What The… This Is Not Okay
I was just listening to Al Mascitti on WDEL and this happened.
A song was playing in the background and Al asked if the song was by Nicki Minaj and Gary Mullinax said something along the line that she wasn’t the only one who “slutted” it up this week.
WTF?
He then went on to say that new feminism = whatever women want to do. I’m sorry, does Gary have a list of what women shouldn’t do? (It seems he does)
Earlier he went after domestic violence victims – pretty much saying that only poor women can be abused, because, you know, Rhianna is rich. (For reasons why the abused don’t leave the abuser watch this video – pay careful attention at the 11 minute mark – Gary, you need to watch the entire video. But I’m sure this woman’s story won’t count in Gary’s eyes because she was successful – and should have known better.)
And this isn’t the first time he’s crossed the line. A while ago he went after Lorde’s looks – a 17 year old child. She wasn’t pretty enough for him. And that’s really creepy.
Nothing like listening to an old man talk about sluts. Can we stop pretending that Gary Mullinax is the Minister of Culture. He’s not. He’s an old man telling kids today to get off his lawn – and focusing pretty much on girl kids. And Jason330 pointed this out in 2009. Good going, J!
Seriously, Gary Mullinax, clean up your act – or get off the air.
Tags: Gary Mullinax, sexism, WDEL
Yes, I agree.
Unfortunately, hashing out the details of what some celebrity looks like or spinning up the shouldas and couldas regarding some celebrity’s brush with the law passes for Culture Discussion in too many parts of the USA. I suspect that if you are buying those magazines at the grocery checkout counter or you are hanging out at TMZ or Perez Hilton, then this is the culture that appeals to you.
Nothing like listening to an old man talk about sluts.
Now you’ve done it.
Looking for my helmet and digging a foxhole for when they start coming after you.
I’m ready! Bring it. I’m sure Gary Mullinax can defend his statements… right?
The station gets regular complaints about some guy who makes fun of Mexicans, too.
I actually have a problem with that as well – unless you’re using that as an excuse for Mullinax’s misogynistic behavior? Sorta like, hey, we offend all over the place! But we can multitask, right? El Som should drop the accent and Mullinax should drop the sexist crap. See? We can do both!
I realize what asking this question LOOKS like… it probably looks like im trying to agree with Mullinax, or support slut-shaming. I am not.
How would you (any woman on this blog) characterize the latest filth (from a musical/artistic standpoint) released by Nicki Minaj?
I saw a video where the entire thing was overdubbed with fart-noises…. VERY hilarious to my 12 year old boy sense of humor. (i dont have a 12 year old, rather the sense of humor of a 12 year old)
… BUT it is about 4 minutes of slow-motion twerking/ dancing that seems to be meant to be taken as “suggestive”. Might not be. Not my place to assume that clothing barely acceptable for cable and sex-like body motions means the video is meant to arouse or make people think of sex.
We know that “slutting it up” is the WRONG way to describe it, I want to shut up and listen to the proper way.
Well, yes, there’s plenty of offensiveness to go around, and soft-core porn videos being fobbed off as music videos come in for fairly regular thrashings. I prefer music be presented as music, and porn presented as porn. My point above was that tongue-in-cheek comments about “slutty” behavior no more indicate true misogyny on Gary’s part than a fake accent indicates El Som is actually a racist.
I only have a vague idea of who Nicki Manaj even is, but I’ll say this. It’s my understanding that she’s in entertainment. The business of show. I have no idea how what she does for a living translates into a personal insult.
It’s acting in a video to make money. How skimpy the costume is or what movements somebody makes in a music video or TV show or film or concert… or even if you get hard-on is basically irrevelant to whether a person is a “slut” – whatever that means. Is every actor who’s done a sex scene in a film or in the theatre promiscuous?
This may come as news to some people, but these entertainers and actors and musicians and artist and comedians… we don’t know them. We consumer their art and their perfomances (low brow as they may be sometimes).
On the other hand, apparently this disembodied voice on WDEL said she was “slutting it up” and didn’t make any statement about the person. So maybe she did slut it up. She entitled to dowhatever she wantes to do. Perhaps this guy on the radio mysogynied it up… or male piggied it up or whatever.
I see where you’re coming from, P. Just be careful about being the PC police.
I’m really confused. Wasn’t “women doing whatever they want to do” the whole reason for the marches in the ’60’s. I “kinda” take in his remarks that finally we have “kinda” arrived. After all, men have been doing whatever they wanted to do since Eve.
If a women wants to be a slut, (is there a better word?) I think she should be a slut. Heaven knows, there certainly is a market for them out there. Compare that to a man who is a philanderer.
On the other hand if a woman wants to be a great mom, she should be a great mom. Compare that to a great father on “Leave it To Beaver.”
If a woman wants to be a nun, she should be a nun. Heaven and Earth both know, we can always use more Mother Theresas…
I think that with feminism, that the choices now available are unlimited… and that is a good thing. Women are not blocked from going into what used to be a man’s field. I think that women have found their place finally, a world that even lets them go into combat, if that is what they really want… Furthermore I think all society is healthier when it allows everyone to pursue their own individual dreams, and allow all us us to give our all to a cause we want to put our efforts into….
In fact, the role for women is now more defined than ever… something men don’t really have right now.. Just asking. What is the role of a man in a world where he no longer has to be sole breadwinner, protector, and patriarch of his family? They are the ones deserving sympathy now.. They are completely lost it seems.
True, there are still bastions of maleness and male dominance. But today, they are only just bastions and not permeating the entire culture. They may linger, or may erode entirely. Just as there are bastions of femaleness where bonds are hard to share among men even today.. Breastfeeding, ovary cancer, birth, are three that jumped into mind where women can share better with other women than they do with men…
I think what you overheard on the radio was the male equivalent of females discussing breast feeding.. Males do pick up their ears and heartbeat when someone masquerading as what our mom’s used to call “sluts” jaunts across a stage… so I think it is too much to castigate men for saying such, especially on a show men listen too…
I characterize the remark as quaint. I think it more defines the outlook of today’s middle aged man, who supported feminism in his youth, and now must reap what he sowed.
Perhaps too much was read into the remark… But it is a chance to open discussion and opening discussion usually brings light to a problem…
I believe the subject under discussion was the JLo video with Iggy Azalea, which consists of nothing but the two women writhing or gyrating in what look to be single-piece bathing suits cut high on the hip.
“Slutty” is not really the word for it. It’s just soft porn, like Robin Thicke’s rapey-rape song and video. I suppose that if you cut Robin Thicke out of his video, it could be viewed as empowering to women instead of degrading. Either way, selling sex as music has horribly degraded music.
Selling sex as music isn’t new. Hello, Elvis’ pelvis.
Kavips, I’m trying to figure out what you’re saying, but it seems what you’re saying is that women have it made and men are now the victims. And I find your definition of masculinity (bread winner, protector and patriarch) extremely limiting. Not to mention all three traits require a woman’s presence to exist.
Several of you have asked for another/better way of describing “slutting it up” behavior. I don’t have one – mainly because the word is used to encompass a ton of female behavior, depending on whether the user of the word approves/disapproves of the woman. Women we like aren’t sluts. Women we don’t like are. The word isn’t an adjective or a noun. It’s a weapon.
“slut” and “slutting” (despite feminist attempts to reclaim the word that are similar to African-American attempts to reclaim the “n” word) have their genesis in language intentionally designed to degrade women; to make female sexual activity seem sordid and cheap; to control how women perceive their own bodies and their own sexuality; and–most important–to control and punish women who refuse to accept those boundaries.
There is no male equivalent term because society in general has not felt a need make male sexual activity (at least heterosexual activity) seem sordid and cheap; or to control men’s bodies, etc. etc.
The reason I object to Dorian’s invocation of “political correctness” here is twofold: (a) the use of the term “slut” represents a form of male-dominated PC already in existence; if you object to language that objectifies and demeans women, then you are the “PC police,” but if you accept and insist upon language that objectifies and demeans women you are somehow standing up for intellectual freedom; and (b) because there are always fights over language; they only become PC when people try to enforce formal, legalized speech codes to prohibit them.
What pandora did was call him out on it. The only way the word “nigger” (yep, I’ll use it here) went out of public parlance was not legislative, it was when enough people refused to accept it as public discourse and started challenging it around water coolers, in bars, in schools, and (yep) on radio stations.
If the only defense for the inability of somebody making their living as a communicator to come up with a different word for cheaply sexualizing behavior is to chide their critic about becoming the PC police, then yes Houston there’s a problem.
I wouldn’t mind if all of the pop entertainment press went away altogether. What is the point of tawdry gossip media if you have to police it.
Comment threads discussing feminist issues have been more depressing than normal lately. But *fistbump* Steve Newton
I want to be a slut nun who’s a great mom. I can have it all!!
“Selling sex as music isn’t new. Hello, Elvis’ pelvis.”
I didn’t like Elvis, either.
There is no male equivalent term (for slut)…
It is all about supply and demand (and supplying the demand). I bet if we poll our gay friends we will find there is a term. I would like to know too.
Also, there is also no female equivalent term for “cad.” That fact goes deep into stereotyped gender roles.
“to make female sexual activity seem sordid and cheap;”
Yep. Seen the video? It doesn’t make female sexuality SEEM cheap; it actually cheapens it, right down to $1.29. In hope of selling a song, JLo will give you a virtual lap dance.
“If the only defense for the inability of somebody making their living as a communicator to come up with a different word for cheaply sexualizing behavior is to chide their critic about becoming the PC police, then yes Houston there’s a problem.”
And the problem would be…? And the other word would be…?
I found it objectionable when Robin Thicke did it, and I find it objectable that JLo is doing it. Just because we don’t have a pejorative term for Robin Thicke’s behavior doesn’t mean it wasn’t disgusting, and it doesn’t stop me from saying so.
I also admit that I don’t quite get why women are being objectified in the Robin Thicke video but empowering themselves in the JLo video. When women objectify themselves, they are still objects.
“It is all about supply and demand (and supplying the demand).”
Not only that. Men can’t get pregnant.
It is all about supply and demand (and supplying the demand).
Care to unpack that one for us, puck?
It seems to say that “It is all about women supplying sex and men demanding it (and the women[sluts] who are supplying the demand).”
But I can’t possibly have that right, can I?
So exactly WTF DOES it mean?
Oh for fuck’s sake, stop arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!
Gary Mullinax, the most liberal man in DE, made a comment that some of you didn’t like.
Get over his comment. He is not the enemy.
Please read “Bossypants” by Tina Fey. She addresses this very issue in her book.
Geezer, I think you are confusing my point. You may still disagree with me, but I’d at least like us to know what the disagreement is about.
I don’t care about what was on the video. I really don’t.
What I care about here is the use of the word “slut” or “slutty” as descriptive and/or condemnatory. The term(s) are a shorthand for “this is how women shouldn’t (be allowed to) act”; “only sluts (not good girls or appropriate girls) act this way”; “‘slutty’ is any form of sexual behavior I personally object to, and I am declaring that it’s off limits for respectable women”
Sorry but I see a continuum straight from “slutty” to “legitimate rape.”
I am old enough to remember (and I bet you are, too) variations on “you can’t rape the willing” which also had the variant “you can’t rape a slut” (because she’s always willing, or should be).
puck’s comment is perfect in this regard: Sex is something that women “supply” and not something that consenting people do together. A woman’s vagina, mouth, or anus represents a product subject to “supply and demand”–not her body and her property with boundaries and usages that she and only she gets to determine.
Ugh.
Comments like Steve Newton’s are the reason I’m not a Democrat.
Newton equates a TRASHY music video to “legitimate rape.”
There is no such thing as legitimate rape. Rape is rape. Nothing can legitimize rape.
Would anyone reading this want their daughter to dress or behave like JLo or Iggy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm27IaKRvcc
Newton equates a TRASHY music video to “legitimate rape.”
No he didn’t. This is what he said:
Sorry but I see a continuum straight from “slutty” to “legitimate rape.”
Steve’s point is specifically about how female sexuality is often used to treat those same females as less than human. He even said he didn’t care about the video. It might be a trashy video, but there is a fair distance between talking about these ladies “slutting it up” and the degrading of music by trying to sell the sex first.
I just packed my “A” sweatshirt for the Goodwill.
Steve had a point?
If he did, it sailed over my head.
Let me ask one question to the group:
If a man you knew REPEATEDLY stole from you and/or your acquaintances, would you label him a THIEF?
“If a man you knew REPEATEDLY stole from you and/or your acquaintances, would you label him a THIEF?”
Meaning: If a woman you knew REPEATEDLY had sex with you and/or your acquaintances, would you label her a SLUT?
Answer: Nope
Know what’s interesting? Those citing the video have no idea what these women’s sex lives are like… yet they seem okay with the term “slut/slutted it up” being applied.
And I can’t even wrap my head around the supply and demand comment. What does that mean?
Ms. Pandora-
What would you label a person who has habitually stolen from you and others?
You’ve got some kind of weird stick up your ass. I have no idea what their sex lives are like, and I don’t care. It’s not about sex, it’s about waving asses in the camera. I’m talking about the product they put on the market, in which they slut it up. Nobody said they were sluts. They were behaving like sluts — well, actually, like whores; they sell their bodies.
You’re offended at this description? Complain to management. That’s what censoring liberals always do.
@LeBay: I don’t care if my daughter acts or dresses this way. I wouldn’t care about these women acting this way in private, either. I object to the coarseness marketers employ to sell via sex these days. I object to women “empowering” themselves by filming near-sex and using that hot button to sell crap to men. I object to all marketing and entertainment that relies on pushing the hot buttons of sex and violence, because the human response to them occurs on both conscious and subconscious levels. And I object to whining from women when these things are pointed out. Can’t take the heat, stay off the porn set.
I’m serious, feminists. Why is it empowering when Robin Thicke isn’t on the screen, but exploitative when he is?
I haven’t called for censorship (but that’s always the go to claim whenever topics like this come up). I’ve simply called out people using the word. He has a right to say it and I have a right to criticize it. Free speech doesn’t mean free from criticism.
I also haven’t read where anyone is claiming that video is empowering, but I’m sure someone on the internet did.
As far as Robin Thicke… one of the biggest problems with that song was the lyrics. The video was ridiculous – near naked women and fully clothed men. (And ridiculous is how I would describe the JLo and Nicki Minaj videos) But the real explosion came during the award show when the country collectively had a fit over Miley Cyrus, not Robin Thicke.
But this isn’t about the video – no matter how hard people try and make it so. And I’ll point out that I never mentioned the video in my post. But it seems like people are saying, “Hey, we wouldn’t have to use the word slutted if they hadn’t made the video. If they don’t want to be called a slut, whore, etc. then they’ll need to change their behavior.”
I’ll also point out that no one has addressed the statements made about Rhinanna and previously about Lorde.
I’m talking about the product they put on the market, in which they slut it up. Nobody said they were sluts. They were behaving like sluts — well, actually, like whores; they sell their bodies.
So what is the definition of “slut” you’re using? By what behavior does a woman qualify as a slut?
You’re offended at this description? Complain to management. That’s what censoring liberals always do.
Ironically, nobody here called for censorship of the description. And complaining loudly that they were behaving like sluts about a video is actually a parallel behavior to that which you are criticizing pandora (and me) for. Your point may have been good (don’t know; haven’t seen the videos) but your language reduced your criticism to somewhere near their level instead of making you the 21st Century’s H. L. Mencken.
What would you label a person who has habitually stolen from you and others?
The 1%
@Pandora et al: Calling for someone to “clean up his act — or get off the air” certainly is a call for censorship.
@Steve: Know it when I see it. You do, too.
@geezer: that’s an idiotic argument and you know it. Stating an opinion that somebody should get off the air is a far cry from censorship–just as your stating the opinion that the videos in question are revolting, degrading, demeaning, sleazy, gratuitous, disgusting (see? there are other adjectives available), which implies that they don’t have a place in a civil, respectable society is actually CLOSER to a call for censorship than anything she said. And definitely employing the term “slutty” as a loose synonym for “beyond the pale” is a hell of a lot closer to calling for censorship.
Pot. Kettle.
And taking the coward’s way out once you doubled down on “slut” and “slutty” by refusing to provide a definition is OK–just don’t expect to get away without being called on it.
Oh puhleeze. I was calling for him to police himself. I didn’t call the station to complain or organize a boycott. I directed that comment directly to him, not WDEL. But I get why you need to push this narrative rather than dealing with what I actually said.
It seems certain men (and women) are very attached to these words, and why wouldn’t they be? They’re very effective at shutting the conversation down. There isn’t much to discuss after saying someone slutted it up.
And why isn’t anyone addressing the domestic violence BS or the comment over Lorde’s looks? Surely there’s an excuse for these statements?
And you know what when you see it? Please answer Steve’s question. Define slut. Because from where I’m sitting the definition of that word relies solely on the user’s discretion – or lack of discretion. The woman wearing a mini skirt, the girl talking with a boy at their locker, the girl/woman who said “no” to a date, the woman in front of “you” at Walgreens buying condoms or BC pills, the woman who broke up with you, the one who ordered another drink, etc. Like I said… this word is a weapon. And I intend to call it out every time I hear it.
@Steve: Sorry, but bullshit. None of the words you used means the same thing, and you also failed to define them. There’s a dictionary definition of the word. It might not have been employed correctly — as I noted, the correct word for selling sex is “whoring” — but it comes close enough to suit the purpose. Stick your barely-clad ass in my face in an effort to sell me something, and I’ll call you a whore, too.
@Pandora: I think Lorde looks like a newt, and no child of mine would be pimped out at 16 for any profession, let alone touring musician.
I don’t use the word slut, except in air quotes, just as I don’t use “bitch.” I find “asshole” works better than “bitch,” and I think “whore” works better than “slut.” But that’s just me.
“But this isn’t about the video – no matter how hard people try and make it so.”
Wrong again. It was precisely about the video, no matter how hard you try to make it about something else.
I’m still puzzling over this bit of sophistry:
“Stating an opinion that somebody should get off the air is a far cry from censorship”
She stated that he should stop using a word she doesn’t like. She is attempting to get him to censor himself. That’s the definition of the word: Censorship is any attempt to stop people from saying something, and that includes the successful vilification of the n-bomb.
“–just as your stating the opinion that the videos in question are revolting, degrading, demeaning, sleazy, gratuitous, disgusting (see? there are other adjectives available),”
You left out “tawdry,” which might be the best descriptor, but the videos also can be described, not inaccurately, as “slutty.” I didn’t employ the word myself, but I don’t find it in error — except, of course, for my already stated belief that by using their sexuality to sell themselves, they are whores. Sluts, as I understand it, don’t charge. Of course, the video is freely available, so I suppose one could see it as giving it away for free, in which case it’s slutty. There is no real participatory sex involved on the part of the singers, though there’s more than a hint of homoeroticism between the women; many of the viewers, on the other hand, might be self-pleasuring. So I suppose this one’s in a gray area.
“which implies that they don’t have a place in a civil, respectable society is actually CLOSER to a call for censorship than anything she said.”
Whoa there, sport. I implied nothing. You inferred it, just as this whole post started with Pandora not hearing the air quotes around “slutting it up.” I said nothing about it having a place in a civil, respectable society — I’ve never seen or heard of such a society, so why would I be implying such a thing? I don’t even have any objection to a woman earning a living through her sexuality. My only complaint is that sex is being sold as music. And if you haven’t seen the video, then you really aren’t going to understand the point. Elvis wore pants.
But the point about what I allegedly implied is a valid one. Yes, “slutty” is a more emotionally charged and connotation-laden word than “tawdry” is, which is, I’m guessing, why Gary (sarcastically) employed it. It’s an attention-getting word, and as surprising as some might find it, that’s valuable in the media.
Look, I have friends; you have cronies. I have plans; you have schemes. The list goes on forever, but I’ll concede, no positive alternative to “slut” springs to my mind.
Regardless, allow me to suggest the word “slutty” isn’t the real issue. The real issue is the view of sexuality.
Pandora thinks the word was employed to shame females about their sexuality. She’s entitled to her opinion, but as she doesn’t know the actual intent, her opinion, unlike some opinions, has the capacity to be wrong.
My view of sexuality, male and female, is that it’s morally unacceptable to use sex to sell anything but sex. The fact that nobody but me accepts this rule is immaterial, that’s my opinion and I’m sticking with it. From my standpoint, everyone involved in this, from the record company down to the janitor, helped to “slut it up.”
HBO slutted up “The Sopranos” in its early days with lots of scenes set in a strip club. I’m socially aware enough to realize that women working in strip clubs are not sluts, they’re most often women in financial straits. But a pole dance is “slutting it up,” even if it’s performed by prudes.
Some media outlets still refuse to allow use of the word “sucks” because it can be applied to a sex act; therefore it implies that something “sucks dick.” (Why that should be considered a negative is instructive in itself — one could probably boil down all human interactions to the supposed superiority of the penetrator and inferiority of the penetrated in mammalian copulatory behavior.) Yet I hear kids with single-digit ages use the word all the time (the word “gay,” too, as an insult), with no idea of its derivation.
In the same way, “slutting it up” doesn’t literally mean “participating in an orgy.” Gary employed it as a euphemism for “presenting her buttocks and pubis to the camera in a sexually suggestive way.”
But why are we arguing about words? Just as banning the n-bomb from public discourse did nothing to deter racism — indeed, it gave racists an idiotic arrow for their quivers — you’ll have to explain why describing slutty behavior as slutty behavior is a societal ill more worthy of your notice than the objectification of women, even if it’s self-objectification, for purposes of commerce.
Well said! Of course I tend to use terms like “sexually suggestive” rather than slut, because I try to avoid pejorative labels. But the sentiment is pretty much the same. I think that’s where negative feelings come from though – the use of pejorative labels. I typically don’t use the term “liberal” because not only is it not very descriptive (many so-called liberals are very conservative in many aspects of their lives) but also because the whack jobs mean it as an insult. Yeah, yeah I make an exception for the RWNJs. I know that’s a label but honestly, it fits and they are and I mean it as an insult.
So if whatshisface had said along the lines “she wasn’t the only one who was sexually suggestive this week,” it would been accurate description, but not pejorative, nor would he have verbized a noun, which is what caused all the comments because he would have essentially said she/they were sluts.
Pandora-
>If a man you knew REPEATEDLY stole from you and/or your acquaintances, would you label him a THIEF?”
Meaning: If a woman you knew REPEATEDLY had sex with you and/or your acquaintances, would you label her a SLUT?
Answer: Nope
So what would you call him?
Your question is ridiculous, but I’ll play along.
If a man I knew repeatedly stole from me and/or my acquaintances I would first assume that this person is in my life somehow – since I’m still associating with them. So maybe they have mental problems? But I know you want me to call them a thief. Ok, they’re a thief.
And now you’ll cry “Gotcha!” But that only works if we accept that you view women who have sex with different partners as sluts rather than women who enjoy sex.
You seem to think women who like and participate in lots of sex are shameful (and need to be shamed for their behavior by assigning them a derogatory term), instead of women who enjoy sex. Why is that? Why would you apply the slut label to a woman who has lots of sex? Because that’s what you’re doing. You’re saying a woman who has lots of sex is a slut. That’s really your sexual issue, not the woman’s.
Regardless, allow me to suggest the word “slutty” isn’t the real issue. The real issue is the view of sexuality.
Which then goes on to make the argument that disapproving elders have made about R&B, Rock & Roll and Hip Hop since forever. Chuck Berry and Little Richard (and others) had their sexuality condemned because it was part of the narrative of making sure that black men continued to be seen as dangerous. Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis, and “Are You Experienced” and album jackets with working jeans zippers and (you can fill in more) and modern rock & roll, R&B and HipHop could be pretty explicitly sexual with pretty sexual performances by its (mostly) male stars. And while there could be plenty of clutching of pearls by those who just object to the sex, what almost NEVER gets lost in the discussion is these artists’ creative agency. Mick Jagger wagging his tongue and strutting around a stage in *very* tight pants singing about sex with african amercian slaves doesn’t raise much of an eyebrow. We expect to talk about these guy’s *music* and the rest is a sideshow — part of the selling of rock and roll. Misogyny and objectification of women in hip hop are certainly bypassed to get to a discussion of the music — although there is a steady set of voices that are objecting to the misogyny.
For women, we want to talk about how they look, how they present themselves, how they are selling their music rather than talk about the music. For men, we’ll talk about the music and deal with the rest as an asterisk. To use the Sopranos example, no one talked about this show “slutting it up” because there were scenes taking place inside of a strip club. Most folks saw that as a one more bit of character development for Tony and his crew. It was just one more sleazy way the Sopranos guys made their money off of other people.
I think I may have heard 2 Iggy Azalea songs and this music is not my thing. And whether or not JLo is shaking her behind in front of a camera isn’t especially material to the music — and if the music won’t get anywhere without a provocative video, then we have the beginnings of a conversation that still keeps the creative agency of these women front and center. But provocative has a very long history in recent pop music and it is quite the double standard to judge a woman’s music by how provocative she is while not doing the exact same for men working the same provocative line.
Music is much better without video of any kind.
” it is quite the double standard to judge a woman’s music by how provocative she is while not doing the exact same for men working the same provocative line.”
True. And I suppose that’s partially because of the so-called pedestal women have historically had to have to sit on (sex is dirty, men are pigs, so it’s expected, but for women it’s a big no no).
“Music is much better without video of any kind.”
Also true. But the videos aren’t really about music. It’s a performance and the point is the performance not the music. It sort of begs the question of whether there are limits to performance art. Some may sneer at music videos as performance art, but that’s what they really are and we expect artists to push boundaries. The fact that there are criticisms about the performance demonstrates that they are pushing the envelope. All part of an evolving society (hopefully evolving to a better place), but music/art has always evoked consternation about scandalous behavior, corruption of our youth and the general degradation and decay of society. Yet, we seem to persevere somehow. We survived Elvis. I imagine we’ll also get through the booty crisis in one piece.
Nonsense. Male singers brag about their sexual prowess, they don’t advertise their sexual availability, for the simple reason that their sexual availability is presumed. They brag about this not to attract women, but to intimidate men. Perhaps JLo undertook this exercise — you still haven’t watched the video, have you? — as a way to brag to women about how her body looks at her age, hence the juxtaposition with a woman 20 years her junior — but it also is standard in many forms of “music” for women to position themselves as available, for the simple reason that it’s the easiest way to attract a male audience.
Men and women aren’t the same. I don’t care a fig about the music. I care about the use of sex to sell everything. If you don’t think that the treatment of women in this society is not related to it, you’re really not up to this conversation.
I should, instead of being snippy, better explain what I’m trying to say.
My contention is that the violence against women is fueled by many things, not least the fact that sex is used to sell virtually everything in our consumer society.
Look around you. Every product men might use, except OTC hemorrhoid ointment, uses images of women in advertising, for the simple reason that men are visually oriented and can be counted upon to redirect their gaze to an attractive woman (generally speaking, of course) whenever one is presented to them.
For much of our history, these facts have been used by men to ensnare other men. Now women like JLo cut out the middleman and market their own sexuality — they objectify themselves, which by my count still leaves them objectified.
I have never said the video should be banned. I am being descriptive, not proscriptive. Pandora did not like a word used as a descriptor. I am saying that the word was, in my opinion, justified. Others seem to be saying that use of the word is never justified, a position I oppose, no matter what the word.
Making words taboo seems to give lots of people a warm glow; I don’t get the point. The words can change, but if the ideas and situations remain unchanged, so what does changing the words matter? We have all but banned the N-bomb, at least for whites. So what? Does that help Michael Brown, or the thousands like him, at all? Don’t you think the racist Missouri cops have different terms they use for “the black community” that means the same thing? Because I guarantee they don’t call it “the black community.”
I understand that framing discussions, and therefore demanding use of specific language, is a goal in discourse. I refuse to accept that limitation on any person’s self-expression, particularly in what I consider a misguided attempt at world betterment.
I refuse to accept that limitation on any person’s self-expression, particularly in what I consider a misguided attempt at world betterment.
Which is pretty easy for someone to claim whose world or being isn’t being diminished or dehumanized by such language.
Yeah, I’ll weep for JLo.
You’ll never find me calling for censorship. Never. Your opinion may differ.
And now you’ll have to explain how your world was diminished by the use of the term on a local talk show.
Furthermore, if the issue was the word, why was it couched in a personal attack? The smugness is strong in this one.
I’m listening to Al Mascitti right now and… oh my. He’s quite defensive. So much so that he steamrolled right over his last caller – pretty much refusing to allow that caller to finish a flippin’ sentence. I’m thinking of just calling victory because he’s lost his mind over this.
I was going to call in, but his behavior towards his last caller tells me that he’s not interested in a discussion.
Here’s his argument: What do you call a woman who presents her anus and pubis? Well… what does Al call a man who does the same thing? And men do do this.
And he’s shifting the conversation. I never mentioned a video, but that’s the course he’s chosen.
Oh, for christ’s sake… this isn’t about censorship, but I get why he’s going there. It’s all he’s got. And he’s obviously getting heat on this. If he wasn’t he wouldn’t be – dare I say it? – hysterical. 😉
Interesting how proud you are about not getting what I’m saying.
So let me point out that you’re pretending to be a moron. If you weren’t a moron, you’d know the difference between a noun and and adjective — but I get that you can’t follow the argument. Thanks for reaffirming it.
The only heat is from assholes like you — oh, wait, just you. You never mentioned the video, which is why you have no valid opinion: You have no idea what we were talking about. You just knee-jerk reacted to a word. Shows how shallow you are.
And again, if this was about the concepts, why was it couched in a personal attack?
You’ve got nothing. You don’t like the word slut. Boo-hoo.
If I had nothing you wouldn’t be talking about this on your show and defending yourself and Gary. And it’s interesting how people that agree with you have been allowed to finish a sentence.
” Well… what does Al call a man who does the same thing? And men do do this.’
REally? Where? You obviously didn’t read my comment, in which I acknowledged that there’s no male equivalent. You’re either dumb or playing dumb, and neither one is pleasant.
I was listening for awhile and I’m back to Radio Times this AM. Listening to one man rage on in an effort to maintain his male privilege to judge the behavior of women isn’t especially interesting or enlightening. I already know how that works. So do women who have to live with Sharia Law.
Whatever happens, I talk about it.
Acting like a self-satisfied moron REALLY doesn’t become you.
INteresting, too, how nobody has anything to say about what I wrote here.
Male privilege to judge? Are you maintaining you don’t judge people, constantly, here, despite your lack of whiteness or maleness?
Ooh… I’m dumb. That’s all you got? More name calling. And the flippin’ point is that there is no word to describe men who do the exact same thing. You chalk this up to men’s lizard brains – which would be the definition of the word dumb… and is quite insulting to men.
You regard my post as a personal attack against Al’s co-host, but you don’t see using the word slut as a personal attack. Nice double standard you got going there.
You keep using the noun. Go back to my pole dancing example — slutty behavior by women who probably aren’t sluts.
As for dumb, if the shoe fits…
Calling someone a dirty old man wasn’t name-calling? Your double standard is laughably obvious. Interesting that your insult is age-related — I guess a studly young guy saying it would be OK?
Insulting to men? So what? I insult people I think deserve it. Live with it.
So there’s no male equivalent. What does that tell you? How is banning the word slut going to change that?
Indeed. And don’t think I haven’t noticed the dance away from the business of defending male privilege every time I bring it up. How does it go?
Whatever happens, I talk about it.
Yeah, it’s male privilege. That’s the ticket. Labeling it is SOOOO productive. I’d chide you for being self-satisfied, but it’s your defining characteristic.
Don’t think I’ve forgotten your totalitarian leanings. Liberals always believe in censorship. It’s all they’ve got.
Geezer –
My main issue is when you said “I am saying that the word was, in my opinion, justified”, because here you cross the line between arguing over whether a word should be banned, and whether use of a word is justified.
So, in light of your no-banning stance, could you please explain when it would be justifiable for you to use the “n-word” to describe someone? As an adjective, not a noun of course.
Assuming that your answer is not “When it’s true”, then maybe you can start to see that while we shouldn’t put a legal limit on language, there are some terms that it is actually never justifiable to use.
Thank you for finally engaging.
Let’s look at the n-bomb. I can’t use it. You can’t use it. But blacks can. Same word, different meaning. Banning it has had the salutary effect of removing “Huckleberry Finn” from the academic canon.
I used “slut” (or defend the use of the word) because I DO want to shame JLo and Iggy Azalea. Again, not for engaging in sex. For PRETENDING they want to engage in sex so they can sell me something.
If you don’t think that presentation of sexual organs stimulates the male lizard brain, do some research. I’m not saying men can’t overcome that — I’m saying it’s damn exhausting to do so, constantly, to the point where I try not consume visual popular culture at all. It’s a weaker flip side of what women go through with the male gaze. I’m tired of being manipulated with sexual imagery, and the word expresses that anger.
I don’t understand why you can’t multitask. I have written about the objectification of women and gender specific terms many, many times. You’re pretending that I haven’t – that all I care about is the word slut. That’s a lie, and you know it. But it suits your argument.
Because if you ignore everything I’ve written, then you can pretend this is a personal attack and censorship and not a topic I’ve written extensively about.
Amazing you didn’t freak out over people calling out Sharon Angle and Todd Akin over their words. For some reason you were okay with calling that crap out – at the very least, you didn’t devote over an hour to defending them and their right to classify legitimate rape and making lemonade out of lemons. Instead, this morning, you tried to prove something by repeating the word “slut” ad nauseam. What was the point of that?
And old men pretending to be hip and calling out a 17 year old singer’s looks is creepy. More than that, it’s wrong. But then again, I don’t make war on children. Funny how you can defend this behavior when it comes to a video that you deem slutty, but it’s hands off for older men and their sexist critique of women – even Gary’s Rhianna comment which you’ve completely ignored.
Given your standards of free speech, you should be a-okay with me calling this out, but you aren’t. Why is that? Why is your and Gary’s free speech more important than mine? Why is what I wrote crossing the line, but what you guys said, and defended, virtuous and worthy?
Labeling it is SOOOO productive.
Like the label “slutting it up”?
Or are you telling me that only *the boys* get to do the labeling around here?
You have every right to call us out. And I have every right to defend myself. You find my defense unconvincing — indeed, you are trying to shame me for even mounting one. I object to that.
I had no problem calling out Rush Limbaugh for calling Sandra Fluke a slut, either, because she wasn’t even talking about herself, and taking birth control pills wouldn’t make her one anyway. I don’t use the word to define women who have lots of sex. They’re welcome to it.
You want to make “slut” like “n*****,” a taboo word, go for it. But I will resist.
And I don’t know of an adjectival form of “n*****.” You can’t just add a ‘Y’ to it as you can slut.
Let’s look at the n-bomb. I can’t use it. You can’t use it.
Of course you can use it. No one stops you from using it other than you and the avoidance of the astonishing blowback you would get from using the word. There’s no censorship in this case except your own.
No, label away. But don’t complain about labeling while you’re doing it yourself.
You seek to control my language. I’m not seeking to control yours, just pointing out your hypocrisy.
I meant “can’t use it without blowback.” You can use it without blowback. Don’t play dumb, I’ll call you on it every time.
And I have used the word, but not in anger. If I say that somebody called somebody else “n*****,” I’m not using it as a pejorative. I have used it many times in such situations without blowback.
And, as I said before, self-censorship is still censorship. We’re talking about making words taboo. Seriously, don’t play dumb.
@Pandora: Interesting that you call out someone for noticing the looks of a 17-year-old singer (who made the music as a 15-year-old), as if the looks of that 17-year-old singer had nothing to do with why the 17-year-old singer was on stage in the first place.
My objection is to the child labor. I realize you would like a world in which everybody plays nice, but you’re looking for it in the wrong place. I don’t play nice.
Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from criticism. You want to pretend that my criticism (even tho I didn’t call the station and demand he be fired over the word. I simply wrote a blog post – which you should be defending given your definition of free speech) is censorship. It’s not.
Here’s your argument: Gary and I should be able to say slut, but no one should be able to call us out on this.
That’s it. That’s your entire argument. You’re seeking to control my language.
And you’re seeking to control mine. You can’t see that?
Go ahead and call me out. I’m pointing out that your point is hollow.
And I’m pointing out that your point is convenient and beneficial to you and Gary. You guys think you’re just keeping it real – LOL. You’re attached to these words, you like them (if you didn’t then you wouldn’t have laced your show with them today) – just own it. Even though there’s no word to describe men who act exactly the same way. Even though this word (slut) is used as a way to shut down that free speech you worship.
Calling someone a slut is free speech. Calling out someone using that word is censorship. See what you did there? The caller that Al steamrolled over was making this point… not that Al listened. Then again, Al said he didn’t care what the women in his life thought about this word. That’s quite telling. Perhaps it’s time for an Al Mascitti get-together with the women in his life? Bring them together and ask them about the times they were called slut, whore, easy… and then shut up and listen. You’ll be amazed… and outraged.
And I notice how you don’t spell out the N word. Why is that? Are you feeling repressed? If so, go for it. If you’re against censorship… use the word.
How does using “slut” shut down free speech?
And why do you insist on making this personal? I used the word “slut” so much today because it was the topic under discussion. Let’s leave the women in my life out of this, thanks just the same. I have enough arguments with them as it is, and “slut” never comes up. My daughter and I didn’t speak for six months because we disagreed about whether Oprah’s pocketbook shopping in Switzerland was racism or classism.
No, I’m not feeling repressed. But people have succeeded in making the word taboo, and I see no reason to break that taboo here. I don’t use “darkie,” “jungle bunny” or any of the myriad other insults that mean “black person,” either. Nor, in most situations, would I use “bitch” or “whore” or “slut” to refer generically to women, or even as an all-purpose insult. In this particular instance — you still haven’t watched the video, have you? — I think it’s perfectly descriptive of the behavior on the screen. You are free to disagree — but why are you fastened on the word rather than the behavior? You still don’t understand my point about the futility of fighting about words instead of about the behavior?
Please watch the video. Then tell me which sets back the effort to de-objectify women more — the video itself or our use of the word “slutty” to describe it.
You would like to make taboo the word “slut.” I already said I will resist. I don’t see how much more I can own it than that.
“Let’s leave the women in my life out of this, thanks just the same.”
But… but… but… Al brought the women in his life up on today’s show. He said he didn’t care what they thought. Are you censoring me for pointing out that fact? He said it. And calling me dumb isn’t personal? That’s a lot of privilege on display… no?
And if your daughter didn’t speak with you for 6 months… then you might want to review that. Just sayin’
And I saw the video a week before you asked me to watch it, so try again. What I saw was silly and ridiculous – a marketing ploy to garner hits. What I didn’t see was sluts. But you did. Why is that?
And, as I said before, self-censorship is still censorship.
Maybe. But then your objections are pointed in exactly the wrong place. What you are trying to argue for is freedom from criticism. This is precisely the argument of people complaining about too much “Political Correctness”. They don’t want to give up the power to define (even if it is demeaning and wrong) people who are not them.
But then you should just drop the n-word at work one AM. Maybe your employer agrees with you that you should be free to say it.
I have dropped it at work many times. What are you implying — that you’ll be up in my grill if I use it? Embrace your inner totalitarian, Cass — oh, wait.
“And if your daughter didn’t speak with you for 6 months… then you might want to review that. Just sayin’”
First off, I did not bring up the women in my life — the caller did, in an attempt to make it personal.
Second, you seem to think that it bothered me. Wrong. If I never spoke to her again it wouldn’t bother me. If I think someone is wrong, I say so, and if they never speak to me again, that’s one less person I have to speak to.
Third, I don’t think you understand what the word “privilege” means. Why is my criticism privileged but yours is not?
“What you are trying to argue for is freedom from criticism.”
Don’t be absurd. Fighting back against criticism is not the same thing as saying the criticism should not have been made. You and Pandora, on the other hand, are saying I should not criticize you in return. See how that works?
Look, we aren’t going to agree on this. I’m going to keep — actually, start — using the word, and you’re going to not like it. Do with that whatever you feel you need to.
You still haven’t told me how use of the word “slut” restricts free speech.
“First off, I did not bring up the women in my life — the caller did, in an attempt to make it personal.”
But you responded that you didn’t care what the women in your life thought. I’m simply quoting you. And I didn’t notice you telling him to keep the women in your life out of it – only me. Hmmm… why is that?
If you never spoke to whom again? Your daughter?
And third, you can’t see your privilege. But, perhaps you can. If you can then you can tell me why Gary Mullinax’s “slutted it up” is free speech, but my calling him out isn’t. Why his words are sacrosanct, but mine aren’t.
You and Pandora, on the other hand, are saying I should not criticize you in return.
Um, no, that’s not the conversation we’re in. But I suppose that you are still in the business of telling us what is acceptable. The only inner authoritarian speaking here is yours — who keeps insisting that it is your right to define, shame or otherwise dictate to women how they should behave so that you don’t have to be confronted with their sexuality.
Oh for crying out loud! Say the word all you and Gary want – it’s obvious how much you two like it. But just stop being offended when people think you guys are sexists, misogynists, sexually immature and sexually repressed. Because that is what a lot of people think. Own it. Wallow in it. But stop complaining and getting your victim on.
It’s not about getting my victim on. I have brought up many, many points that you simply ignore because it’s all about using the word.
That’s your limitation, not mine. If you can’t engage on the concepts, attack the word.
“[You] keep insisting that it is your right to define, shame or otherwise dictate to women how they should behave so that you don’t have to be confronted with their sexuality.”
Yep, that’s it exactly. I have that right, just as you have that right to tell me to watch my mouth on the n-word. Go ahead and complain about it, and I’ll complain right back. Your shit stinks too, you know.
I’m the one here who called out the original criticism not with complaining but by criticizing the criticism for being shallow and poorly thought out. I have never said you could not criticize. I am pointing out that your criticism is shallow and superficial — and by extension you are, too. I stand by it.
I’m not offended by your criticism. I am simply sad to see how shallow you are.
And you STILL haven’t explained how using the word slut restricts anyone’s free speech.
Nope. You have screamed that our criticism is censorship – and your behavior on your show today didn’t serve your argument well. Frankly, you seem to think using certain words makes you edgy and hip. They don’t.
good news! I can happily report that the song in question is absolute garbage. Tried to listen to it, sans jiggly video…. after about 45 seconds, I was worried my ears might be bleeding so I had to stop.
Im now concerned that reaction to criticism over the dancing in the video will do a few things… most terrifying, convince other attractive women who can dance, but cant sing, that such a video is good career move. (yikes) It may be, not for me to judge how they make money. Sadly, chubby guys who can sing and play guitar like a F-Mfin riot will get even less attention. I know, I know, the poor plight of the middle class hippie, right?
BUT For the sake of American musical art, can we PLEASE go back to insulting the honor/chastity/whatever of TALENTED singers? my personal outrage now is at the attention this is giving to iggy cyrus or whoever.
This really isn’t a discussion about music, no matter how much people pretend it is.
“Screamed”? You mean “pointed out.” You have since, defensively I might note, claimed that calling for someone to stop using a word or “get off the air” is something other than censorship. I didn’t scream about it. You, you see, are the one who cannot tolerate criticism, and claim your words weren’t meant literally, or something.
Are you under the impression that I should be embarrassed for using the word? Sorry, I’m not. I’ll just have to live with this flaw in my makeup.
Besides, I can’t argue with people who make up their own meanings for words.
Hip? Are you kidding? I have never in my life been accused of being hip, or even trying to be. I don’t own a piece of black clothing except for the suit I wear for funerals. I despise New York. Where in God’s name did you get the idea that I think I’m hip or edgy? I am blunt and rude, not hip or edgy.
My argument today served exactly the purpose I wanted it to serve. If you think I want to attract rather than repel vapors-prone liberals, you need to think again.
it’s not. But why isnt a discussion about art/culture?
Regardless of the words used to describe said art, I think there is still a discussion to be had about the music industry. was “slutty” the best way to talk about it? insert obvious answer here…
Is it they type of thing you want your… 2 different scenarios here..
Son to watch and expect that is how women should act?
Daughter to watch and…. same thing.
How man creepy old men do you think had their perverted hands in making that music video happen? The same industry that allows pigs… (btw, there is your “slut” equivalent for men) like Robin Thike (who’s videos have been rightfully trashed as piggish by man on this site) to have a career is the same one that produced this, needlessly sexual (and there is really no arguing that it is sexual) video.
Since you started the discussion, apparently it’s about the word “slut” and nothing but the word slut.
Congratulations. You have demonstrated that you are a single-minded scold on the point.
And why is it OK to call people “creepy old men,” as if there were no negative feelings behind that one?
Like so many, many liberals, you really don’t see what you’re doing. If there are creepy old men, then there are sluts.
Slut shaming is not your right. it is just more patriarchal bullshit trying to tell women when and when they do not conform you your rules. She gets to make those rules, not you. And if you don’t like it, then turn the channel. She gets to decide what is an acceptable expression of her sexuality, not you. But it is interesting that you don’t even see how this is just an expression of your privilege hiding behind all of that holier-than-thou bullshit.
Just like there are no rights involved in calling anyone the n-word. It serves as a way for you to clearly signal that you think the person on the receiving end of the word is a lower order of being than you — someone who is worthy of nothing but contempt and derision. You may certainly think that, but you have no rights to expect that anyone will live with that definition.
creepy old men
It isn’t about *feelings* — it is about age old baggage and the effort to use those terms to get people to live within your terms.
“She gets to make those rules, not you. And if you don’t like it, then turn the channel.”
It was said in the context of cultural criticism. A critic doesn’t just turn the channel.
“She gets to decide what is an acceptable expression of her sexuality, not you.”
Wrong. She is expressing it in the public marketplace. I — not you, not her — get to decide whatever I find acceptable.
“But it is interesting that you don’t even see how this is just an expression of your privilege hiding behind all of that holier-than-thou bullshit.”
Let me get this straigh: I am priviliged and JLo is my victim? But I must admit, if anyone here knows holier-than-thou bullshit, it would be you.
“Just like there are no rights involved in calling anyone the n-word. It serves as a way for you to clearly signal that you think the person on the receiving end of the word is a lower order of being than you. someone who is worthy of nothing but contempt and derision. ”
Really? That’s what black guys mean when they call each other that, with an “a” at the end instead of an “er”? Meaning doesn’t change with context? That aside, however, that’s precisely how I meant it. I was directing it at female “musicians” who peddle sex. I think they are vile and are worthy of my contempt and derision.
“You may certainly think that, but you have no rights to expect that anyone will live with that definition.”
After all that about rights, you go and step in it with that one. I have no “right” to “expect” anything. We used a word with a widely understood meaning, and you don’t like it because it expressed contempt and derision — as it was meant to do.
If you ideologues are serious about context having no meaning, I don’t know what to do with you, other than to say I can live just fine without you liking it or me.
“She gets to decide what is an acceptable expression of her sexuality, not you. :”
You say that like she directed and choreographed the video. Like a 3.54 minute pole dance is her life’s ambition and she is breaking barriers by doint it. c’mon..
I’m not talking about a street performer here. I’m talking about clear exploitation of a young person, by a notoriously sexually exploitative industry (especially to women) in order to get a lot of money. I dare someone to defend MTV/VH1/the pop music. Not censorship, just pointing out that they are awful.
Going gender neutral here… Justin Beiber is the male example. He’s a little snot, everyone knows is. He is also a total product of the industry. He’s exploited too.
Really, Cass. How many days go by on this blog without you expressing contempt and derision for people you consider beneath you? You’re upset because a single word expresses it? What, we should have gone into more depth and detail to express our contempt and derision?
“It isn’t about *feelings* — it is about age old baggage and the effort to use those terms to get people to live within your terms.”
And calling them “creepy old men” isn’t the same thing? It is, remember, a society with lots of May-December marriages.
Is your complaint that slut is an “age-old word”? Really, what’s the complaint here, and how does it fit the circumstances of a show about popular culture? We live in a popular culture composed mainly of sexualized images. The show is not aimed at intellectuals. It is not NPR. And it’s a far cry from Howard Stern.
You want to get your outrage on, go ahead. But don’t try to tell me that I’M the one who looks bad here — unless you think the winning position is the rigid ideological one.
@Ben: On a more fundamental level, Milli Vanilli. The two guys singing — and they were good, that’s why the songs were hits — were (if I may use a controversial term here) fat. So they just substituted two young, good-looking guys who could dance and lip-sync.
Society is “looks-ist”. All kinds of doors open for you if you are beautiful and handsome, to the point now where we prefer beautiful and handsome to talented.
“What, we should have gone into more depth and detail to express our contempt and derision?”
That would have required you guys using big words, and why do that when there’s an easier, cheaper way. You object, quite loudly, to creepy old men. Why is that? Is it because it’s something that hits home to you; something that you resemble/relate to? Sorta like “slut” hits home to women?
Keep doubling down on this. It only makes my case. You get to say what you want (free speech), but the people that call you out on it are censoring you. Someone doesn’t understand what free speech entails.
Shout the word from the rooftops, but stop your whining when others call you creepy old men, misogynists, sexists, sexually repressed, wannabe hipsters, etc.. Go on and use the word, just stop your crying when others label you and Gary with words you don’t like.
“You object, quite loudly, to creepy old men.”
I didn’t use all caps.
” Why is that? Is it because it’s something that hits home to you; something that you resemble/relate to? Sorta like “slut” hits home to women?”
Yes, it’s exactly like it. That was my point. I couldn’t care less about you calling me that personally, rolls right off. But it came unbidden to your fingers, didn’t it? You didn’t hesitate to express your disgust, and you aimed it at me personally.
So get off your high horse. You don’t know how to ride it.
“You get to say what you want (free speech), but the people that call you out on it are censoring you.”
No, not all the people. Just you. Own your words, for crying out loud. You want people to not use a word. That’s censorship. You want him off the air. That’s censorship. You keep insisting that I own a word that I have not disavowed, yet you won’t own what you said IN THIS VERY THREAD!
“stop your whining when others call you creepy old men, misogynists, sexists, sexually repressed, wannabe hipsters, etc.. ”
It’s not whining. I have not disavowed using slut, nor do I deny misogynist or sexist, and in the sense that I have cronies instead of friends, I’m a creepy old man. But my, my, how judgmental you are. Where do you get off chiding judgment in others?
Words have meanings. I used slut correctly; it conveyed my intent.
You keep denying your intent.
Yeah, there’s one person here who doesn’t understand free speech: You.
How many days go by on this blog without you expressing contempt and derision for people you consider beneath you?
I don’t do it by invoking age-old racist or sexist language, that’s for sure.
What a high standard you’ve set for yourself! What do you want, a statue? You are, in essence, saying the language is more important than the intent. Well played!
Well, congratulations. Now that you’ve labeled it, problem solved.
I still don’t get what being “age-old” has to do with anything. And now I’ve used racist language as well?
Now that you’ve labeled it, problem solved.
Sorta like “slutting it up”? Even though all you know about the women you’ve labeled with this is what they wore and that they danced provocatively. In front of a camera that is meant to capture the entire fiction of the thing.
You are, in essence, saying the language is more important than the intent.
There is some language where its intent is embedded directly in it. Like *slut* of the n-word. But you do know this. You are letting your insensible defense of your own personal privilege get in the way here.
>You are letting your insensible defense of your own personal privilege get in the way here.
Same can be said for you and Pandora. And if Pandora was SO offended, she could have called the show & expressed her opinion…but she claims she was so put-off by Al Mascitti’s treatment of the previous caller that she didn’t dare call in.
You know what I call that?
BULLSHIT
the assertion has been made that this isnt about music or a music video…. but it also isnt about what a random woman wore to a party or club. The video is something released to the pubic and is fair game for criticism.
Again…. Robin Thicke. No one had any issue calling him a pig for his music, yet the exact same kind of blatant sexual exploitation (again, these artists dont have much in the way of choice when it comes to what their labels make them do) is beyond criticism?
This (music video) promotes the sexualization and objectification of women. Al Mascitti pointed this out using language that some people didnt like and once again, how the argument was made…. not the point itself… became the target.