I think if you look at the report again, you’ll see that virtually all sexual imagery would count as sexualization under their definition. For instance, the report mentions promiscuous photos on MySpace. It doesn’t say anything about what other elements are on the pages. It just says there are sexy photos that the posters put up of themselves on the pages. How is that sexist?
"Promiscuous" photos, key word. That section of the report is talking about girls who are taught that the only way to be popular and make friends is to display their bodies; the message is that they only have value because of their bodies. That they can't have value without displaying their bodies. Yes, that's sexist.
And again... READ. Not every part of the report relates to the discussion that we SHOULD be having about the HfH cover. I'm beginning to think that it was a mistake to ask you to read the report, because now you clearly seem intent on a) applying bizarro interpretations to the relevant parts of it and b) quoting irrelevant parts of it back at me in order to disprove some point that I'm not making.
And as noted before, the report refers to porn generally as being what it is talking about. It doesn’t differentiate between types of porn. But you said that not all porn was sexist. So if the report suggests that porn generally is sexualized imagery and that sexualized imagery is sexist, isn’t the report saying the opposite of what you say?
No, not really. And even that were true - even if the report and I disagreed about the potential value of porn for an adult audience - THAT STILL DOESN'T UNDERMINE THE IDEA that exposure to sexualized imagery like that on the cover of HfH 13 is bad for kids.
Learn to debate. I linked to the report because it supports the idea that the HfH cover is harmful to young readers. You can point out disagreements between my general feminist stance and the specific position of the report all you want. It doesn't change the fact that the report still supports the idea that the HfH cover is harmful to young readers.
no subject
"Promiscuous" photos, key word. That section of the report is talking about girls who are taught that the only way to be popular and make friends is to display their bodies; the message is that they only have value because of their bodies. That they can't have value without displaying their bodies. Yes, that's sexist.
And again... READ. Not every part of the report relates to the discussion that we SHOULD be having about the HfH cover. I'm beginning to think that it was a mistake to ask you to read the report, because now you clearly seem intent on a) applying bizarro interpretations to the relevant parts of it and b) quoting irrelevant parts of it back at me in order to disprove some point that I'm not making.
And as noted before, the report refers to porn generally as being what it is talking about. It doesn’t differentiate between types of porn. But you said that not all porn was sexist. So if the report suggests that porn generally is sexualized imagery and that sexualized imagery is sexist, isn’t the report saying the opposite of what you say?
No, not really. And even that were true - even if the report and I disagreed about the potential value of porn for an adult audience - THAT STILL DOESN'T UNDERMINE THE IDEA that exposure to sexualized imagery like that on the cover of HfH 13 is bad for kids.
Learn to debate. I linked to the report because it supports the idea that the HfH cover is harmful to young readers. You can point out disagreements between my general feminist stance and the specific position of the report all you want. It doesn't change the fact that the report still supports the idea that the HfH cover is harmful to young readers.