Log in:  

Register

guy who played cliff huxtable on tv

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

06 Jan 2015 19:31

Would you guys ever believe I´d defend or agree with a Femin-Nazi? OFC you wouldn´t as you know me...

But here we go, the unthinkable happened, I 100% agree with the worst of them all: Alice Schwarzer of Germany. :eek:

She is one of the few speaking out against the islam religion, and hammers home some hard truth into german political corrected brainwashed heads:

"A Cologne police officer recently told me seventy or eighty percent of the rapes were committed by Turks in Cologne*. I (Alice Schwarzer) asked him: Why did not you say that so that we can go to the root of the problem? He (police officer) replied: We are not allowed to say so Mrs. Schwarzer, this counts as racism."

Go Pegida, stand up for our rights, and if we need to fight for our freedom, we will fight!

* Important info: Yet "only" :rolleyes: 15% of the population in Cologne are Turks (1), of whom at least 96 % are moslems (2)

Great friendly and peaceful religion, this islam. :rolleyes:

The whole interview:

http://www.aliceschwarzer.de/artikel/ich-bin-es-leid-eine-frau-zu-sein-264727

Use google translator, it´s working ok to understand her points in general ...

(1) Link:http://www.stadt-koeln.de/mediaasset/content/pdf15/koeln_in_zahlen_-_einwohner_2011.pdf

(2) Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey#Religion
User avatar FoxxyBrown1111
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,378
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 12:35
Location: Germany

25 Feb 2015 03:52

Oh my... more news from the Femi corner that wants to oppress freedom:

"on to rid the media of these entrenched misogynistic images and attitudes"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/opinion-time-for-e3-harelbeke-to-join-the-rest-of-cycling-in-2015

Hi Jane, if you wanna fight true misogyny and sexism, read the green book of evil, and then let actions follow, but leave alone free people having a little fun. If women "dressed to kill" step up as a podium girl they know what they do. And its their free right to do so! Will you guys ever get it?? Rule your own life first... thanks in advance.
User avatar FoxxyBrown1111
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,378
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 12:35
Location: Germany

25 Feb 2015 05:08

FoxxyBrown1111 wrote:Oh my... more news from the Femi corner that wants to oppress freedom:

"on to rid the media of these entrenched misogynistic images and attitudes"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/opinion-time-for-e3-harelbeke-to-join-the-rest-of-cycling-in-2015

Hi Jane, if you wanna fight true misogyny and sexism, read the green book of evil, and then let actions follow, but leave alone free people having a little fun. If women "dressed to kill" step up as a podium girl they know what they do. And its their free right to do so! Will you guys ever get it?? Rule your own life first... thanks in advance.


I?m not sure this is the best thread for this discussion, as this issue is not about rapes, true and false. I agree with Jane that it?s nuts to have a race-promoting image that is in effect making light of what Sagan did. If you think what Sagan did was wrong, then it?s in very bad taste to have an image like that. It?s not a joking matter.

But I think Foxxy has a point, though I would like to turn it around. If you really want to combat sexism, shouldn?t you just get rid of the podium girl tradition? Aren?t podium girls just standing up there a display of sexism? How does Jane defend that? And how does anyone defend having them kiss the winners, then arguing that the winners shouldn?t touch the women? Who decides where the line is? Kissing is OK, but touching isn?t? Why?

If a well-dressed woman approached a man she didn?t know in a public place (or a private place, for that matter), and kissed him, that would be considered a come-on. Once you allow this in a podium ceremony, you?re sending the message that the usual rules don?t apply. There?s an assumed degree of intimacy. That being the case, how is anyone supposed to know what rules do apply? If Sagan put his lips forward when the podium girl tried to kiss him, would that be inappropriate? If he hugged her, would that be inappropriate? If he put his hands on her head when she kissed him, would that be inappropriate?

I think the problem is that we have unwritten rules about what is and isn?t appropriate. But when rules are unwritten, that is just inviting people to have differing interpretations over them. Defenders of the podium girl tradition will argue that it?s all in good fun, nothing harmful. But others, like Foxxy, can argue that if that?s in good fun, so was what Sagan did.

The girls aren?t chosen because they?re smart or athletic or have great social skills (even if that sometimes might be the case). They?re chosen for sex appeal. It?s kind of hypocritical to promote sex appeal, then complain when someone acts the way people normally do when they find something appealing. If the winners are supposed to act like robots, why not just have them shake hands with some race organizer? What exactly is supposed to be accomplished by having people who have nothing to do with the race on the podium in the first place?

I see only two consistent positions here: 1) end the podium girl tradition completely, with the rationale that it?s just another in the long line of sexist advertising; 2) keep the tradition, but accept the fact that the boundaries of acceptable behavior are blurry, that not everyone has exactly the same standards. I lean towards 1), as it would end all the potential conflicts. But I do understand Foxxy's Bacchanalia view, which does have a long tradition of its own.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,178
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

25 Feb 2015 05:47

Agree with everything, and OFC I tend to 2) at the end of your post. :D Let people live in freedom as long they dont hurt the freedom of others...

Why must all this fanatics try to oppress us? Be it religion leaders (especially those living by the green book of evil), Femi-Nazis, gender mainstream barkers, political corrected brain deads, and more... You guys (yes also you Jane) are in a minority that wants to "heal" the quiet masses. It only leads to conflicts. Just try freedom Jane. It works wonders for most of us...

Merckx index wrote:I?m not sure this is the best thread for this discussion, as this issue is not about rapes, true and false.


I think its ok with the mods, since the thread went into all kinds of what is rape or not, sexism or not, harassment or not, etc... I mean everything about Huxtable is said and done anyway. Lets go on with this thread instead of opening another 5-post thread. We already have enough of them.

Merckx index wrote: If you really want to combat sexism, shouldn?t you just get rid of the podium girl tradition? Aren?t podium girls just standing up there a display of sexism? How does Jane defend that? And how does anyone defend having them kiss the winners, then arguing that the winners shouldn?t touch the women? Who decides where the line is? Kissing is OK, but touching isn?t? Why?


Good questions I would like to get answers from Jane too. Or better, from hardcore Femi-Nazis who think the mere act of looking at a woman is sexual harassment in itself.

Merckx index wrote:If a well-dressed woman approached a man she didn?t know in a public place (or a private place, for that matter), and kissed him, that would be considered a come-on. Once you allow this in a podium ceremony, you?re sending the message that the usual rules don?t apply. There?s an assumed degree of intimacy. That being the case, how is anyone supposed to know what rules do apply? If Sagan put his lips forward when the podium girl tried to kiss him, would that be inappropriate? If he hugged her, would that be inappropriate? If he put his hands on her head when she kissed him, would that be inappropriate?


More good questions towards Jane, and the Femi-Nazis anyway.
For me its clear cut: A woman that doesnt wanna be a podium girl just dont ask for the job. So why making a problem out of nothing because a few women feel offended? I think the real reasons for the hardcore Femi-Nazis is clear*: a) They hate men anyways since a few did bad things to them. Now every other men is guilty by nature, for everything. b) The majority of the Femi-Nazis are just jealous of women being more beautiful than them. They cant accept that pure beauty of nature beats intelligence and hard work. Thats it. No more, no less... To those: Just accept reality and live with it, but dont try to rule other peoples lives because of your shortcomings... Me I would like to have been a better athlete. Do I now be jealous of those who made it? Hell no, I even watch them world class athletes doing sports!

* They use the feminism as a shield for their own agendas. Its a hard slap into the face of the true original feminists who fought good fights (like the right to vote, equal rights, etc)... And now? The fake feminists of nowadays fight against freedom, or at least stupid things like street "harrasment". But OTOH are coward enough to not stand up against real issues like I mentioned in the religion and world politics thread.

Merckx index wrote:I think the problem is that we have unwritten rules about what is and isn?t appropriate. But when rules are unwritten, that is just inviting people to have differing interpretations over them. Defenders of the podium girl tradition will argue that it?s all in good fun, nothing harmful. But others, like Foxxy, can argue that if that?s in good fun, so was what Sagan did.


OFC Sagan was right. He is kissed by woman, and he returned it. I see zilch problems. Zero, nothing... It was just a little fun for all.

Merckx index wrote:The girls aren?t chosen because they?re smart or athletic or have great social skills (even if that sometimes might be the case). They?re chosen for sex appeal. It?s kind of hypocritical to promote sex appeal, then complain when someone acts the way people normally do when they find something appealing.


Exactly. But in the Femi corner, sex appeal should not exist. Ouch!

Merckx index wrote: If the winners are supposed to act like robots, why not just have them shake hands with some race organizer? What exactly is supposed to be accomplished by having people who have nothing to do with the race on the podium in the first place?


Thats what will happen if all these minority fanatics take over. Everybody has to act like a robo to please their weird POV of the world. Hope they never prevail.

Merckx index wrote:I see only two consistent positions here: 1) end the podium girl tradition completely, with the rationale that it?s just another in the long line of sexist advertising; 2) keep the tradition, but accept the fact that the boundaries of acceptable behavior are blurry, that not everyone has exactly the same standards. I lean towards 1), as it would end all the potential conflicts. But I do understand Foxxy's Bacchanalia view, which does have a long tradition of its own.


Why would you tend to 1)? Just to please minorities? Today its the podium girls, tomorrow its beach wear, and the next day its your own bedroom that gets sacrificed in the name of political correctness to please small groups of hardcore fanatics! Dont give up your freedom that easily...
User avatar FoxxyBrown1111
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,378
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 12:35
Location: Germany

25 Feb 2015 13:13

Interesting posts. Definitely changing the conversation, but certainly worth discussing.

I tend to lean towards option 2 also. But from another angle. First, Sagan's actions were incredibly rare. In fact, when else has this happened? So let's just stick with what happens currently, and say it was the .0001%, and after this event, it's even less likely to ever happen again. So, are podium girls degrading to women? What about guys who stare at them? Kiss them back? Even in Sagan's case, at face value, it certainly didn't make her look bad, though it may have made him look bad.

To me, for the podium girl to look really bad, she would have grabbing him, or pointing at Sagan (or Spartacus) crotch, or licking her lips or something like that. But she didn't. It was Sagan that made the distasteful action. But he also pointed out what 99% of all men notice. These women are beautiful, and this one has an especially beautiful tush. He really didn't need to do that, he was wrong, but he did. He was wrong in his actions. It wasn't the situation that was wrong. The rest of us just watch, which is what this is about. I see no harm in that.

So, what's the real problem? That men are men?
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,060
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

25 Feb 2015 16:55

Alpe d'Huez wrote:Interesting posts. Definitely changing the conversation, but certainly worth discussing.

I tend to lean towards option 2 also. But from another angle. First, Sagan's actions were incredibly rare. In fact, when else has this happened? So let's just stick with what happens currently, and say it was the .0001%, and after this event, it's even less likely to ever happen again.


Good arguments from a guy with common sense. As the quiet majority (still) is... Only the fanatics that shout out loud generate problems out of thin air. And I must put Jane in that corner.

Alpe d'Huez wrote:So, are podium girls degrading to women?


OFC not. Every beauty I got into with knew they were beautiful. Did they gave a shit about crude theories of the fake femis? Not at all. Its the other way around. Those beauties know their weapons and even improve it by putting on sexy dresses, make-ups and what else. And OFC they are not shy to "harass";) cute guys.
Only ugly women see sexism when women use their weapons, and/or are adored by men.

Alpe d'Huez wrote:What about guys who stare at them? Kiss them back? Even in Sagan's case, at face value, it certainly didn't make her look bad, though it may have made him look bad.


Absolutely. The podium girl was not at all degraded. And Sagan only after the fanatics generated a story out of nothing. Sagan had just some fun, and the quiet masses their smirk.

Alpe d'Huez wrote:To me, for the podium girl to look really bad, she would have grabbing him, or pointing at Sagan (or Spartacus) crotch, or licking her lips or something like that. But she didn't. It was Sagan that made the distasteful action. But he also pointed out what 99% of all men notice. These women are beautiful, and this one has an especially beautiful tush. He really didn't need to do that, he was wrong, but he did. He was wrong in his actions. It wasn't the situation that was wrong. The rest of us just watch, which is what this is about. I see no harm in that.


Agree. Only I would argue he wasnt wrong. Either you do things or dont. And if your actions dont hurt anybody, I dont see the wrongness in it.

Alpe d'Huez wrote:So, what's the real problem? That men are men?


To Femi-Nazis and/or ugly women yes. But to the majority of women: no!
User avatar FoxxyBrown1111
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,378
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 12:35
Location: Germany

25 Feb 2015 18:38

Well, he grabbed her but[color="Black"]t[/color], without her approval. I didn't quite gather from the article how she personally felt about that, or what she said to him or anyone else about it. Only that he profusely apologized and gave her a big bouquet of flowers, which she accepted.

I still don't see that as being a reason to get rid of the podium girls. If it's really that much of an issue to these women's rights groups, they need to directly approach podium girls and get them to quit the job, and help them find another job they like instead. What's wrong with that? Why does everything have to be litigated to death?

If you're just referring to the photo of him pointing out how beautiful her rear end was, that wasn't particularly tasteful, but so what? It was also amusing. She may have even taken such a gesture as a compliment. I'm not a woman, but I would have to at least imagine she may have walked home that night thinking, "I've got the nicest as[color="Black"]s[/color] out of all the beautiful women here!" Would all women react that way? Probably not? But I'm guessing over half. Do all beautiful women you see in public situations like this? I'm guessing the vast majority of them do, yes.

There was a documentary on TV here recently about women who in the 1960's and 70's were jet airline stewardesses. Most of them are now in their 60's. How did they feel about their work? I'd say almost every single one of them were proud of it, and enjoyed it quite a bit. It was a terrific memory for them. Now, podium girls aren't quite the same career job, but my guess is the vast majority of podium girls are going to look back in 30 years with admiration at their time in this career and lives.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,060
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

25 Feb 2015 19:22

Alpe d'Huez wrote:Well, he ...


Agree 100%. Cant add more. :)
Funny, and likely true: "I've got the nicest ass out of all the beautiful women here!"
User avatar FoxxyBrown1111
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,378
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 12:35
Location: Germany

26 Feb 2015 02:10

FoxxyBrown1111 wrote:Good arguments from a guy with common sense. As the quiet majority (still) is... Only the fanatics that shout out loud generate problems out of thin air. And I must put Jane in that corner.



OFC not. Every beauty I got into with knew they were beautiful. Did they gave a shit about crude theories of the fake femis? Not at all. Its the other way around. Those beauties know their weapons and even improve it by putting on sexy dresses, make-ups and what else. And OFC they are not shy to "harass";) cute guys.
Only ugly women see sexism when women use their weapons, and/or are adored by men.


I guess you never heard of former SI swimsuit model Ann Simonton. Or the controversy at the 1988 Miss California contest, spurred by Simonton?s prot?g?, I think her name was Michelle Anderson.

I think Alpe has a good point that podium ceremonies really aren?t much of a problem. Sagan is the only one I ever heard of who caused a controversy. But that article Foxxy cited noted that that race has used naked women in its promotional images for several years. Given that background, what Sagan did seems less an unusual individual response than something in keeping with the spirit of that race. I think it would be hypocritical of the race promoters to criticize Sagan (don?t know if they did or not), given that they were in effect encouraging that kind of behavior. And as long as they continue to encourage it, there will be protests, no doubt.

I do agree with Foxxy that Islam?s treatment of women ought to be a far bigger concern than someone grabbing a$$. All kinds of hypocrisies here.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,178
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

26 Feb 2015 12:27

Back to the Huxtable guy, here is a similar situation. There was a show on TV last week that went over this sordid affair. A German doctor, Dieter Krombach, drugged, raped and killed his step-daughter. He also drugged and raped numerous patients. Because of his statute as a reknowned physician, Kromback was protected by the German authorities.

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/societe/20130704.OBS6428/affaire-kalinka-retour-sur-la-traque-acharnee-d-un-pere.html
"This comment qualifies as a shining example of the "anyone who disagrees with my perspective is a dolt" leftist, intolerant mish-mash of shallow thinking." - Scott SoCal
User avatar frenchfry
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,279
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 14:28
Location: Bourgogne

Re: guy who played cliff huxtable on tv

24 Mar 2015 14:56

One of the important things to consider is that, until relatively recently, a woman's body wasn't her own, but her husband's, or father's (in the sense of Patricia Potestas) - indeed in the Muslim world this is still largely the case. One of the greatest threats to the patriarchal order is thus that women get power over themselves, which in the West, to varying degrees, is largely already a reality. The reactionary responses to this in Algeria back in the 90's (which the Western press at the time could not have cared less about, even if the seeds of what has become Al Qaeda and ISIS were planted there - Algerian women fighting to obtain independence from their oppressive and often lethal males), or in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and even India today demonstrate how the patriarchal order is still willing to defend itself mercilessly if necessary.

At the same time, women have also been in our culture granted (this too has been a feminist conquest) the right to pursue sexual gratification, even as the initiator, which in the not too distant past was unheard of, or at any rate extremely uncommon and never outside the guarded private domain.

It is only natural that this has come into conflict with the old mores, or at times even in some cases with what used to be commonly accepted as male prerogatives. But if men are feeling uncomfortable, or under threat, it is because a certain position of dominance they enjoyed in the past has dissipated.
User avatar rhubroma
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,526
Joined: 02 Apr 2009 14:31

Re: guy who played cliff huxtable on tv

26 Mar 2015 07:06

rhubroma wrote:One of the important things to consider is that, until relatively recently, a woman's body wasn't her own, but her husband's, or father's (in the sense of Patricia Potestas) - indeed in the Muslim world this is still largely the case. One of the greatest threats to the patriarchal order is thus that women get power over themselves, which in the West, to varying degrees, is largely already a reality. The reactionary responses to this in Algeria back in the 90's (which the Western press at the time could not have cared less about, even if the seeds of what has become Al Qaeda and ISIS were planted there - Algerian women fighting to obtain independence from their oppressive and often lethal males), or in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and even India today demonstrate how the patriarchal order is still willing to defend itself mercilessly if necessary.

At the same time, women have also been in our culture granted (this too has been a feminist conquest) the right to pursue sexual gratification, even as the initiator, which in the not too distant past was unheard of, or at any rate extremely uncommon and never outside the guarded private domain.

It is only natural that this has come into conflict with the old mores, or at times even in some cases with what used to be commonly accepted as male prerogatives. But if men are feeling uncomfortable, or under threat, it is because a certain position of dominance they enjoyed in the past has dissipated.

excellent observation, and the timing is interesting if you look at the religious/cultural aspect;
the Islamic calendar is approx 500 years behind the current Christian one. 500 years ago, we had the crusades, inquisitions, etc... There's nothing new going on that wasn't done before. It's like there's a timeline that a religion follows - just a pity they don't learn from history...
User avatar Archibald
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,706
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 17:03

Re:

26 Mar 2015 07:33

Alpe d'Huez wrote:Interesting posts. Definitely changing the conversation, but certainly worth discussing.

So, what's the real problem? That men are men?

Actually, "men are men" is seen that way through the old "boys will be boys" nonsense. Boys are really given a free-ride in the behavioural stakes, while girls should be all "lady like". No longer is a man defined as a gentleman, and to be a gentleman is something to be derided.
It's because of this double standard that we have so many boys/teenagers/men mistreating women. It truely is ingrained. This is why Sagan's behaviour is deemed 'amusing' and okay.

Don't get me wrong, I lean towards option 2) as well, but with clear boundaries. Why is it that the boundaries are so blurred? Is it because boys are not brought up any more to know how to treat women correctly, but just have inappropriate behaviour brushed off as "boys will be boys"?
Take a recent example: I was with a friend and we'd taken his two daughters to a playground - they're 4 and 6. We're standing with other parents all watching their kids. We see the 6 year old being held down by a boy who's trying to lift up her skirt - and we're not the only ones. We see the father of this boy laughing with a "that's my boy" type attitude.
Acceptable under "boys will be boys"?

Back to the podium ceremony, it is just that, a ceremony, and I really don't see any unclear boundaries. The whole thing follows a prescribed protocol and routine, and when it does there's nothing to it. It's not like the women are in bikinis or wet t-shirts, they all appear to be stylishly (if glamourously) dressed. As for the "kissing", it looks awkward for all involved, especially the married riders, but is only a peck on the cheek. It's a variation of what you'd do when greeting a female friend, only a lot more sterile...
User avatar Archibald
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,706
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 17:03

07 Jul 2015 00:39

Court documents released today reveal that under oath Cosby admitted drugging women in order to have sex with them. Not that there was much doubt, but this makes it official after years of denials and stonewalling.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,178
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re:

07 Jul 2015 03:01

Merckx index wrote:Court documents released today reveal that under oath Cosby admitted drugging women in order to have sex with them. Not that there was much doubt, but this makes it official after years of denials and stonewalling.
Link, please?

It's not that I don't believe you (I think the fecker did it), but some of the more lawyer-like people around here will probably want some written, documented proof.
User avatar Tricycle Rider
Member
 
Posts: 1,782
Joined: 09 Feb 2013 11:12

Re: Re:

07 Jul 2015 03:22

Tricycle Rider wrote:
Merckx index wrote:Court documents released today reveal that under oath Cosby admitted drugging women in order to have sex with them. Not that there was much doubt, but this makes it official after years of denials and stonewalling.
Link, please?

It's not that I don't believe you (I think the fecker did it), but some of the more lawyer-like people around here will probably want some written, documented proof.


It was on the national news...

EDIT: http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,453
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

Re: Re:

07 Jul 2015 03:26

jmdirt wrote:
Tricycle Rider wrote:
Merckx index wrote:Court documents released today reveal that under oath Cosby admitted drugging women in order to have sex with them. Not that there was much doubt, but this makes it official after years of denials and stonewalling.
Link, please?

It's not that I don't believe you (I think the fecker did it), but some of the more lawyer-like people around here will probably want some written, documented proof.


It was on the national news...
My apologies, haven't had a chance to watch/catch up with the latest news yet. (Had too much of a wonderful time trying to fly a kite on a completely wind-less Oregon Coast.)
User avatar Tricycle Rider
Member
 
Posts: 1,782
Joined: 09 Feb 2013 11:12

Re: Re:

07 Jul 2015 04:27

So it took a certain/or any judge ten years to unseal the records?
User avatar Tricycle Rider
Member
 
Posts: 1,782
Joined: 09 Feb 2013 11:12

09 Jul 2015 12:57

How can someone admit to drugging women so that they will have sex with him and not go to jail?
TheGreenMonkey
Member
 
Posts: 1,065
Joined: 07 Sep 2014 08:28

09 Jul 2015 17:35

how can his wife and other celebrities (Whoopi) still stand "by their man"??
User avatar JackRabbitSlims
Member
 
Posts: 1,490
Joined: 10 Jan 2010 01:06
Location: On The Road.

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Back to top