GENIUS FORUMS

There's this controversial music video out called "blurred lines" and basically there are women dancing nude while a couple of fully clothed guys sing about sexual stuff.

Naturally this is going to make feminists livid because "it's sexist".

Whether or not it's sexist is irrelevant. What matters here is the fact that feminists THINK it's sexist.
So of course the men in the video are devils and the women in the videos are simply "victims" and "forced" to dance nude.
Now wait a minute.
Why are the women "victims"? Because they're doing it for money from those dirty dirty men.
Why are the men making the video? Because they're doing it for money.
So why is a woman's motivation for money so much more pure than a man's motivation for money?

BECAUSE THE PATRIARCHY OMG THE PATRIARCHY! Oh the humanity!

Come on girls. You can't blame men for everything. They're equally "victims" of causality. So.. STFU.
And if you don't buy the causality thing at least own up for your own autonomous actions instead of blaming someone else for what you do.

I just feel sorry for the lamb.

Appears tranquil, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhyCL-ELRxg

Funnily enough, so do the men.

It's the men in the video that are being transparently naked – as the video shows just how unimaginative they are.

Look at how overdressed and cutesy those women are. They’re just ordinary looking women, ones you see in the mall, on the beach and in clubs. True, women don't always have their boobs hanging out, but today's fashion doesn't leave much to the imagination.

To make the video truly sexy the women should have been wearing burkas with just their eyes showing. Not knowing what lies beneath the wrapping is extremely alluring BUT it’s those eyes that hold the magical world where a man believes he’ll at last find his home.

In a culture of mandatory burkas those burka eyes better not be too naked lest they be declared distracting, alluring, or worse.

Which brings to mind a story of abused Catholic girls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9GCS138nTQ

Sue wrote:To make the video truly sexy the women should have been wearing burkas with just their eyes showing. Not knowing what lies beneath the wrapping is extremely alluring BUT it’s those eyes that hold the magical world where a man believes he’ll at last find his home.

Reminds me of some of Weininger's last aphorisms:

Individuality comes into existence out of vanity; for we need viewers and want to be seen. The vain person interests himself also in other men and is knowledgeable about men. Since evil is also the same in all men ("misery loves company"), a man looks at me because I fix my gaze on him; he actually wants to be seen by me. My inquisitiveness is his shamelessness.

The "intelligible I" is, however, only vanity, i.e., linking worth to the person, positing the real as not real; it is actually identical with the problem of time: because the temporal is vain.

There is no I, there is no soul; the Good is alone the highest, perfect reality, which encloses all individuality in itself.

I'm by no means saying that the women shouldn't be allowed to be nude, I'm just saying that if they're going to support a music video with sexist lyrics they should be held accountable for their equally sexist actions of supporting it.

Why? Why should the women in the video be held accountable for what boils down to 'fashion'? The two - women and fashion - are synonymous, making their actions in the video as natural as anything else women do.

Weininger's quote:

The "intelligible I" is, however, only vanity, i.e., linking worth to the person, positing the real as not real; it is actually identical with the problem of time: because the temporal is vain.

Man looks into the eyes of woman searching for the something that will give his life meaning and purpose. He needs her to look back at him, to encompass him, to believe in him. And when she does, he demands nothing less than immortality.

Vanity of vanities...

The two - women and fashion - are synonymous

Man looks into the eyes of woman searching for the something that will give his life meaning and purpose. He needs her to look back at him, to encompass him, to believe in him. And when she does, he demands nothing less than immortality.

How is it that men don't understand women's temporality (fickle, changeable, and unfaithful, because she has not even the intellectual solidity of an I, but only the shifting moods and whims of each successive moment) but rather keep searching in her, clinging to her, for an immortal substance?

To use an analogy, it is like most men are the fearful nomadic desert tribes, too afraid to settle down as agriculturalists, for fear the primitive crops would fail. They were afraid of taking the risk of settling down into one domain, but needed to cast their net into as many possibilities as possible. They felt the need to keep hunting and chasing for possibilities, to keep fishing for infinite variations, or possibly avoid boredom? Something of this fear of staking their all on one position, on "tying the knot" before starting to sew (as Kierkegaard put it), of making a fundamental decision, might explain it. For how can an intelligent person even become attracted to feminine inconstancy, naivety, stupidity, and superficiality in the first place? How can the whims of emotion ever provide convincing intelligible substance?

I was chatting with Kevin this afternoon about the "Ultimate Extinction of the Dharma", and he mentioned that he took the "women will live longer than men" to mean that women would be prevailing in their power and effects, rather than literally meaning, women live longer biological lives than men. It was also interesting to contrast how women will be doing all kinds of charitable works, and yet at the same time, there would be few truly good people. Basically, emotion prevailing over reason, show over substance.

sue hindmarsh wrote:Why? Why should the women in the video be held accountable for what boils down to 'fashion'? The two - women and fashion - are synonymous, making their actions in the video as natural as anything else women do.

Excuse me? I don't think it has anything to do with "fashion". I'm not saying that what they're doing is "unnatural" either. Merely that they're being Uncle Toms of sorts. They're being submissive to the men who give them money to the point that they're bashing women themselves by participating in the music video. It really makes no difference if they're clothed or not imo. It's just the fact that they would support this music video at all given the content of the lyrics.

Just to be clear, Orenholt, is what you're saying: the video clip is sexist, and the women participating in it, as consenting adults, are equally as culpable for the sexist message as the men? If so, I agree. I wonder though whether the sexism bothers you as much as the feminist reaction to the video clip, because initially I got no hint that it did, but in your later posts it seemed that maybe it did.

Orenholt wrote:

sue hindmarsh wrote:Why? Why should the women in the video be held accountable for what boils down to 'fashion'? The two - women and fashion - are synonymous, making their actions in the video as natural as anything else women do.

Excuse me? I don't think it has anything to do with "fashion". I'm not saying that what they're doing is "unnatural" either. Merely that they're being Uncle Toms of sorts. They're being submissive to the men who give them money to the point that they're bashing women themselves by participating in the music video. It really makes no difference if they're clothed or not imo. It's just the fact that they would support this music video at all given the content of the lyrics.

The fashion and pop industry are indistinguishable from an exclusive whore, is the sense that the opinions on what's degradation or beauty always will keep varying.

We tried to do everything that was taboo. Bestiality, drug injections, and everything that is completely derogatory towards women. Because all three of us are happily married with children, we were like, "We're the perfect guys to make fun of this." People say, "Hey, do you think this is degrading to women?" I'm like, "Of course it is. What a pleasure it is to degrade a woman. I've never gotten to do that before. I've always respected women." So we just wanted to turn it over on its head and make people go, "Women and their bodies are beautiful. Men are always gonna want to follow them around." After the video got banned on YouTube, my wife tweeted, "Violence is ugly. Nudity is beautiful. And the 'Blurred Lines' video makes me wanna..." You know. And that's the truth. Right now, with terrorism and poverty and Wall Street and Social Security having problems, nudity should not be the issue. -- Robin Thicke

guest_of_logic wrote:Just to be clear, Orenholt, is what you're saying: the video clip is sexist, and the women participating in it, as consenting adults, are equally as culpable for the sexist message as the men? If so, I agree. I wonder though whether the sexism bothers you as much as the feminist reaction to the video clip, because initially I got no hint that it did, but in your later posts it seemed that maybe it did.

Yes, you understand what I'm saying. I think I'm equally annoyed with the sexism of the creators of the video and the sexism of the feminists. I just have dealt with more feminists saying that the women have "no choice" in the matter of whether they dance in the video or not and go to extreme lengths to fabricate hypothetical scenarios such as "she probably has 9 babies and can't even get a job at McDonalds! Those manipulative bastards MADE her dance nude."

I hear you Orenholt, but don't fret too much over unreasonable people. While we certainly must always battle against ignorance and unreason, and while our contempt for such is certainly a motivating factor in our becoming wise, ultimately we need our focus elsewhere -- that is, in a positive and constructive direction, toward reason it self. It is only so useful to point out the hypocrisy, falseness, and destructive behavior in others. If we carefully meditate, we find that much of the time we do this, we are merely emotionally venting, and dwelling on something we already well know better about and should have long ago moved on from. It is important to release our emotions if we have them, but thought, not emotion, must be our primary guide. With thought as our main navigator, we can articulate the reasons such ignorant behavior in others is (a) ignorant in the first place and (b) upsetting to ourselves. We can also speculate the reasons such ignorance came about in the first place, and doing this especially helps us see things clearer and not be so upset.

Of course, in suggesting you not fret or become upset as much, I am not saying to be indifferent or detached or apathetic toward the horrible state these people and society as a whole seem to be in. Rather, I am reminding you what you probably already know deep down inside: that you have leadership potential, and that new doors will open up for you if you can look upon the ignorant masses as the un-led (the so-called dancers) versus the misled (the so-called feminists), seeing them for the quite innocent children they are, rather than looking upon them as being happier than you, more successful than you, threatening to you, messing up your world, going against your vision and values, not taking reality or their own souls seriously, overwhelming you, stressing you, overpowering you, and in general bringing you down. The emotions in your writing shows that you feel all this, as if you are responsible for the suffering and ignorance of the masses. Once more, meditation will allow you to become convinced that this is nothing short of arrogance on your part. Once more, you know deep down that the best path is to not waste your time! Instead of futile efforts of cursing the darkness around you, make every effort to shine light, even if a small campfire of your very best insights, even if a tiny candle of your most noble thoughts.

Point out what is wrong and false, yes, but then focus on what is good and true.....

Diebert wrote:"Women and their bodies are beautiful. Men are always gonna want to follow them around."

That's the unchanging fashion: men like and want that women don't have minds, only bodies.

Even most of the MGTOW men I interact with are completely incapable of realising their own addiction to sex is still enslaving them to women. They think if they can get an old-fashioned fifties wife, preferably Asian, or else just have a series of no-strings-flings, then they're no longer manipulated by women. Ha! How desperate their need: if you mention celibacy, they think that's unnatural and impossible and unthinkable and impractical etc. It's so easily revealed that they can't live without women.

Is it any wonder that the typical feminist is so insane, when they have such egregiously intelligent fellows to deal with?

Orenholt wrote:

Excuse me? I don't think it has anything to do with "fashion".

Did you read how Diebert described 'fashion':

The fashion and pop industry are indistinguishable from an exclusive whore, is the sense that the opinions on what's degradation or beauty always will keep varying.

The bounds and expectations on women are fluid. The women in the video are, in some people's opinion, acting in the way you describe:

they're being Uncle Toms of sorts. They're being submissive to the men who give them money to the point that they're bashing women themselves by participating in the music video. It really makes no difference if they're clothed or not imo. It's just the fact that they would support this music video at all given the content of the lyrics.

Other people would say that they're being independent and free - doing what they like because they can.

But that's this week. Those same people might think the exact opposite next week after there has been a backlash against such behaviour or they may well be praising an even more explicit event. All that really happens is that more fodder is whipped up for the media, social commentators, and bored office workers standing around the water cooler.

You know, it wasn't so long ago that a flash of a woman's ankle was thought shocking (and in some countries it probably still is the case.) What women wear causes much controversy. Why do you think that is?

sue hindmarsh wrote:Other people would say that they're being independent and free - doing what they like because they can.

All I've seen people say is that these women hold no accountability for their actions because they're being paid, because they know that it's wrong to support this video. If they were to acknowledge that they were making a personal choice in the matter they would hold guilt.

But that's this week. Those same people might think the exact opposite next week after there has been a backlash against such behaviour or they may well be praising an even more explicit event. All that really happens is that more fodder is whipped up for the media, social commentators, and bored office workers standing around the water cooler.

You know, it wasn't so long ago that a flash of a woman's ankle was thought shocking (and in some countries it probably still is the case.) What women wear causes much controversy. Why do you think that is?

I'm pretty sure that the reason women were considered to be of ill repute if they showed off their ankles was because those women were seen a property and for only their husbands to see. Those same women probably gained a "holier than thou" sense from supporting the idea. Whether a woman is showing off her body or hiding it, it's all for egotistical purposes.

Orenholt,

The "holier than thou" sense that women take on exposes the competing relationship between women. They're always sizing each other up to make sure they're not out of touch with the latest trends. The video with the young nude women has become a big hit. I'd say that's because a lot of young women like it for it expresses how they want to feel about their own bodies and sensuality. They dream of being free to express themselves anyway they want. Obviously their dream will remain just that - a dream. Other women with more tried and tested ways of how to express what it is to be a woman have felt the video not acceptable, and they always win.

sue hindmarsh wrote:Orenholt,

The "holier than thou" sense that women take on exposes the competing relationship between women. They're always sizing each other up to make sure they're not out of touch with the latest trends.

Yes, I would agree with that.

The video with the young nude women has become a big hit. I'd say that's because a lot of young women like it for it expresses how they want to feel about their own bodies and sensuality. They dream of being free to express themselves anyway they want. Obviously their dream will remain just that - a dream. Other women with more tried and tested ways of how to express what it is to be a woman have felt the video not acceptable, and they always win.

I don't know about that. I think that most of the reason that the video had received so many views was because of the controversy, not that people were actually wanting to hear it over and over again because it was so many women's dream to be like that. I would guess that this video will soon be forgotten like Miley Cyrus's "twerking" was a huge deal a few weeks ago.

Orenholt, you wrote earlier in this thread that you felt the main issue with the women appearing in the video was that, "if they're going to support a music video with sexist lyrics they should be held accountable for their equally sexist actions of supporting it". I don't see how they could be held accountable because, as I've already said it's just 'fashion' - that is, women doing something a little different from the norm to perhaps set a new trend. And you agree that women have this competitive one-upmanship nature, so their actions can't really be taken seriously, for as you say, people will forget this video in a few weeks and something else will be in vogue. This is the template of society - a template based on the machinations of woman.

You might be thinking how can women be behind the lyrics of the song when it was written by men? But remember that the subject these men have written about is women and not for instance, the green tree frog. If they had written about the green tree frog, I’m guessing the song would have had a very limited audience and the video would have been somewhat samey with pics of green tree frogs filling our screen for three minutes. Women, love and sex are on the minds of people no matter what sex they are. So focusing on one or all of those subjects is sure to keep you happily in the bosom of society.

Yes, I see what you're saying now Sue, at least I think so. Those women are just being women but those men are just being men too.
So my point still stands that if there is going to be any blame on these people it should be distributed equally among them rather than scapegoating one sex or the other.

Orenholt wrote:

Those women are just being women but those men are just being men too.

And furry little animals are just being furry little animals. ;- )

Orenholt wrote:

Yes, I see what you're saying now Sue, at least I think so. Those women are just being women but those men are just being men too.
So my point still stands that if there is going to be any blame on these people it should be distributed equally among them rather than scapegoating one sex or the other.

There is a good reason for men having the blame placed upon them – they are the only one of the two genders that has a modicum of self-awareness. Women do not need self-awareness and therefore haven’t developed any. Women are, so to speak, the set-dressing and men the directors. That’s obvious in the video as the women were props in the same way the sheep were. The men’s rational for creating the song and video was to make money and gain celebrity. So they are guilty of adding to the mediocrity that the world is steeped in. The despicable use of sexism can also be laid at their feet, for as 'men' their job is to protect and care for women – not use and abuse them.