Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

funny gifs

I honestly enjoy watching hypocrisy play out, whether in an offline setting or online platform. In fact, you can find hypocritical positions occurring in all facets of life.

For instance, someone Black will express his or her hatred for discrimination and stereotypes, based solely upon one’s skin color.

In the same vein, upon discovering the racial identity of my wife, this individual will apply stereotypes as to why I am with her.

In another example, someone who believes in peace and loving thy neighbor, will create campaigns that support the bullying and death of homosexuals. When I say death, I do not mean figuratively speaking—not at all. I mean death—literally.

Hypocrisy is like a virus that travels through their bloodstream, because insincerity is part of who they are.

With that said, I was not going to address this topic, because if there is one group that thinks they control the Internet and free speech, it is surely those I call provocateurs.

If your opinion disagrees with theirs, since they are mentally incapable of using logic to refute your position, they do such things as doxing. However, the Internet is in dire need of reason.

I am not a genius, nor do I think I am smarter than other users. I believe I commit to this idea, of objectively assessing hot button issues.

Sexuality will always involve controversy, and within sexuality, there is the subject of breasts. There, I said it—breasts.

Am I objectifying the entire female population, simply by referencing breasts and sexuality? Is this position misogynistic? If I go by the lunacy of provocateurs, they may think so.

Whenever a male, especially what I hear often as a privileged White male, addresses a topic involving women and girls, he experiences vocal criticism.

If his position goes opposite of their rhetoric, he is a misogynistic bigot, expressing his toxic masculinity and male privilege.

These buzzwords are void of reason, when used unjustly that is. Since they use the words in all instances, they are in effect undermining what the words actually mean.

If everything is misogynistic, racist and sexist, is anything misogynistic, racist or sexist?

Where am I going? I have observed this particular discussion from the sidelines, over a period of several months. As usual, the ones leading the charge continue committing a behavior, which I consider destructive.

Emotions are wonderful to have. They are what make us human. You can glance through my Instagram account, and notice a representation of passion for my wife.

However, emotions can be great passengers, but they can be poor drivers in a discussion that requires objectivity. Bring them along for the ride, but do not let them lead the discussion.

In the UK, there is a popular tabloid newspaper known as The Sun. Personally, I am not a fan of tabloids, but they do have a market. In the UK, The Sun has one of the largest circulations of any daily newspaper.

Page 3 is simply a trademarked term, used to represent the third page of this newspaper. On this third page, viewers will find a photograph of the day’s topless glamour model. Some love it and some hate it.

This is similar to the love/hate relationship, which people have about anything else in life.

No More Page 3 is a campaign fighting against Page 3, where the goal is to remove Page 3 models from the tabloid.

According to the campaign, Page 3 portrays women as sex objects, creates negative issues with the appearance of young girls and women, and assists in a culture that perpetuates violence against women and girls. In short, they believe it demeans and objectifies women.

Before I proceed, please do me a favor for this particular post, and leave your emotions at the door. I understand the controversial nature of this subject, so let us minimize the ability of the subject clouding our judgment.

I will not address whether it is acceptable, to have photos of topless women within the pages of a tabloid newspaper.

Instead, I want to focus on the following arguments, which the campaign raises.

1. The campaign is speaking for women.

2. Page 3 is an objectification of women

3. Page 3 demeans women’s role in society

4. Page 3 assists in the violence that women and girls face in society

I have a problem with these four ideas, and it all comes back to emotions switching roles from being a passenger, to that of a driver.

I often tell my wife when people provide answers to certain questions, their first answer is not even their secondary position. The initial response provided is usually tertiary or quaternary. As an example…

Wife: Peter, why won’t you attend the fundraising gala this Saturday?

Husband: I have a few proposals to complete for work. I don’t have time.

Wife: Hmm…but you remained home last weekend, because you had to complete proposals for work.

Husband: That’s right. However, I wanted to fix the washing machine, dishwasher and your truck’s engine, before you leave for work Monday.

Wife: You can do that on Thursday and Friday, since you’ll be home all day. What’s the real reason you won’t go?

Husband: Darling, you know the Manchester United game is on Saturday afternoon, with the Mayweather fight scheduled later in the evening. I can’t miss these two events.

His primary response regarding having no time, due to work related proposals was not the real reason, for his refusal to attend the fundraiser.

However, it sounds better and may even garner sympathy from his wife, as opposed to saying he wants to stay home for sporting events.

The real reason is usually not the first one that people provide. The underlying reason is usually hiding beneath the first answer to a question.

When I heard about the Page 3 campaign, in my opinion, they were not doing it to speak for all women. Why do I say this?

The models on Page 3 are women, so in reality; you are not speaking for women, in your position to ban the feature in the name of all women.

Objectification is the latest buzzword, which means absolutely nothing in one instance, and then everything in another.

For example, female models appearing on the cover of an import car magazine, which caters to a male audience, falls under the concept of objectifying women.

However, a calendar comprised of real women, which is a counter campaign to The Perfect Body advertisement by Victoria’s Secrets, is empowering to women.

To be clear, you want me to believe that it is objectification when women are on magazine covers, geared towards males such as Maxim or FHM.

However, it is female empowerment when real women create a calendar campaigning in bra and panties.

Emotions aside, the argument here is drowning in illogical fluid. In short, both show women, but one does not suit your feelings. Therefore, you consider one right and the other wrong.

Since one involves basic biology, where heterosexual males find attractive women attractive, it is wrong. However, the other does not specifically cater to males, and is therefore acceptable.

This is how a word can mean nothing in one instance, but everything in another.

The role of women in society is another primary response, but is not the underlying issue or real answer. However, it sounds better when you say, XYZ perpetuates a negative stigma on the role of women in society.

Once again, emotions are horrible drivers. If you think Page 3 is how people develop their understanding, for what a woman’s role in society is, you are more of a provocateur than I imagined.

People are not as mindless as you let on. I know it generates attention when you pass off this rhetoric. However, it is misleading at best and propaganda at worst.

The role of women in society is endless, just as the role of men in society is endless. It is quite a misrepresentation, to draw a conclusion stipulating that Page 3 is the only role, which people equate to women within society. There is no tangible evidence of this claim.

Being a glamour model is one role amongst many, which women can do, similar to how being an exotic dancer is one of the things men can do.

Rational minded people know this, but your conclusion is that people are unable to determine the differences between one role of X, and the other roles available to X.

That says more about your misunderstanding of human behavior, than it does about Page 3. However, this is what I think regarding the four points presented, involving this movement against Page 3. Once again, I am not choosing sides to this argument.

Instead, I wanted to dissect the notion of violence, objectification and the baseless argument, where people believe Page 3 is the only role women have in society. Be sure to look out for part two.

I want to know what you think. Do glamour models have a right to earn a living, if they do so by appearing on Page 3?

…to be continued

Advertisements