| |||||||||||||
CluelessCluelessPosted Dec 2, 2004 15:20 UTC (Thu) by Boobis (guest, #533)Parent article: Debian and the hot babe problem
Oh my, im stunned. Is the possibility that some might take nudity as offending what concerns you all?
Please do some homework on the feminist cause, and on mens constant objetification of the female body, and get a clue.
I was really hopefull when I read the headline, but it seems to me that noone so far really understands why including naked girls in a distro is a really bad thing.
(Log in to post comments)
Clueless Posted Dec 2, 2004 15:44 UTC (Thu) by climent (subscriber, #7232) [Link] In fact, commercials on TV showing stupid men in the kitchen duties should have raisen as many objections, since they put men as kitchen illiterates (thus putting women as real experts on that area), but they dont.
Many other apps can also raise objections due to the nature of the affirmations done, but freedom is about respecting others' views, too. And hot-babe is also about drawing art, not only about nudity/feminism/machism.
Clueless Posted Dec 2, 2004 15:59 UTC (Thu) by Boobis (guest, #533) [Link] Why does every post suggesting that men might be in a privileged position draw out men trying to prove that they have a hard time too?
The reason we have a feminin cause and not a masculin cause is that females are treated worse than men.
Clueless Posted Dec 2, 2004 17:08 UTC (Thu) by thompsot (guest, #12368) [Link] Please. In the US, women are given so much special treatment, from the courtroom to the family to the boardroom, that it's become ridiculous. Men are looked down on if they exhibit even simple qualities like decision making skills or having unflappable values and principles, and are mocked in every cheezy sit-com on the air (which just happens to include every sit-com on the air). Take your feminism cause to Iraq or Afgahnistan, but it has long worn out it's value in the US (and possibly some European countries). What started out as a very necessary movement to allow women to, first, vote, then later a push to be fully treated as equals, has become an overzealous and sidetracked effort to position women as greater than equals by consistenly emasculating males in the educational and cultural realm, and of course with plenty of the all consuming "politicaly correct" social pressure. It's gotten completely out of hand and militant over the last 30 to 40 years, and all the feminists I know who follow this type of feminism are not real women at all. They are in the midst of an identiy crisis and are angry at the world. The TRUE feminists celebrate their female uniqueness and do not attempt to use the childish "put down another to make myself look better" technique by bashing men, but merely recognize that men and women are different, and those differences are a GOOD THING that make society stronger as a whole, not weaker.
As far as this "hot babe" package, all it does is demonstrate how immature some people are. Let them create their package, but like several have mentioned already, that doesn't mean it has to be part of the various Debian-based distributions, nor does it have to be (or need to be) installed by default. Those who want it can apt-get it just like every other package that's not installed by default.
Clueless Posted Dec 2, 2004 19:05 UTC (Thu) by Boobis (guest, #533) [Link] Thank you for making such a perfect example of what I was trying to say. Too bad you are just plain wrong. The feminist movement are very much needed in the us and women are not treated as equals at all, or do you actually believe that the reason you have not had a single female president is that women are less suited to the task? The fact that some countries are even worse doesn't make women equal in the US.
Anyhow women should not have to put up with their bodies being comoditized, and hot-babe is one step in that direction.
Clueless Posted Dec 2, 2004 22:36 UTC (Thu) by thompsot (guest, #12368) [Link] You're welcome.
One thing I will definitely agree with you on however:
Sadly though, rather than hot-babe being just "one step in that direction", it's yet another product (out of billions) of the current culture that has taken hold, where those absorbed with the perverted idea of what women and/or sexuality are (which the porn industry has created and exacerbated) will forever be clueless as to why themes suggesting group sex or naked women with huge breasts are not only innapropriate, but socially destructive. We are not socially or culturally "enlightend" when there is nothing sacred or special anymore or when we shed all our inhibitions, we merely become more debased and simplistic, like animals. Contrast the age of chivalry and romance with a couple of dogs "doing it" on the side of the road. That's a picture of where we've come from and where we're headed.
All in all though, I'm still a huge Debian fan and will continue to use it. There are a few other debian packages that are offensive as well, but they are not installed by default and shouldn't be. As a general rule, if you can't put it on an enterprise desktop or a family PC that your kids will use, then it shouldn't be there by default. However, if Debian someday becomes a dumping ground for packages by perverts and people who have become numb to healthy moral and social standards, then I might reconsider and use a distribution that doesn't have that kind of baggage. I'm inclined to think though, that there are enough people with common sense working on Debian to keep it clean for the most part for a long time to come.
Design for Frustration by Contract Posted Dec 5, 2004 9:42 UTC (Sun) by Saigua (guest, #6069) [Link] It's a CPU monitor! With Artistic License! 'nuff!
...'course, for this comment, I'm tossing in that it's also a behavioral device for associating naked hotness with howling fans and thermostatically-throttled CPUs, which is an odd decision; the operator is compelled to either overbook CPU and guarantee that the nude is mere decoration, or guard modesty and silence to the fault of staring at the black of the garb.
Last week I visited a gay-hazing ecumenical. 12 and 24V molex sockets were everywhere and there was a definite fetish for the orange UV fans. Same-gender sex and fan noise were everywhere, and nobody would take off their black body socks. Eventually one man was expelled for packing too many fans inside his kuddl-duds, which was an oddly oversexed thing to do. Myself, I had to get out of that turtleneck. That inhibition reeked.
Maybe if the garment were more dynamic, or tore, I could tell from that how my CPU was; or more likely, laugh at mod-lm_sensors as it misreported -82 deg. farenheit measurements. Is that a gnunitard and ski-boots, honeychild? ooh! I'm hiding something socially destructive in my individuality too!
Clueless Posted Dec 9, 2004 18:35 UTC (Thu) by etbe (subscriber, #17516) [Link] When was the "age of chivalry and romance", was that when women were notpermitted to vote? Was that when it was legal for a man to beat his wife? Was that when women were expected to be subservient to men in every way? I prefer modern values, and I suspect that women who think about the issues and read history books do too.
Clueless Posted Dec 9, 2004 21:19 UTC (Thu) by thompsot (guest, #12368) [Link] Actually, that's when men treated women like they were jewels and were expected to win a woman's heart the hard way, not just hop into bed with her on the first date, and there was a certain expectation of good behavior on both parts. Sorry you misunderstood.
Clueless Posted Dec 10, 2004 1:26 UTC (Fri) by etbe (subscriber, #17516) [Link] Thompsot, one thing you are really clueless about is history.It's a really modern idea that a couple spend months or years dating before getting married. Arranged marriages have historically been common in all cultures, as have situations where women had no economic options other than to get married. The idea that men should "win a woman's heart the hard way" is a very sexist idea that you generally only see in the trashiest fiction books (Mills and Boone). Ever considered the possibility that women should "win a man's heart the hard way and not just hop into bed with him on the first date"? It takes the agreement of both parties for sex on a first date (or any date for that matter). Why should it be the man's fault if the woman wants sex on a first date?
Clueless Posted Dec 7, 2004 18:08 UTC (Tue) by arafel (subscriber, #18557) [Link] I'm sorry, I'd have more luck reading your comments if my brain didn't keep mentally inserting an extra 'e' in your nickname... Bad brain, no biscuit for you.
Clueless Posted Dec 9, 2004 7:31 UTC (Thu) by bronaugh (guest, #26553) [Link] I entirely agree with Boobis here that it's not kosher to be objectifying anyone's body. I strongly disagree with this. At the same time, though, I strongly disagree with most every form of censorship.
What it comes down to is: Is Debian supposed to be rated G? I mean, there's plenty of offensive stuff in Debian -- may I refer you to xevil (violent but not overall sexist) and fortunes-off (definitely has sexist content).
I guess the best solution here would be for Debian to have an "offensive" tag for packages (or maybe even a totally separate package source for material that could be construed as offensive), so that things like fortunes-off, xevil, and now "hot-babe" can be put into that and be entirely excluded if desired. Essentially, take them more or less "out of the public eye".
Now, a bit of a rant: To those who have said on this thread "bla bla bla women are treated better than men, bla bla bla" -- so far as I see, that's not true. There's still gender inequality in terms of pay, women are still less likely to feel safe on the street, etc. This is in spite of government intervention to ameliorate this. You're wrong -- now get over it, and quit making statements which have been thoroughly proven to be false.
Clueless Posted Dec 9, 2004 8:35 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] The trouble with women *feeling* less safe on the streets is nothing to do with government and, short of censorship, there's no way the government can do anything about it ...
Dunno about America, but here in the UK the group of people at greatest risk of being randomly attacked on the streets are young males. Yet here also, it's women who feel most threatened.
Cheers,
Clueless Posted Dec 9, 2004 18:43 UTC (Thu) by etbe (subscriber, #17516) [Link] Young males are most likely to be attacked on the street because theymost often do things to incite attack. Women feel unsafe on the streets because they tend to be physically weaker than men and because a majority of both men and women believe that a man who attacks a woman is certain of success (despite much evidence to the contrary). I know some men who are not overly muscular who appear to feel more unsafe on the streets than some women I know. But it's nothing to do with the issues of gender equality. It's just a fact that there are bad people out there and different people have different ways of assessing the risk posed by such people and their chances of success in dealing with them.
|
|||||||||||||