BoB's gone, here's why

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Why is enjoying a quality of a group of humans objectifying them? Who are you to say that just because I like to watch images of beautiful people, I no longer see them as subjects, but objects?

Try having a young daughter, and then watch her grow up surrounded by implicit messages that all she is good for is looking pretty, with the obvious corollary that if she isn't pretty she's less valuable.

If you think those messages aren't there you havent got your eyes open. In the UK we've had a whole series of cases of women on TV being sidelined as they get older.....not because they were any less good at doing their job, but because there weren't as pretty.

Now ask yourself if this happens to men...

Women get a crap deal the whole world over to a greater or lesser degree.

Like it or not, but beauty is a valuable quality, so obviously everything else being equal, you'd be less valuable if you lack beauty. Same goes for intelligence. While it's a bigger factor for women than men, it does count for both. That is just the way it is (that it counts, not necessarily that it's in different degrees based on your sex).

is it?
It might be the way you and many others see it. But 'the way it is'? Not really.
I know you're a cool guy and nothing to do with fascism, but (provided I'm reading your post correctly) this opens the door to fascims doesn't it?
Are gays less valuable than heteros, too? Losers less valuable than winners? Rich people more valuable than poor people? People who can write more valuable than people who can't write? Deaf people less valuable than non-deaf people?
More valuable to whom?

Gonna have to side with kwikki here and with the decision to close the thread.
Not that it bothered me much (on the contrary). But that's irrelevant. I can see why it bothers others.

 

[Netserk]

That was a quite poor read of my post.


Do you think the human quality that is intelligence is valuable? (In any way?)

 

[sniper]

Re:

That was a quite poor read of my post.


Do you think the human quality that is intelligence is valuable? (In any way?)

yes it is.
And I can enjoy intelligence.
But I can also enjoy the capacity to walk. Or to reproduce. Those are valuable capacities to many, valuable to one's self-esteem, etc.
But I'm still not sure if you can go from that to stating that "you'd be less valuable if you lack" any of those qualities. Again, valuable to whom? To society? To the world? To your parents?

Note also that intelligence is a subjective concept. Does the capacity to write make us more intelligent than illiterate people? Even the importance of fertility/capacity to reproduce is subjective. Infertile women and homosexual men are considered works of the devil in some societies. In said societies, said women and men have a harder time than in other societies.

edit: nota bene, obviously I'm not challenging or even criticizing your right to enjoy pictures of beautiful women. On the contrary. But I find the decision to close the thread quite obvious, too.

 

[kwikki]

Here's a thought...

A lot of women experience sexual harassment on a daily basis, cat calls, sexual suggestions, uninvited touching. I've yet to meet a woman who enjoys it. Most find it annoying, creepy and threatening.

What is it about women that makes men feel they can behave this way, and what do you think it is that contributes, reinforces and validates this attitude?

Don't reply immediately. Let it sink in for a few days.

 

[Netserk]

@sniper

It's quite simple really. If a quality is valuable, then having that quality makes you more valuable. That goes no matter to whom the quality is valuable. If the quality isn't valuable, then you're not more valuable if you have it, which once again applies no matter to whom the quality is non-valuable.

So if I find empathy valuable, then anyone who has that quality is more valuable to me than if they didn't have it.

 

[sniper]

Re:

@sniper

It's quite simple really. If a quality is valuable, then having that quality makes you more valuable. That goes no matter to whom the quality is valuable. If the quality isn't valuable, then you're not more valuable if you have it, which once again applies no matter to whom the quality is non-valuable.

So if I find empathy valuable, then anyone who has that quality is more valuable to me than if they didn't have it.

thats fair enough of course.
The bolded bit is a crucial specification, though, imo. I guess I missed that in the post I replied to (but granted, I could've taken it from context).
That's different from being more valuable in an absolute sense.

 

[Netserk]

Ugh, did you also read the "So if I (...)"

Which means that if it had been "So if you (...)" then what you bolded would have been "to you".

Another example just so you can't miss it:

So if sniper finds intelligence valuable, then anyone who has that quality is more valuable to sniper than if they didn't have it.



I mean for christ sake what did you get out of this sentence? "That goes no matter to whom the quality is valuable"

 

[frenchfry]

Re:

Here's a thought...

A lot of women experience sexual harassment on a daily basis, cat calls, sexual suggestions, uninvited touching. I've yet to meet a woman who enjoys it. Most find it annoying, creepy and threatening.

What is it about women that makes men feel they can behave this way, and what do you think it is that contributes, reinforces and validates this attitude?

Don't reply immediately. Let it sink in for a few days.

I am systematically disturbed when men harass women, even though I have indeed met some women who don't mind this kind of behaviour and sometimes enjoy it (believe it or not). However, the fact that the majority of women find it to be wrong is more than enough reason for men to behave correctly.

Honestly though, I found the BoB thread more to be a promotion of women cycling than objectifying. True, some of the photos were somewhat sexist, but the majority were of real cyclists and I personally didn't find the thread as a whole to be in bad taste.

In any case, I don't see how its disappearance will help to promote women's cycling in any way.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

I used to ask myself, how would I feel if there were a thread of ripped young men in their underwear, especially popular viewing among women? I would think it a little silly, but I would not be offended, nor think it should be removed. But then I realized that’s not a good comparison, because men don’t generally have the problem of being viewed as sex objects by women, certainly not to the extent of the other way around.

A better example might be a thread in which pictures of wealthy, politically or economically powerful men were posted, with the clear implication that their wealth and power makes them more attractive than the average man. I would be offended by this, not so much for its being sexist (though it would be) as for glorifying greed and what I consider a false understanding of genuine power. IOW, it does a disservice to both men and women. I wouldn’t argue that such a thread should be removed, but neither would I object if it were removed.

Like it or not, but beauty is a valuable quality, so obviously everything else being equal, you'd be less valuable if you lack beauty.

The question is, what is beauty? The problem IMO is that when one looks at pictures of women, as opposed to meeting them in the flesh, all one sees are the purely physical aspects, whereas sexual attraction in real life is far more complex. And even the physical features are severely limited. Pictures present a false view of beauty as fixed, static, the same to all beholders, now and always. Missing is the notion that beauty can fluctuate over time, in different situations, to different people, that it’s very much modulated by non-physical features like intelligence, confidence, sense of humor, self-awareness, ease, and on and on and on.

IOW, getting turned on by looking at pictures is not wrong or sinful, it’s simplistic. It’s like trying to learn about complex political or social issues by reading bumper stickers. We all like and probably need simplicity sometimes, it’s a refuge from the crushing complexity of real life, but for many it can become a means of denying the complexity entirely.

Fashion, make-up.... I mean if there ever were a more absolute objectification of women in the history of the world it certainly would be make-up. And yet the vast majority of women, certainly in the western world, wear, you know, make-up.

Absolutely right. But to imply that the popularity of women wearing makeup is a justification for objectification is like saying that the popularity of social drinking is a justification for alcoholism. There’s a very delicate balance between appreciating something and being obsessed with it. And no one has a stronger interest in encouraging obsession than those who make money from it, whether it be the manufacturers of alcoholic drinks or the beauty aids industry.

No one (in Western nations) is arguing that society should ban makeup, any more than we argue for a return to prohibition. But just as alcohol may justifiably be banned in certain times and places and for certain people, so can any practice that arguably does or might be considered by some to objectify women. Again, I'm not saying the thread should have been removed, but I have no problem with the fact that it has.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Did the thread have a photo of Marianne Vos?
If not, why not?

Just kidding of course. But it's clear how some could take offense from it.

@netserk, my only issue was with that one post to which i replied. It sounded absolute, whereas we seem to agree thay physical beauty or intelligence, or the value attributed to them, aren't absolute.

 

[Netserk]

Ofc it's not inherently, absolutely valuable, but given that society as a whole finds beauty/aesthetically pleasing physical appearance a valuable human quality, it's given that in general terms the better you look the more valuable you are. And that is just how the world is, like it or not.

 

[kwikki]

Re:

Ofc it's not inherently, absolutely valuable, but given that society as a whole finds beauty/aesthetically pleasing physical appearance a valuable human quality, it's given that in general terms the better you look the more valuable you are. And that is just how the world is, like it or not.

Oh righto. So that is "just how the world is". That's OK then. And of course, because "that's just how how the world is" means that cultural change is impossible.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Ofc it's not inherently, absolutely valuable, but given that society as a whole finds beauty/aesthetically pleasing physical appearance a valuable human quality, it's given that in general terms the better you look the more valuable you are. And that is just how the world is, like it or not.

But it's not something a public website needs to support or bear out.

 

[RedheadDane]

Here's how I see it.
The thread in itself was good, back when it showed pictures of (good looking) female bike riders, sitting on their bikes and looking like they actually knew what they were doing. It was great because it showed young women who might have been put off by the I'll look stupid mentality that you can ride a bike and still look good.
Unfortunately the thread seemed to degenerate from Babes on Bikes to (half-naked) Babes Posing Awkwardly with Bikes, Looking as if They have no Idea What They're Doing.

Nothing wrong with appreciating a beautiful woman (or man) but you can still appreciate their looks even if they're actually dressed.

 

[Netserk]

Can you show any culture anywhere in the world at any given time where aesthetically pleasing physical appearance wasn't a valuable human quality? Can you actually explain why that quality not only isn't valuable to you, but why it shouldn't be valuable to others?

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

Ofc it's not inherently, absolutely valuable, but given that society as a whole finds beauty/aesthetically pleasing physical appearance a valuable human quality, it's given that in general terms the better you look the more valuable you are. And that is just how the world is, like it or not.

But it's not something a public website needs to support or bear out.

Exactly, which is how you begin the slow path to social change.

When I was a kid, racist jokes on TV shows were normal. That's how the world was, like it or not. It's taken a whole generation of people firmly resisting the idiocy of those that whine about 'political correctness' to enact change to the point that it is now socially unacceptable to treat people like crap just because of the colour of their skin.

It's interesting how immediate the reaction of some men is to the issue of women in society. They react as if THEY are being repressed. Or as if finding a woman beautiful is about to be outlawed. The one thing they don't do is stop and think without the immediate defensiveness.

Sexism (ie. treating women not as equal) is deeply imbued in society, ("it's just the way of the world, like it or not" ). Women's salaries being lower than mens for doing the same job is just one example. It's precisely because the position of women is weaker that comparisons between what men do and what women do are fatuous. It's like white people thinking it is OK to call black people 'N*****' because they hear black people using the word on other black people.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Can you show any culture anywhere in the world at any given time where aesthetically pleasing physical appearance wasn't a valuable human quality? Can you actually explain why that quality not only isn't valuable to you, but why it shouldn't be valuable to others?

I'm increasingly unsure what point you're trying to make wrt the BoB thread.

My point would be roughly like this:
Everyone should be allowed to enjoy what he/she perceives as beautiful, no doubt. But imo no social distinctions should be made, or privileges granted, on the basis of perceived beauty or intelligence. We'd be entering fascist territory. I know such distinctions/privileges are (un)conciously being made/granted all over the globe, but that doesn't mean we/this website should support that. The less the better, imo.
The closing of the BoB is a small but plausible indication of where this website stands in that respect.

@kwikki: good point about racism.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Re: Re:

Like it or not, but beauty is a valuable quality, so obviously everything else being equal, you'd be less valuable if you lack beauty.

The question is, what is beauty? The problem IMO is that when one looks at pictures of women, as opposed to meeting them in the flesh, all one sees are the purely physical aspects, whereas sexual attraction in real life is far more complex. And even the physical features are severely limited. Pictures present a false view of beauty as fixed, static, the same to all beholders, now and always. Missing is the notion that beauty can fluctuate over time, in different situations, to different people, that it’s very much modulated by non-physical features like intelligence, confidence, sense of humor, self-awareness, ease, and on and on and on.

IOW, getting turned on by looking at pictures is not wrong or sinful, it’s simplistic. It’s like trying to learn about complex political or social issues by reading bumper stickers. We all like and probably need simplicity sometimes, it’s a refuge from the crushing complexity of real life, but for many it can become a means of denying the complexity entirely.

+1 very good post

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

I used to ask myself, how would I feel if there were a thread of ripped young men in their underwear, especially popular viewing among women? I would think it a little silly, but I would not be offended, nor think it should be removed. But then I realized that’s not a good comparison, because men don’t generally have the problem of being viewed as sex objects by women, certainly not to the extent of the other way around.

A better example might be a thread in which pictures of wealthy, politically or economically powerful men were posted, with the clear implication that their wealth and power makes them more attractive than the average man. I would be offended by this, not so much for its being sexist (though it would be) as for glorifying greed and what I consider a false understanding of genuine power. IOW, it does a disservice to both men and women. I wouldn’t argue that such a thread should be removed, but neither would I object if it were removed.

Like it or not, but beauty is a valuable quality, so obviously everything else being equal, you'd be less valuable if you lack beauty.

The question is, what is beauty? The problem IMO is that when one looks at pictures of women, as opposed to meeting them in the flesh, all one sees are the purely physical aspects, whereas sexual attraction in real life is far more complex. And even the physical features are severely limited. Pictures present a false view of beauty as fixed, static, the same to all beholders, now and always. Missing is the notion that beauty can fluctuate over time, in different situations, to different people, that it’s very much modulated by non-physical features like intelligence, confidence, sense of humor, self-awareness, ease, and on and on and on.

IOW, getting turned on by looking at pictures is not wrong or sinful, it’s simplistic. It’s like trying to learn about complex political or social issues by reading bumper stickers. We all like and probably need simplicity sometimes, it’s a refuge from the crushing complexity of real life, but for many it can become a means of denying the complexity entirely.

Fashion, make-up.... I mean if there ever were a more absolute objectification of women in the history of the world it certainly would be make-up. And yet the vast majority of women, certainly in the western world, wear, you know, make-up.

Absolutely right. But to imply that the popularity of women wearing makeup is a justification for objectification is like saying that the popularity of social drinking is a justification for alcoholism. There’s a very delicate balance between appreciating something and being obsessed with it. And no one has a stronger interest in encouraging obsession than those who make money from it, whether it be the manufacturers of alcoholic drinks or the beauty aids industry.

No one (in Western nations) is arguing that society should ban makeup, any more than we argue for a return to prohibition. But just as alcohol may justifiably be banned in certain times and places and for certain people, so can any practice that arguably does or might be considered by some to objectify women. Again, I'm not saying the thread should have been removed, but I have no problem with the fact that it has.

I'm not suggesting women who wear make up are inviting objectification. And you are right, there's a delicate balance.

All one has to do is look at what's available to women (and men) regarding self-image.... from medical procedures to simple fingernail polish... and then one begins to realize the only thing worse than too much attention is not enough.

 

[kwikki]

And then you start to realise the difference between what men and women have to do in order to gain attention (in a man's world).

Then you think about why, and about all the cultural mechanisms that reinforce it.

Then you think about what you might be able to do in order to contribute to change. It might not be much you can do, but it all starts with an honest and non-defensive appraisal of one's own attitudes and the forces behind them.

Put it this way, I hold staggeringly different views on this subject to the ones I held even five years ago.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

Ofc it's not inherently, absolutely valuable, but given that society as a whole finds beauty/aesthetically pleasing physical appearance a valuable human quality, it's given that in general terms the better you look the more valuable you are. And that is just how the world is, like it or not.

But it's not something a public website needs to support or bear out.

Exactly, which is how you begin the slow path to social change.

When I was a kid, racist jokes on TV shows were normal. That's how the world was, like it or not. It's taken a whole generation of people firmly resisting the idiocy of those that whine about 'political correctness' to enact change to the point that it is now socially unacceptable to treat people like crap just because of the colour of their skin.

It's interesting how immediate the reaction of some men is to the issue of women in society. They react as if THEY are being repressed. Or as if finding a woman beautiful is about to be outlawed. The one thing they don't do is stop and think without the immediate defensiveness.

Sexism (ie. treating women not as equal) is deeply imbued in society, ("it's just the way of the world, like it or not" ). Women's salaries being lower than mens for doing the same job is just one example. It's precisely because the position of women is weaker that comparisons between what men do and what women do are fatuous. It's like white people thinking it is OK to call black people 'N*****' because they hear black people using the word on other black people.

You are off in the weeds.

If the social change you are looking for requires the undoing of perfectly natural responses between the sexes then you will be left wanting.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re:

And then you start to realise the difference between what men and women have to do in order to gain attention (in a man's world).

Then you think about why, and about all the cultural mechanisms that reinforce it.

Then you think about what you might be able to do in order to contribute to change. It might not be much you can do, but it all starts with an honest and non-defensive appraisal of one's own attitudes and the forces behind them.

Put it this way, I hold staggeringly different views on this subject to the ones I held even five years ago.

Image enhancement goes back at least as far as ancient Egyptian times.

Ask ten women to put down their lip gloss and see how far that gets you.

 

[kwikki]

It's not about what women do. It's about what YOU do.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

And then you start to realise the difference between what men and women have to do in order to gain attention (in a man's world).

Then you think about why, and about all the cultural mechanisms that reinforce it.

Then you think about what you might be able to do in order to contribute to change. It might not be much you can do, but it all starts with an honest and non-defensive appraisal of one's own attitudes and the forces behind them.

Put it this way, I hold staggeringly different views on this subject to the ones I held even five years ago.

Image enhancement goes back at least as far as ancient Egyptian times.

Ask ten women to put down their lip gloss and see how far that gets you.

I think we can all agree that there is a positive correlation between the rise of MTV culture and the sexualization of (young) women in the US on the on the hand, and the rise of plastic surgery on the other, even though technology improvement obviously plays a big role there, too.

The BoB thread was a very tiny, futile, almost negligible, contribution to the promotion of that mtv culture, viz. to the sexualization of (young) women. Futile, but it was still a contribution, and so closing it seems like the right thing to do. It's of course nothing but a drop of water on a hot plate. But it's still a drop.

 

[kwikki]

The closure has sparked a debate that is (attempting) to at least question some entrenched views.