sexism according to the sense of humor a particular individual has?

Humor ends where prejudice begins.

[mscelina]

i did.

at least i thought i did...

You did. You explained it very well, Bravo.

[robeiae]

You haven't explain why it's sexist, only claimed that it is.
It's sexist because it's stereotyping. It's making Palin--by virtue of her sex--a target of mockery via a stripper contest. It's making her sex the lone determining factor for defining who she is. The willingness of participants doesn't mitigate this at all.

[kuwisdelu]

The argument that it's sexist has primarily been that such images are meant to show Palin as a sex object, to denigrate and mock her abilities and merits and reduce her to a hot body. Now maybe it's just how I see things, but that argument doesn't work for me, because when I see someone in a sexual light, it has nothing to do with the rest of their merits, intellect, competence, whatever, at all. I think the idea that sexualizing someone removes the rest of his or her merits, or removes the ability to judge that person on something other than sex and attractiveness is silly and possibly offensive. Now maybe it's more difficult for most people to separate sex from everything else, and maybe most men think with their lower brain and let it control their upper brain, but that is solely on the person doing the judging--it's the person who is judging based solely on sex appeal who is being sexist, not the person displaying the sexual image (unless that is, indeed, their goal, but like I said, that's an assumption that I won't jump to unless someone can offer explicit evidence on the motives of the organizers).

[mscelina]

Just because you may be an exemplary young gentlemen who is able to distinguish between a woman's identity and her sexuality doesn't mitigate the intentions and/or interpretations of the organizers of the event or its intended audience. People don't go to watch strippers to ruminate over their political ideologies, do they?

No.

What possible motivation would these organizers have had to do this? Do you think they support Palin's ideologies? My bet is that they don't. Do you think that this is some sort of warped compliment on their parts? Would she see it as one? If it's the person judging who is sexist and not the person displaying the sexual image, then what motivation does the displaying person have?

Do you think that pornographers have another motivation for displaying porn than sexual titillation? Seriously? That they're not sexist? That they haven't realized that they will make money off of the exploitation of the people they show in pornography?

[robeiae]

The argument that it's sexist has primarily been that such images are meant to show Palin as a sex object, to denigrate and mock her abilities and merits and reduce her to a hot body. Now maybe it's just how I see things, but that argument doesn't work for me, because when I see someone in a sexual light, it has nothing to do with the rest of their merits, intellect, competence, whatever, at all. I think the idea that sexualizing someone removes the rest of his or her merits, or removes the ability to judge that person on something other than sex and attractiveness is silly and possibly offensive. Now maybe it's more difficult for most people to separate sex from everything else, and maybe most men think with their lower brain and let it control their upper brain, but that is solely on the person doing the judging--it's the person who is judging based solely on sex appeal who is being sexist, not the person displaying the sexual image (unless that is, indeed, their goal, but like I said, that's an assumption that I won't jump to unless someone can offer explicit evidence on the motives of the organizers).
That's great--that it doesn't work for you--but it's very much inconsequential. I agree that motivation is critical, but I'm afraid that the primary motivation of strip clubs in general is that many men see women--first and foremost--as sex objects. That's what they are banking on.

[kuwisdelu]

Do you think that this is some sort of warped compliment on their parts? Would she see it as one?

Maybe I'm just weird, but I would... :rolleyes:

Do you think that pornographers have another motivation for displaying porn than sexual titillation? Seriously? That they're not sexist? That they haven't realized that they will make money off of the exploitation of the people they show in pornography?

I think their primary motivation is money, not sexual titillation. I think this is an argument for another thread, but many porn stars choose to be porn stars. If they think they are being exploited, they are welcome to leave the profession. It pays a lot. In fact, the porn industry is one of the few that is very sexist toward males--male porn stars make a pittance compared to female porn stars. Now there's a reason for that, of course, but it doesn't change the fact they are doing the same job for vastly different sums of money.

Personally, I would argue it's the viewers of porn who are really being exploited. Think about it. People pay millions of dollars just to watch other people have sex, something that's not only easy and natural, but that anyone can do. If I were to do something similar, and, say, charged people extraordinary sums of money to watch me wash my hair, who would you really say is being exploited?

That's great--that it doesn't work for you--but it's very much inconsequential. I agree that motivation is critical, but I'm afraid that the primary motivation of strip clubs in general is that many men see women--first and foremost--as sex objects. That's what they are banking on.

The same argument goes for strip clubs. Think about it. It takes a small amount of talent to dance, and the rest is simply displaying one's natural, god-given assets, and men just hand money over. Again, people choose to be strippers; hell, I know some. If you want to see who's really being exploited, look at the drooling patrons handing over hard-earned money just to see some skin. Sad, isn't it?

[mscelina]

But Sarah Palin did not choose to have her name attached to a stripper contest, did she? She did not choose to have people exploit her current visibility in this country with women who impersonate her and strip for money. She did not choose to be associated with an industry that exists solely to make money from the sexual titillation of its patrons.

[robeiae]

The same argument goes for strip clubs. Think about it. It takes a small amount of talent to dance, and the rest is simply displaying one's natural, god-given assets, and men just hand money over. Again, people choose to be strippers; hell, I know some. If you want to see who's really being exploited, look at the drooling patrons handing over hard-earned money just to see some skin. Sad, isn't it?I've already thought about it. The problem here, I think, is my lack of clarity. I'll try, again.

I haven't said word one about exploitation. All I'm talking about is the inherent sexism of this contest. It's there. There's no way around it. You're assuming--I think--that I must find it morally repugnant, unacceptable, exploitative, or the like, to a very high degree. Wrong.

You know what else is sexist? Female sideline reporters on NFL games as a practice, as opposed to a given reporter getting the job for actual qualifications.

You know what else is sexist? Getting a flat and assuming--given a male/female couple in the car--that the man should change the tire. From both sides, it's sexist.

But these things are not grossly wrong. It would be swell if everyone ignored the sex of everyone else--or maybe it wouldn't--but that's unrealistic.

Returning to the contest, again it is absolutely sexist in nature. The problem--for me--is the unwillingness for some to accept that this is the case. This creates/fosters an air of acceptability re the mockery of individuals that I DO find repugnant. Grossly so.

[kuwisdelu]

But Sarah Palin did not choose to have her name attached to a stripper contest, did she? She did not choose to have people exploit her current visibility in this country with women who impersonate her and strip for money. She did not choose to be associated with an industry that exists solely to make money from the sexual titillation of its patrons.

There are many things she didn't choose. For one, I could argue she made herself a public figure. But I don't think that's important, because I don't see it as sexist to begin with. Inappropriate? Disrespectful? If she doesn't like it, then yes, sure.

Actually, this reminds me. A friend of mine did once photoshop an image of me onto some gay porn. Did I think that was sexist? No. I didn't like it, since I'm not gay and I try not to have lewd pictures of myself (fake or not) plastered around the internet for future employers to see anyway. But the idea of sexism never crossed my mind.

[kuwisdelu]

I've already thought about it. The problem here, I think, is my lack of clarity. I'll try, again.

*

Returning to the contest, again it is absolutely sexist in nature. The problem--for me--is the unwillingness for some to accept that this is the case. This creates/fosters an air of acceptability re the mockery of individuals that I DO find repugnant. Grossly so.

It's difficult to get past my compartmentalization of things like this, but I suppose I see you're point. To an extent. I still can't get past believing it's on the individuals doing the judging itself as to whether it's sexist or not, not the image (or act) itself. The other examples you gave are ones in which the judging has already taken place. Here, though, it hasn't, other than perhaps in the minds of the organizers; so unless they give a sexist introduction or commentary, to me, it's still on the individual's personal judgments.

[mscelina]

Are you just not reading anything that has to do with objectifying a powerful woman as an exercise against her power, kuwisdelu?

What better way to trivialize a woman who is threatening to males than to objectify her? In politics, this trend gets nasty. Look at Hillary Clinton. She was demonized as well. When she was tough, she was called unfeminine. When she cried, she was characterized as too weak and feminine to hold the course. Using a female political figure's gender as a weapon against her is sexism. Period. Whether it's a stripper contest or a slam on pants suits, it is an indication of the sexism that is inherent in our political atmosphere.

[cethklein]

But that's been the take on Palin from day one, no?

Awww sick. Maybe for some people, but not all, i can assure you.

[kuwisdelu]

Are you just not reading anything that has to do with objectifying a powerful woman as an exercise against her power, kuwisdelu?

Is the same true for men?

I suppose when it comes to sex, I just ask myself "does this make me see them any differently?" and if the answer is "no," then I don't consider it sexist. It's seems fairly simple to me. If the answer is "yes" for others, then I suppose it is sexist for that person.

B]Using a female political figure's gender as a weapon against her is sexism. Period.[/B]

Personally, I just don't see this as a weapon. If the majority of Americans do, then maybe the majority of Americans are sexist? I'm struggling to understand the other POV, here.

[mscelina]

Is the same true for men?

I suppose when it comes to sex, I just ask myself "does this make me see them any differently?" and if the answer is "no," then I don't consider it sexist. It's seems fairly simple to me. If the answer is "yes" for others, then I suppose it is sexist for that person.



Personally, I just don't see this as a weapon. If the majority of Americans do, then maybe the majority of Americans are sexist? I'm struggling to understand the other POV, here.

Yes, it's the same for men. And yes, if the majority of Americans do, then the majority of Americans are sexist. You're trying to judge a group of people by your individuals standards, kuwi, and that's why it's not working.

Let's stretch the analogy a bit. Let's say that, instead of a stripper contest it's some horrific racial stereotype and apply it to Obama.

*tries to think of one that's blatant that she can bear to write*

Okay--The Barack Obama lookalike watermelon eating contest.

That would be racist, right? I'd think it would be. It's taking a false but perpetuated stereotype and applying it to a political figure in an effort to associate him with that stereotype.

[kuwisdelu]

Yes, it's the same for men. And yes, if the majority of Americans do, then the majority of Americans are sexist. You're trying to judge a group of people by your individuals standards, kuwi, and that's why it's not working.

Let's stretch the analogy a bit. Let's say that, instead of a stripper contest it's some horrific racial stereotype and apply it to Obama.

*tries to think of one that's blatant that she can bear to write*

Okay--The Barack Obama lookalike watermelon eating contest.

That would be racist, right? I'd think it would be. It's taking a false but perpetuated stereotype and applying it to a political figure in an effort to associate him with that stereotype.

Okay, but I fail to see the stereotype it is perpetuating. Is it that all women are simply made for sex? If so, then my example earlier, about John Edwards (or Obama of McCain or whatever) would be okay, unless the same stereotype exists for men, too. In which case, however, I don't think one could classify it as sexism, but something else. I guess it also depends on when exactly one thinks something is being objectified.

[mscelina]

I'd say that when someone dresses up for the express purpose of looking like you, when the event is advertised using your name, and when the participants dance naked in front of a group of strangers under those circumstances that it qualifies as objectification.

*shrug*

You may not. If that's the case then, well, there's not a hell of a lot I can do to convince you. That's really a shame, too.

[robeiae]

Awww sick. Maybe for some people, but not all, i can assure you.
Of course.

[kuwisdelu]

I'd say that when someone dresses up for the express purpose of looking like you, when the event is advertised using your name, and when the participants dance naked in front of a group of strangers under those circumstances that it qualifies as objectification.

*shrug*

You may not. If that's the case then, well, there's not a hell of a lot I can do to convince you. That's really a shame, too.

Like I said, I think it depends on the motives.

If someone did the same for me, to make fun of me, then yes, I'd be upset.

If someone did the same for me, because they think I'm hot, I'd be complimented.

Is it objectification? Honestly, I'm not sure. I'm not sure all objectification is bad.

[aruna]

If someone did the same for me, because they think I'm hot, I'd be complimented.

.

See, there are people who do NOT find it complimentary when perfect strangers engage in sexual fantasies about them. I, for instance, would consider it a violation of my privacy; sex for me is something intimate and I have no interest, and have never had any interest, in being hot for strangers.

Since you cannot know how another feels on the subject the respectful thing to do is keep your thoughts to yourself until you do know.

[Rolling Thunder]

The simple fact is, once you're a public figure, all bets are off. Like it or not.

[Sheryl Nantus]

here's a thought - if it were Hillary Clinton, would the reaction be different?

:D

[mario_c]

:popcorn:

[kuwisdelu]

here's a thought - if it were Hillary Clinton, would the reaction be different?

:D

I doubt the audience would be as big :rolleyes:

[Don]

I'm with kuwisdelu here, but probably for all the wrong reasons. :D I think it's good to take the powerful down a notch or two and humanize them. Parody is an effective way to do that. I see the stripper contest as another form of parody.

For some reason, everybody seems to think that naked parody is worse than any other kind. I think that says a lot more about contemporary society's view of nudity than it does about the people hosting the event.

Would a parody of Sarah the moose-killer face the same objections? No, because violence is applauded in our society, and sexuality is not.

[Bartholomew]

here's a thought - if it were Hillary Clinton, would the reaction be different?

:D

She isn't sexy.

Neither is Palin, IMO, but other people think so.

[dgiharris]

did you really think i could avoid strippers wrapped in the american flag?

What could be more patriotic? O.k. a lot of things. But having a beautiful woman drapped in the American flag is a great show of patriotism.

How can you read too much into sexist behavior? You can't quantify it. Are there acceptable degrees of sexism according to the sense of humor a particular individual has?

Humor ends where prejudice begins.

I completely agree with this statement. As a society, powerful women have had to scrap and scrape their way to the top and those glass cielings and prejudices are still there. This is an interesting catch-22. If the sexist prejudices weren't still lingering then this contest would not be that big a deal, but since they are, it is.

The argument that it's sexist has primarily been that such images are meant to show Palin as a sex object, to denigrate and mock her abilities and merits and reduce her to a hot body. Now maybe it's just how I see things, but that argument doesn't work for me, because when I see someone in a sexual light, it has nothing to do with the rest of their merits, intellect, competence, whatever, at all. I think the idea that sexualizing someone removes the rest of his or her merits, or removes the ability to judge that person on something other than sex and attractiveness is silly and possibly offensive. Now maybe it's more difficult for most people to separate sex from everything else, and maybe most men think with their lower brain and let it control their upper brain, but that is solely on the person doing the judging--it's the person who is judging based solely on sex appeal who is being sexist, not the person displaying the sexual image (unless that is, indeed, their goal, but like I said, that's an assumption that I won't jump to unless someone can offer explicit evidence on the motives of the organizers).

I think the problem you are having is an inability to think wholistically on this topic. If everyone thought as you, then this incident woudl be a non-issue. Unfortuantely, the majority of men do not think as you and women have to deal with sexism on a daily basis. The world is a giant 'boys club' and this kinda contest really hurts all powerful women.

That's great--that it doesn't work for you--but it's very much inconsequential. I agree that motivation is critical, but I'm afraid that the primary motivation of strip clubs in general is that many men see women--first and foremost--as sex objects. That's what they are banking on.

I think this is fundamental to the nature of man. It is primal and instinctual. When I see an attractive woman, my first instinct is to club her over the head and drag her to a cave. Of course, with the laws being what they are I can't get caught doing do that. Luckily, I was raised by a very strong woman and in my heart of hearts feel women are 'equal' to men, but a lot of men don't. Add up the net effect and you have a environment in which it is hard to be a woman and rise to 'the top'. Sure many have done it, but it doesn't mean that sexism isn't there.

here's a thought - if it were Hillary Clinton, would the reaction be different?



INterestingly enough, the pains Palin is facing is due to her attractiveness. If she were an unattractive 'ball buster' than this is a non issue. But her being attractive sets off that caveman 'lust' i was talking about.


Overall, I do think it is sexist, but what I find more disturbing is that the news reported this. I think a strip club has every right to hold this contest, advertise this contest, and promote this contest. But for this contest to make the 'news' sickens me.

God, what would the media be like if they actually reported real news for fuck's sake.

So, how do you know if something is 'sexist' or 'racist' or any other 'ist'. Well, there are various litmus tests.

Think of a woman that you respect and admire. A powerful woman. And an attractive woman. ONe that comes to mind for me is Oprah.

Oprah is a hot 50 something, very powerful, very attractive. Now, imagine a strip club holding an Oprah strip contest. For me, it would piss me off. I respect her and for someone to hold a contest like that is a complete degradation for who she is and what she stands for.

How about Princess Diana? Or Ivana Trump? Take any powerful and attractive woman and insert her in this 'strip club' contest.

Now, how does that make you feel?

It smacks of complete and total disrespect. And I believe that is the problem that is the precursor to racism or sexism or any other ism.

There is a respectful way to 'tease' Palin about her attractiveness and then there is the disrespectful 'sexist' way of doing it, and the vegas contest is the latter.

Mel...

[aruna]

The world is a giant 'boys club' and this kinda contest really hurts all powerful women.



.

It hurts and denigrates ALL women. A woman doesn't have to be "powerful" for this kind of treatment to be disrespectful.

(I am never too happy with the adjective "powerful"; it really doesn't mean much... women are women; there are not superior or inferior kinds of women. If she does not choose to be in this kind of photo/pose then it is not OK.)
0

[Bravo]

For some reason, everybody seems to think that naked parody is worse than any other kind. I think that says a lot more about contemporary society's view of nudity than it does about the people hosting the event.

Would a parody of Sarah the moose-killer face the same objections? No, because violence is applauded in our society, and sexuality is not.

don, dont take this wrong way b/c i do appreciate your thought, but they tend to almost universally be stuck in an ideal fantasy world. join us in the real world for once.

in today's real world, a woman expressing sexuality is not taken seriously. talk to any pretty woman who works in a corporate environment, ask them about how they have to somehow play down their looks or else they won't be taken seriously. every aspect of their sexuality is scrutinized, from whether they're wearing skirts or pants, to how low cut the skirt is, to how much cleavage is being shown, to whether it's high heels or flats.

if you dont fit the mold, like hillary, if you choose to wear pants and flats, you are mocked and harrassed and lambasted as a dyke or a tranny or what have you.

if you look good and and wear a skirt and show a little cleavage then you're nothing more than a bimbo.

we live in a world where sexuality itself is degrading to women, you and kuw need to pull your necks out of the sand and start joining us in reality.

[dgiharris]

It hurts and denigrates ALL women. A woman doesn't have to be "powerful" for this kind of treatment to be disrespectful.

(I am never too happy with the adjective "powerful"; it really doesn't mean much... women are women; there are not superior or inferior kinds of women. If she does not choose to be in this kind of photo/pose then it is not OK.)
0

You are right. It hurts all women.

But I have to disagree with you just a tad. The word powerful means a lot. In theory, we are all equal, but in reality some are more equal than others.

When Susie working in a nail salon hears about this contest, she will be outraged. When Barbra who is in a corporate board meeting overhears her colleagues talking about this contest, she is put in a very uncomfortable position that is a helluva lot more inconvienent than Susie working in the nail salon.

Now, are both woman hurt and upset by this. Sure. But who does this impact more?

That was my point. Though I feel for all women, being discriminated against is never a good time.

Mel...

[Don]

don, dont take this wrong way b/c i do appreciate your thought, but they tend to almost universally be stuck in an ideal fantasy world. join us in the real world for once don.
Adam Savage sums it up nicely, Bravo.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Isn't our job as authors to ask 'Why not?'
Some men see things as they are and say, "Why?" I dream of things that never were and say, "Why not?"
The world doesn't change because people accept the way it is.
Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes... the ones who see things differently -- they're not fond of rules... You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things... they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.From both rep points and Private Messages, I can tell I'm changing the world, one person at a time. I bet kuwisdelu can back me up on how thinking outside the box is received by those who see the current ways aren't working.

[mscelina]

So it's thinking outside the box to refuse to acknowledge a sexist act?

I'd stay in the box if I were you. You can enjoy your rep points and PMs in perfect privacy there.

[Bravo]

i think we all see the current ways arent working, but the difference is, some of us choose to deal with those hurt right now, and others choose to dream and fantasize about utopias where no one gets hurt in the first place.

[Woof]

For some reason, everybody seems to think that naked parody is worse than any other kind. I think that says a lot more about contemporary society's view of nudity than it does about the people hosting the event.

Would a parody of Sarah the moose-killer face the same objections? No, because violence is applauded in our society, and sexuality is not.

Well said. All this outrage over a comedic strip show is self-righteous Puritanism masquerading as political correctness.

[Julie Worth]

They have removed the image of Palin as a powerful, intellectual woman...

No, she did that.

[Bravo]

lol, yeah "intellectual" is a bit of a stretch. ;)

[kuwisdelu]

i think we all see the current ways arent working, but the difference is, some of us choose to deal with those hurt right now, and others choose to dream and speculate about utopias where no one gets hurt in the first place.

I understand where this is coming from, but I don't think it holds up to scrutiny. We've admitted that much of our society is still sexist--and like I said before, doesn't that make the people sexist rather than the act? Furthermore, I've offered the suggestion: what if it were a male candidate? People have said that it would be just as bad, but at the same time, people are also arguing that it's different because Palin is a woman, and bring up the sexism against women in society as a whole. Either it's the same, or it's different. Which is it?

[Bravo]

it's different.

male bodies arent scrutinized and analyzed anywhere near the level women's bodies are.

[mscelina]

No, she did that.

Bull. She doesn't share your point of view (or mine) but that certainly doesn't make her less intelligent and therefore worthy of objectification.

[MoonWriter]

Well said. All this outrage over a comedic strip show is self-righteous Puritanism masquerading as political correctness.

You forgot to add: IMO, because it's certainly not mine. Not even close.

[Woof]

Bull. She doesn't share your point of view (or mine) but that certainly doesn't make her less intelligent and therefore worthy of objectification.

It's not a question of whether people agree or disagree with Sarah Palin. She herself has amply demonstrated that she can't talk intelligently on a broad range of issues - ones that should be understood by a Vice Presidential candidate.

[Lyra Jean]

it's different.

male bodies arent scrutinized and analyzed anywhere near the level women's bodies are.

I'm agreeing with you Bravo.

Look at any magazine on the rack at the local store such as "People" the cover has at least three women on it that are either considered too fat, too skinny, or pregnant every week. When do you see this with men? When you read it and they are talking about fashion sense how many men do you see them making fun of? It's okay for a guy to be overweight but god forbid if a woman gains an extra pound or two.

When I joined the army (didn't make through basic training) I didn't shave my legs. Other women and some of the guys were wondering why I didn't want to look good. I said I'm here to learn how to fight and kill not find a man what does having hair on my legs have anything to do with it.

[Cranky]

It's not a question of whether people agree or disagree with Sarah Palin. She herself has amply demonstrated that she can't talk intelligently on a broad range of issues - ones that should be understood by a Vice Presidential candidate.

So then who cares if she's sexually objectified? It's just not okay. It's creepy, actually.

[Woof]

So then who cares if she's sexually objectified? It's just not okay. It's creepy, actually.

It seems to bother some people and not bother others. I wonder if Mrs. Palin herself is so bothered, since she seems to dismiss all of the satire aimed at her with good humor. She may have been a bad choice as a running mate, but to her credit, she's a good sport.

[Cranky]

*shrug*

We don't know. In the meantime, I'm creeped out on her behalf. :)

[mscelina]

The perpetuation of sexism is not a partisan issue. The blatant partisanship demonstrated on this thread by some members--so partisan that they are willing to excuse exploitation--is a distressing trend in American politics. It's okay to objectify Sarah Palin because she's a Republican? It's okay to dismiss her acheivements because she's conservative? It's okay to accept behavior that, if the tables were turned, would be not only unacceptable but prejudicial?

You know, Bravo and I very rarely agree on a single damn thing but I'd never consider him as something other than the intellectual creature that he is.

Go ahead and throw all women under the bus who disagree with your ideology. Let's make it all right to make a woman's breast size a political issue, or how she dresses or whether she wears too much makeup. By all means, let's kowtow to the concept that if a female politician holds an opposing viewpoint, it's all right to throw the standards of a country still struggling to overcome its inherent prejudice right out of the freaking window. Hey, as long as the Democrats win everything is fair game, right?

Right?

Yep. It's time for a change all right. If partisan politics are preventing people from digging out from under the carcass of discrimination, then we definitely need a change of some sort.

[aruna]

You are right. It hurts all women.

But I have to disagree with you just a tad. The word powerful means a lot. In theory, we are all equal, but in reality some are more equal than others.
(snip)

Now, are both woman hurt and upset by this. Sure. But who does this impact more?

.

It's just me. I never use the word powerful in regards to a human, male or female, as for me NO human is ultimately powerful - we are all fallible...
anyway.
I will never be a "powerful" woman in the sense referred to here, nor do I wish to be, nor am I "less equal" for that. Dignity cannot be quantified; I want to be taken seriously no less than the female CEO, and the assumption that she has more right to serious treatment than I have is blatant discrimination!
http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2915533#post2915533)
For some reason, everybody seems to think that naked parody is worse than any other kind. I think that says a lot more about contemporary society's view of nudity than it does about the people hosting the event.
Well said. All this outrage over a comedic strip show is self-righteous Puritanism masquerading as political correctness.

Nakedness in itself is nothing. The problem is that nakedness, and beauty, especially in a woman, is always sexualised; that we are contantly appraised for our sexual appeal; and when we protest, when we say we don't want it, we are labelled puritan.

[James81]

God, that is so frikin hot.

[kuwisdelu]

The perpetuation of sexism is not a partisan issue. The blatant partisanship demonstrated on this thread by some members--so partisan that they are willing to excuse exploitation--is a distressing trend in American politics. It's okay to objectify Sarah Palin because she's a Republican? It's okay to dismiss her acheivements because she's conservative? It's okay to accept behavior that, if the tables were turned, would be not only unacceptable but prejudicial?
...
Yep. It's time for a change all right. If partisan politics are preventing people from digging out from under the carcass of discrimination, then we definitely need a change of some sort.

Call it partisan if you like, but the truth is I'd feel the same way regardless if Palin was conservative or liberal. Hell, I'd love it if there were such an event with the centerpiece as Mr. Edwards or Mrs. Kucinich; they're pretty darn hot, too. :rolleyes:

[Woof]

Nakedness in itself is nothing. The problem is that nakedness, and beauty, especially in a woman, is always sexualised; that we are constantly appraised for our sexual appeal; and when we protest, when we say we don't want it, we are labeled puritan.

And does this imply that all men sexualize women and value women for their beauty and sexuality only? Is it fair to generalize or to presume that all men view women in this way. Please don't confuse the attitude of a man in a strip club vs. one who sees more in a woman than her body parts. At the same time, I think it is not only puritanical but also disengenuous of those who wish to be noticed for their physical beauty to turn around and label others who find them sexually attractive as sexist.

[aruna]

And does this imply that all men sexualize women and value women for their beauty and sexuality only?

No, of course all men don't do it, thankfully; I think we are still talking about the OP?


. At the same time, I think it is not only puritanical but also disengenuous of those who wish to be noticed for their physical beauty to turn around and label others who find them sexually attractive as sexist.

Yes, it is sad that so many girls (but boys too!) in our over-sexualised climate are so dependent on body image for their sense of identity and confidence. I was unaware of such labelling; yes, it is inconsistent, but then, so are many things. It's a pretty confusing game. But not everyone plays it, and no-one is forced to play it.