Women & Alfas

[Pat Braden]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrandPrix ps- is that how it works now? A "platinum" member complains about the post of a "regular" member and goodbye first ammendment, goodbye post? It's cool. I know. SD

[Garry-Graig]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat Braden Not to be a naysayer here, but this comment is a reflection of "voting people off the bb" and which I tried to address as one of my concerns when we went to this subscription system with jewelry. This is the first public comment I have seen, and I can't possibly read every thread, where a poster feels there is a hierarchical system of those who have higher subscription levels where they are listened to or valued more highly than others. It's also unfortunate that this appears to be a fairly new poster that may not have been aware of how this system was instituted or why, so it should be a good lesson in perception, friendliness, and interpretation of our actions as a whole by others. Having said that, I have received off board complaints over time stating this same position since the jewelry system was initiated. Just something to think about. Unless I've missed it, are there rules posted some where here on the bb about what can and cannot be posted? That might also be helpful in straightforward language, although, there will always be individual interpretations of the standard posted based on "Freedom of Speech" and First Amendment rights. Back to regular programming.... P.S. So there is no misunderstanding on my part, I stand by my "an example of supreme tackiness" in this regard as it applies to this thread.

[Alfissimo Int.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yannick

[lowmileage]

Come on, we all know that's a trick photo of Enzo Ferrari in drag. I mean, look at those hands.

[Alfissimo Int.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowmileage Come on, we all know that's a trick photo of Enzo Ferrari in drag. I mean, look at those hands.

[tubut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrandPrix ps- is that how it works now? A "platinum" member complains about the post of a "regular" member and goodbye first ammendment, goodbye post? It's cool. I know. SD

[Alex Csank]

Thanks for explaining Ruedi!

[Pat Braden]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tubut For the record, here is what happened: GrandPrix posted a picture that shows a guy taking an upskirt shot of a model at a car show. His next post was that he thought the picture was a spoof and posted in good humor. I replied to the post with my view that the picture is offensive and if he could explain the joke. He replied something inconsequential that I don't remember in detail. Subsequently, the admins removed his posts and mine. End of story. As I recall, the picture in question has been posted and removed several times before. GrandPrix seems to be insensitive to the fact that the picture is sexual and degrading in nature and therefore not work safe and inappropriate for minors to see. The issue had nothing to do with my subscription status, but everything to do with GrandPrix's insensitivity. The fact remains that, no matter how much we pay to support AlfaBB, we're all guests here -- which calls for respecting the host and his wishes for appropriate behavior.

[GrandPrix]

This is actually a situation of someone jumping to conclusions and lettering his or her emotions override good common sense.

What is stated above is a dramatic fallacy (by tubut).

I reposted a picture that was previously posted on this thread - and may very well be still posted on this thread - a photo that was posted by "Pat Braden" with the inscription "tacky" or something to that effect. It's the first time I have ever seen the photograph.

I reposted this picture - with an inscription to the effect that yes, it was tacky that he didn't use a better zoom, or something silly like that. It was my attempt to be playful with "Pat Braden", who had recently sent me a PM (about something else I had written).

In the meantime, I was playing pm tag with Cheryl Braden (her PM box is perpetually full, I learned). She sent me another e-mail, telling me how to contact her and also that she assumed my response to the photo was meant as humor. And she explained why the photo bothered her.

I wrote CB and explained that yes, it was meant as a playful bit of humor. Feeling like my post might be misconstrued, I made a post that the above - my initial post - was meant to be humorous. At this point, it was my post, and then my next post (the disclaimer). I guess disclaimers aren't what they used to be (humor).

That's when the person above began jumping to wild conclusions. I told him or her that I didn't intend to get into it (and here we are), but I went on to explain something crucial about the photograph - as I understand it (and still understand it).

[Below is the expanded point I made in response to Tubut's 1st post, now extinguished by "BB" (apt), what "Tubut" now calls "something inconsequential".]

I believe the photo is a spoof (not a true reflection of reality - a staged, pictoral event), and thus, rather than a spontaneously captured act of misogyny, it's a statement - an artistic statement - on misogyny itself. What that statement is, is open to interpretation, subjective interpretation.

This is not the first time that Art (with a capital A) has been mis-categorized, we see this sort of debate all the time, as people, groups, movements and so on debate the meaning of one controversial exhibit after another. Emotions run high.

It really doesn't have to be this way.

Let me clarify that I am not insensitive or otherwise misogynistic, nor do I think my post came anywhere near that.

I'll quote myself in a letter I sent to CB: " I think it's sad that in a community where one could surmise that there are people, generally, who have benefited from a modicum of "success" (and education, one would imagine), there are some who nevertheless find themselves being spoon fed their words and images like infants, anything controversial or misconstrued (up and down the line) as sexist or racist or whatever, strained from their diet by some all-knowing moderator (or owner-whatever).

This is not my idea of edifying activity (and without edification, why bother?). I can do my own straining, my own filtering, just as you can or anyone who decided to use the brain that nature gave us."

This is my understanding of events. I hope the picture is, at least, somewhat better rounded.

SD

[GrandPrix]

FYI

The "Offending" picture is still where I first saw it - page 14, post 200, "Pat Braden". It's 8:52 or so and still there.

Better hurry before calls are made, and so on...........


SD

[GrandPrix]

I would like to add, I think the negative things said about my character by Tubut are sadly misplaced, and every bit of it based on what was essentially a "private" playful jab at a new BB acquaintance/friend (CB). It's obvious (from Tubut's post) that he or she has no idea that I was reposting an already posted photo (#1), and responding to a previous post (#2). Context is everything (always is).

Will I get an apology for having my character assailed?

SD
Isn't it possible that the artist was simply making a statement about the way people - men generally, women generally, and the person being "victimized" in the photograph itself - do not acknowledge misogyny in their "everyday" lives? The fact he's being ignored while shooting her (and she's oblivious to him) is important from a staged, artistic point of view, no? And if one were to validate this point of view at some level, it would represent a strong, feminist point of view, wouldn't it? In that vein of Socratic interaction, shouldn't the work be looked at, ruminated upon, discussed seriously (as an artistic creation)? It shouldn't be banned, should it?

Hard things upset us (at times). If we don't see, or question, or challenge context, all we have is our own guttural reaction(s); part of the art of being human it seems to me is the practice of training ourselves to look for context, to always look, even if we are internally struggling with some powerful, visceral emotions (perhaps).

That's one interpretation (of many).

[AlfaTango1]

The person "in" the original picture is the vile POS and should be flogged, not original poster, even though their motives may or may not clear, GrandPrix's repost should not be misconstrued as an approval of the above offense but just a comment on the original posting. To me your character is still above reproach, for what it's worth.

[GrandPrix]

Thank you - I realize it takes some thought and effort to look at this, and I, too, decry the act displayed (an act, itself, that should not, perhaps, be confused with the author's overall intent). My own intent was simple, but ultimately misplced if it creates this kind of uproar - I will self-edit with more alacrity in the future - I am not questioning my own culpability, just the degree.

Thanks.

SD

[Zunige]

Geez,... it's definitely time to get this thread back on topic!



Best regards,

[jrclem]

Oh for God's sake... PLEASE! This is all playful stuff...
If the image supposedly being photographed in the posting ( the "up-the-panties" shot) had been posted (we should be so lucky!) THEN there would be grounds for a to & fro about the acceptability of the posting (Likely a huge negative response).
BUT IT IS A GAG!!! Let it go.