Originally posted by Neil Young
View Post
You guys can all convince yourselves that everything's all right, that you're all totally non-sexist, that you don't lazily objectify women and that all you want is the same right to, er, objectify women as they sometimes seem to have when talking about blokes they fancy because, as we all know, equality for women is all in the mind and the lack of it is not at all a continuing issue in the world today.
You can tell yourselves that your immediate reactions to the news of Sharon Tuff's appointment, her arrival in your world, is no different to how you'd react if it had been a man appointed.
You can all be up in arms when there's even a hint that someone has - no doubt deliberately - mistaken your gentle humour for something with a less appealing undertone.
You can huff and puff about people being on their high horses when the humourless *******s dare to call you out on your banter denigrating a woman's appearance rather than anything to do with her ability to do the job, just like you all doubtless immediately called John Henry a speccy **** and Tom Werner a fat tosser rather than concentrating on their money and connections and business records and of course everyone here immediately said Linda Pizzuti must have a lot of good qualities and no one ever obsessed solely about the way she looks.
And who knows, maybe you'd even be right about all that.
But whether or not that's true, what puzzles me is if you're so affronted to be told that, er, maybe this sort of banter isn't quite the innocent, harmless fun you all believe it to be, why are you so keen to shoot at the people suggesting it might be a good idea to tone it down? Don't you think it could be worth considering that they might actually have a point? I mean, if you're all so enthusiastic to defend your non-sexist credentials then maybe, just maybe, it would be worth being cautious about immediately judging a woman on her looks...
You can tell yourselves that your immediate reactions to the news of Sharon Tuff's appointment, her arrival in your world, is no different to how you'd react if it had been a man appointed.
You can all be up in arms when there's even a hint that someone has - no doubt deliberately - mistaken your gentle humour for something with a less appealing undertone.
You can huff and puff about people being on their high horses when the humourless *******s dare to call you out on your banter denigrating a woman's appearance rather than anything to do with her ability to do the job, just like you all doubtless immediately called John Henry a speccy **** and Tom Werner a fat tosser rather than concentrating on their money and connections and business records and of course everyone here immediately said Linda Pizzuti must have a lot of good qualities and no one ever obsessed solely about the way she looks.
And who knows, maybe you'd even be right about all that.
But whether or not that's true, what puzzles me is if you're so affronted to be told that, er, maybe this sort of banter isn't quite the innocent, harmless fun you all believe it to be, why are you so keen to shoot at the people suggesting it might be a good idea to tone it down? Don't you think it could be worth considering that they might actually have a point? I mean, if you're all so enthusiastic to defend your non-sexist credentials then maybe, just maybe, it would be worth being cautious about immediately judging a woman on her looks...
Comment