Women & Alfas

[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.

[GrandPrix]

Great addition, Z, I love leather pants!

Question: re: the woman in dress, is that a gun in her pocket, or is that what they call a strap-on dress?

Question: is this inappropriate?

SD
How's My Posting?
1-800-SAY-SIMON

[Pat Braden]

Since I have been identified as the most current original poster of the picture that makes me uncomfortable for a variety of reasons, the questioned picture was posted as a collage of three, to make a very specific point to answer a poster who indicated that he was a visual learner; and when this photo is pulled out, by itself, out of context with the limited original verbiage attached it totally misrepresents what my original purpose and motive was in trying to illustrate how previous threads similar to this one have gone awry and were pulled, when participants could not toe the line of respectability in a public forum that is open to viewing by anyone that has access to the Internet via Google or any other search engine.

Yes, as a woman, no matter where my personal line of acceptability is in this regard or how I feel about sexuality, this photo, whether a spoof or not, offends me and is illegal in many places. We have expelled several students where I work for doing exactly what is pictured with cell phones on our grand staircase. And yes, I wear either slacks or long skirts to work for exactly that reason. But having said that, there are plenty of other things on the Internet that offend me and should very well offend others, but they are still out there and I filter to eliminate the most vile and over the top kinds of things that I find offensive, that four letter word, is a good starting place.

For those of you that have never seen the picture before, it's available on the Internet by simply searching Google images. I didn't save the source or the query string because I only do that on pathfinders I'm building for BIs, and I was obviously not attempting to build a pathfinder or BI in this case.

Let's hope we can have some smooth sailing from here on out.....

[GrandPrix]

All I can say is this (and hopefully it's the last thing), I apologize that my attempt at comedy - my simple intent to put a smile on someone's face, and in the process maybe a on a few others - was poorly met by the intended target - for that, I'm sorry, Cheryl. As for the others, that didn't go too good either (confused face here).

Thanks, and back to your regular programming everybody!


SD
Done

[GTV-GR]

lowmileage: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[alfisto69]

If I remember correctly. The opening scenes of 'Splash' starring Daryl Hannah and I believe Tom Hanks has an equally shocking scene where a child, a child!, drops some coins on the deck of a NY ferry to catch a glimpse up a skirt. (Cameras on cell phones were unavailable at the time). Anyway it was meant as funny and even the Irish film censor passed it as GA viewing.

[john.harrill]

That's why my momma always told me to wear (clean) underwear.