Comics I Don’t Understand

Lindsey ^_^ May 13th 2010 at 03:00 pm 1

Blegh. They’re very good dancers, at that age, but they couldn’t do it fully clothed? And, like, appropriately?

Ted in Fort Lauderdale May 13th 2010 at 03:08 pm 2

Well, they weren’t dressed _that_ extremely, but I was a bit horrified when a friend’s 6 or 7 year old daughter danced with a dance/baton group to Big Spender (with the gestures and such that would go with it), and this was 13 or 14 years ago. The child’s mother didn’t see anything wrong with it, somehow. I guess the parents (and dance teachers) of kids in these sort of programs don’t change - they see what they want to see, and given the sorts of “singers” that kiddies and tweens have been big on in recent years, pushing things even further probably just seems natural…

Nicole May 13th 2010 at 03:19 pm 3

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Charlene May 13th 2010 at 03:26 pm 4

That’s pretty darn extreme where I come from.

Ted in Fort Lauderdale May 13th 2010 at 03:59 pm 5

Charlene - I don’t know if that was directed at my comment, but if so - I wasn’t talking about the kids in the video Bill posted - those are _waaay_ out there. I was referring to my friend’s daughter’s dance outfit not being quite as extreme as these (and still being too much for a 6 or 7 year old)…

Detcord May 13th 2010 at 04:17 pm 6

Nicole is spot on!

paperboy May 13th 2010 at 04:26 pm 7

What’s “Ewww” about it is that, years ago, these little girls would’ve been emulating Burlesque performers, not “mainstream pop idols”.

Karen May 13th 2010 at 04:40 pm 8

That. Was incredibly gross.

Dave May 13th 2010 at 05:41 pm 9

I started watching it first from across the room as my wife played it… from a distance, the dancing and choreography was impressive. A little past halfway I moved up close where I could actually see the girls faces and their ages… and yeah, ewww.

Lazlo H. May 13th 2010 at 05:42 pm 10

If you like it then you shoulda … gone to jail.

Tristara May 13th 2010 at 05:47 pm 11

Mind bleach…..I need mind bleach….
This needs a EEEWWW tag and while not an Arlo per se (I don’t think that is sneaking past censors, it’s just gross) it seems like it should go on the Arlo page for indecency.

Kamino Neko May 13th 2010 at 06:24 pm 12

Wow. Inappropriate costumes, inappropriate dancing….wouldn’t have chosen that song for that age group, either (though it could be a lot worse*). Eesh.

* Could have been Poker Face (which is a track on the most recent Mini Pops album), or Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy (a lipsync my friend saw a kid do one year at a community festival). Those two are my bar for bad choices for kid-performed songs.

Lola May 13th 2010 at 06:38 pm 13

O
M
G
!

On the other hand, what a great place to flush out perverts in audience.

Tim May 13th 2010 at 06:47 pm 14

@Tristara #11,

Mind bleach. Soon to be a new internet meme. Whenever something like this comes up again, I know what to ask for.

Kamino Neko May 13th 2010 at 06:52 pm 15

<a href=”http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrainBleach”Long since an internet meme, actually.

Kamino Neko May 13th 2010 at 06:53 pm 16

Stupid > >_>

Well, it’s probably saved everyone from getting sucked into the black hole that is TV Tropes…

Cidu Bill May 13th 2010 at 07:04 pm 17

Thursday night and I still don’t have anything for this weekend’s Ewww Files. Guess I should have saved this one.

George P May 13th 2010 at 07:52 pm 18

I don’t understand why parents can’t see that teaching little girls to act and dress sexy is not only age-inappropriate but is teaching them the wrong lessons about what life should be.

Their mothers were probably young dancers and cheerleaders and the like, so they don’t see it for what it is.

Bassoon May 13th 2010 at 08:29 pm 19

I’m afraid this is only about a 3 on my eww meter.

Last week I saw photos of a friend’s 7 year old at some kind of cheer competition. The makeup and costumes were far, far, more extreme. It pegged my eww meter at 10+. I’m afraid my eww meter is now way out of calibration. Please pass the mind bleach.

What was really creepy is that my friend, with whom I’d grown up with in a small town, thought this was all perfectly normal behavior for the age group.

Spamhead May 13th 2010 at 09:08 pm 20

Sometimes, I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion, Bill.

Araxie May 13th 2010 at 09:48 pm 21

Well, you know, this sort of thing doesn’t have to be so bad. It just depends on the kids’ perspective on it all. That is to say, if I were 7 doing this (like I would have been… that’s the sort of talent that will evade me forever), I wouldn’t necessarily connect the dance style with sex. It would have just been fun, and I got attention. Just like Olive in Little Miss Sunshine.

Sure, it’s obviously prefferable for them to do something more age-appropriate, but at the same time, it may not negatively impact them. Possibly.

Jeff S. May 13th 2010 at 10:01 pm 22

I have to think about sandpaper to get that scratched outta my head.

drdan May 13th 2010 at 10:14 pm 23

About 30 years ago, one of my throwaway classes spent a week on sexuality in Media, the guest lecture was a woman who spoke about women objectified in advertising, you could hear the collective groan in class, she showed a picture of a kid who looked about 6-7 dressed in “sexy underwear” with heavy makeup, she looked like a hooker, most laughed when the picture appeared. She then made a point about advertising using children as sex objects, no one laughed. I have always cringed at videos like this and I had the same feeling when the videos of JonBenet appeared after her death. It goes beyond what are the parents thinking, what were the people that put on the show thinking

Nicole May 14th 2010 at 12:33 am 24

Ok …. I think it is safe to say that everyone around here knows that I am not a prude by any stretch of the imagination.

IMHO … this is sexual abuse. I know there are those who will accuse me of overreacting. But seriously — if that dance was performed by hot 20 year olds in the same outfits, there would be no question of the sexuality of the dance . I can only assume that these little girls have no real idea that they are selling sex, and that many of the dance moves are meant to suggest F *** king. They are being manipulated by their parents to perform sexually … that is indeed sexual abuse.

I am often amazed at the heights the human race can rise to and the depths to which it can fall. This is pretty effing low. There are people cheering …. CHEERING!!!! … I want to puke. The parents should be ashamed of themselves and should be arrested. Whoever put on the show should be arrested for child porn as should everyone there cheering. I am disgusted.

Buzz Killington May 14th 2010 at 01:20 am 25

This s— is kiddie porn, plain and simple…

George P May 14th 2010 at 06:04 am 26

Araxie, the parents/instructors/whatever are the ones that designed the costumes and dance routine. That this girls may not see it as wrong doesn’t make it any better; in fact, that may make it worse.

Lola May 14th 2010 at 07:25 am 27

Not only are they cheering, but they cheer most eruptively at those part that most resemble, as Nicole so succinctly puts it, F***king.

Powers May 14th 2010 at 08:56 am 28

I thought I could handle it, but I had to stop it at 0:18. EWWWW.

GP May 14th 2010 at 09:06 am 29

I kept waiting for the cheers to turn into gasps of horror and revulsion. Instead they got louder. Everything about this is horrifying.

labradog May 14th 2010 at 09:17 am 30

Child molestation in it’s most acceptable form.
Where’s the pole?

mkilby May 14th 2010 at 09:21 am 31

As gratuitously obscene as this video is, the performers themselves are neither to blame, nor are they likely to connect the dancing with sexuality at all. They probably think it’s just the same as all of the rest of the music videos they regularly watch on cable television. The fact that a large percentage of MTV and VIVA’s material is composed of soft-porno trash just isn’t apparent to a seven year old. One might have expected the producer (or director) of this garbage to realize this, but it would appear that the irresponsible parties all had lobotomies just before this video went into production.

As for “Brain Bleach” (see 15), it’s simply a caustic rendition of B. Kliban’s “Mental Floss”: easier on the nerves, and much safer for the environment.

Jay May 14th 2010 at 09:50 am 32

They showed this clip on The Early Show this morning, because everybody will stop to watch a train wreck. But as they were showing it, they kept saying “Who watches this? Who would watch this?” Well, anybody who was watching The Early Show, for one.

freedyk May 14th 2010 at 10:05 am 33

On a positive note, at least their parents are preparing them for future careers in Vegas or as pole dancers at the local “club”.

Daniel J. Drazen May 14th 2010 at 10:11 am 34

OK … disturbing.

Igelino May 14th 2010 at 10:51 am 35

The video isn’t available in “my country” - probably because of the music. I halfheartedly tried a search on youtube for “7 year old dancer” but got too much, too quick.

Proof that our society puts too much emphasis female sexuality. Funny thing is, I hold “feminists” responsible.

The parents don’t see the problem? And the audience?

Modesty is “out.” People are irresponsible. And I sound like my grandma.

Cidu Bill May 14th 2010 at 11:12 am 36

freedyk, you mean at a tapas bar?

Keera May 14th 2010 at 11:41 am 37

Araxie @21, mkilby @30: It is up to us adults always to guide and protect our young, including not exposing them to matters too advanced (adult) for their age, simply because children do not know better.

This video was simply shocking. I don’t know where to begin, but my final thought after watching the whole thing was that these girls have had their childhood stolen from them.

zharris May 14th 2010 at 12:18 pm 38

Chapter 3 from “Dressing Sexy for Grown-Ups.” Didn’t this song give us the boy crying in the car seat a couple weeks ago?

ty May 14th 2010 at 12:25 pm 39

Jay - and readers of CIDU. What’s the difference between what The Early Show did by showing the video, and what Bill has done?

Cidu Bill May 14th 2010 at 12:43 pm 40

In one sense, ty, nothing. In another sense, though, intent: I was passing along something I considered worthy of discussion, and “ratings” is irrevelent to me. CBS probably ran some blurb like “Seven-year-olds acting slutty. See it all after these words from our sponsors.”

Cidu Bill May 14th 2010 at 12:46 pm 41

Igelino, your grandmother’s grandmother probably said the same thing: bemoaning the current generation’s immodesty is nothing new (”In olden days a glimpse of stocking…”)

The difference here, is that rather than being immodest ourselves, we’re now imposing it on our children.

Cheetah May 14th 2010 at 12:56 pm 42

I wanted my young daughter to get into dancing a few years back…tap, ballet etc. Unfortunately, the dance troupe also required this type of dancing for 5, 6, 7 year olds. She no longer takes dance lessons.

AMC May 14th 2010 at 12:58 pm 43

As bad as the performance is, in and of itself - who the hell thought it was a good idea to put the video up on YouTube?

I really hope it wasn’t a parent.

Gilgamesh May 14th 2010 at 01:01 pm 44

A member of the US Supreme Court once said (IIRC): “I can’t give a definition of pornography; but, I know it when I see it.”

@Igelino No. 35: “…I hold “feminists” responsible” - That is nothing but a heap of He-cow Cookies! What illogic are you twisting to believe Feminists want to sexualize and objectify young females? The documentaries I have seen on these displays of mental illness show the mothers as responsible for the sexual abuse of their daughters; possibly as a vicarious personification of their own repressed sexuality.

We live in a society where it is an outrage if a mother naturally feeds her infant in public or if a ’swear’ word is said, but, sees nothing unusual of seven year old girls inviting strangers to think of them as sex toys.

wordlass May 14th 2010 at 01:11 pm 45

Two of the parents were on GMA this morning, too. Their defense: The dance was never intended to be seen by such a wide audience; it was only meant for the competition. Sooo . . . as long as you limit the viewing audience, it’s okay if your daughters participate in soft-core kiddie porn? Really?? Um . . . am I missing something here?

Elyrest May 14th 2010 at 01:22 pm 46

He-cow Cookies! That one I like. Feminists responsible ? Why do people always twist around what feminism means. (Sometimes even people who call themselves feminists.)

Everyone has already said all the ewwwy things I would have.

Jay May 14th 2010 at 01:27 pm 47

ty: (Regarding the difference between The Early Show and CIDU) Pretty much what CIDU Bill said.

If The Early Show had said: “Look at what’s out there. Let’s examine it and discuss what it means” I would have thought it was a good idea. (That, combined with an Ewww, is what I think CIDU’s take on it is.) But The Early Show’s approach strikes me as being hypocritical; they suggest that watching it is wrong and then they display it at the same time.

Jay May 14th 2010 at 01:43 pm 48

Wordlass: Interesting defense that the parents had. So they think the bad thing about the video is people watching it, not having the kids make it. I don’t think you’re missing anything, the parents are. And what they’re missing is … well, I don’t know, but something.

I have a lot of thoughts about these poor kids, but they are hard to articulate. I hope the GMA hosts (figuratively) smacked the parents around and asked “What the #### were you thinking? Don’t you DARE do this again!”

Nicole May 14th 2010 at 01:55 pm 49

I would like to add that another difference between Bill posting this on CIDU and GMA showing it is audience number. Bill’s site numbers pale in comparison to GMA. Millions of people who would have never heard of this video …GMA almost guaranteed that it will go viral.

And to those who think we have covered the EWWWWWW quotient of this video … we haven’t scratched the surface. There are things that went through my mind that I won’t even suggest, as I don’t want anyone to get lobotomies to forget the images.

Nicole May 14th 2010 at 02:00 pm 50

Yes feminists are responsible… demanding not to be treated like sex objects has caused those who want to treat us as sex objects to look elsewhere. Our continued indoctrination of younger and younger girls cause the objectifiers to look younger still. Soon you will see zygotes in similar garb performing Milk Shake
Yeesh

Igelino May 14th 2010 at 02:17 pm 51

Yes, feminists.

The message I get is that women want to be treated as men, but at the same time want their sexuality.

The unresolved contradiction is what causes these extremes. At least in my opinion.

The idea of “objectification” isn’t a “feminist” issue. It seems to me that women have learned to objectify men in the last twenty years.

That’s why I say “people are irresponsible.” The change that feminists sought was a good ideal, but implemented without much thought about consequences. So we have a country made up of men that can’t find femininity, and women that can’t accept masculinity.

You can be a man without degrading women, and you can be a woman without degrading yourself. And you can be a woman without degrading men.

ty May 14th 2010 at 02:36 pm 52

Jay - I didn’t see the Early Show, but from your description, they did say “Look at what’s out there. Let’s examine it and discuss what it means.” They did so by showing the clip and talking about it. Even if the discussion was limited to “Who watches this stuff?”, what they think it means is obvious. How deep does the discussion need to be so that it is no longer hypocritical?

Bill - I don’t see the network’s decision to run the clip as any less honourable than yours. (And I accept that yours is honourable.) If we allow accusations that “they did it for ratings” to define legitimacy, then we short-circuit any discussion in commercial media of controversial matters. (I withdraw the comment if The Early Show routinely runs this kind of material.)

Elyrest May 14th 2010 at 02:40 pm 53

Feminism is so NOT about being treated as men. It is about having equal rights and opportunities. Just because some people subvert it doesn’t change the basic intent. I don’t think feminism has ever been ‘implemented” to my knowledge. I’m not really sure what that means.

Christine May 14th 2010 at 02:58 pm 54

@Elyrest: the reason that people get “feminism” confused is that so many people who get confused about it call themselves feminists. There are concepts we covered in my women’s studies class that would offend a lot of women who call themselves feminists. I have nothing against most feminism that was presented in that class, but the popular definition of what a feminist is has issues to me.

I think that what offends me most about the dance is that they could have done something very similar and still toned down the sexuality in it. Yes, it would still offend some people. Not being a parent, I may be underreacting to this. But if you put them in clothes you wouldn’t have to change most of the dance moves to be able to get something that’s both using popular music, and less disgusting.

Cidu Bill May 14th 2010 at 02:58 pm 55

Ty, there is the matter of whether The Early Show was catering to the desire for discussion or its viewers’ prurient interests — but in any event I wasn’t the one who brought up the fact that The Early Show broadcast it, I can only guess at the context in which they broadcast it, and it’s not my place to judge them.

Anita May 14th 2010 at 03:10 pm 56

I doubt these little girls make any kind of connection to sexuality. They are simply emulating what they see on just about every music video out there these days. And, honestly, I’m sure they are having fun. Girls this age love stuff like Beyonce (and not-that-long-ago, Spice Girls and Brittany Spears). They love to pretend that they are in those music videos. In most cases, I sincerely doubt that they think of any of it in a sexual way. But it doesn’t make it right that they are bombarded with this stuff.

It astounds me that the parents and/or dance instructor or choreographer wouldn’t choose more modest costumes and tone down the more sexual moves for the performance. The girls obviously have some dance talent. Whenever I see those poor little girls who do beauty pageants a la Jon Benet I am beyond horrified. This is another level.

Jeff S. May 14th 2010 at 06:11 pm 57

YouTube has removed the video due to copyright infringement claims by Yak Films.

“Yes, that is OUR soft core child pornography and we plan to exploit the girls to the fullest extent!”

wordlass May 14th 2010 at 06:17 pm 58

So Igelino, men degrade women, women in turn degrade men, and women now also degrade women. And all of this is laid at the feet of “feminists”? Hmm. That’s a pretty tidy argument. One that won’t hold much sway with any women I know, or men for that matter.

As a woman of a certain age, I was there for the bra burnings and ERA. Most young women today don’t appreciate (as in understand) why they have even the level of equality they’ve got — it’s thanks to those who came before them. In fact, I’d be hard pressed to find a single young women who would call herself a feminist. They just see themselves as . . . women.

Anyway, I certainly didn’t fight for little girls to be treated like sexual objects. Or little boys. Hmm. Perhaps feminism is at the root of the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, too . . .

Sorry if it sounds like you hit a nerve. I just think that people should held accountable for their own stuff and in my mind an awful lot of adults weren’t wearing their thinking caps on this one. Too bad for these little girls. And maybe they were just having fun and really didn’t get what was going on. But isn’t it up to the adults who DO get it to protect them?

Igelino May 14th 2010 at 07:12 pm 59

What are you guys trying to say to me?

In my post #35 I said that my you tube search results for “7 year old dancer” was too much for me. I said it was proof that our society puts too much emphasis on female sexuality.

What is it I hold feminists responsible for? Well, directly, the emphasis on female sexuality. Indirectly, the attitude that these kinds of “moves” are ok for children.

Gilgamesh at #44, you call my comment bullshit and go on to twist my words.

No, I do not believe that “Feminists want to sexualize and objectify young females.” It is out of line for you to put those words in my mouth.

Elyrest #46: yes, I thought that was cute too. Doesn’t justify rudeness.

“Why do people always twist around what feminism means.” (sic)

Because the ideal is very different from the popular understanding we (and our children) get bombarded with in daily life.

Nicole #50: are you being sarcastic?

Elyrest #53: that’s right. At least ideally. But the ideal is very different from the popular understanding we (and our children) get bombarded with in daily life.

Christine #54: Thank you. My women’s studies instructor had to correct students regularly on this point. The ideal is what you learn after you get into college. Before that, you get the popular media.

Wordlass #58: touch a nerve? You’re putting words into my mouth. If they almost correlated to what I said in my posts, I wouldn’t mind. The way you put it, it is insulting.

In addition to telling people what I think, are you also being sarcastic about it?

I know what I said is politically incorrect. Are you all going to sit around whining about the video and about my words?

Maybe please think about where the parent’s attitude comes from, and debate fairly.

So tell me, what do you think has brought about the attitude that these kinds of videos are ok? A trivial search shows that this video doesn’t come close to being the first.

Jay May 14th 2010 at 08:29 pm 60

ty: The Early Show was implying that there’s something wrong with people who watch the video while trying to get people to watch their show by showing the video. Perhaps we mean different things by “hypocritical”.

Anita: I agree that the kids are innocent in all this, and perhaps don’t understand what they’re doing. It’s unfortunate that they are being taught that they can get attention by acting in a certain way.

Igelino: “The message I get …” An honest question: specifically, where are you getting this message?

Nicole May 14th 2010 at 11:20 pm 61

Igelino : I can’t speak for other women, but I can assure you that I do not want to be treated the same as men. I see the way some of them treat each other and trust me … I’ll have none of it. In fact it sometimes amazes me that men want to be treated as men.

What I do want is to be treated as though I am more than a life support unit for a vagina. When I apply for a job, I want to be judged on my qualifications and if I get the job I want to be judged on the quality of my work. I don’t want mechanics to try to take advantage of me or talk down to me because I have tits. I want to have control of my own damn body and not have anyone tell me what I can and can not do with it. I want to be considered as much of a human being as anyone who has a penis. And yes, damn it along with all of that I want my sexuality… I don’t just want it … I demand it.

How dare you say that my wanting to be treated as a equal has something to do with this trash. For thousands of years women have been little more than indentured servants and sex objects. I seriously doubt that any woman volunteered for that duty. We were told by the bigger and stronger that was our place. This garbage is more of the same — the only way for a woman or in this case a seven year old girl to get recognition is to ‘get down and dirty’ This video is the antithesis of feminism, it is what feminists have been fighting for years.

Nicole May 14th 2010 at 11:23 pm 62

now that I am done with my rant … let me add this

Feminism: the radical notion that women are people

Elyrest May 14th 2010 at 11:30 pm 63

Thank you Nicole! I agree totally and could never have written it so well.

Keera May 15th 2010 at 02:04 am 64

I too agree with Nicole @61. She certainly spoke for this woman.

Keera May 15th 2010 at 02:13 am 65

Igelino @59, “everybody” has interpreted what you said originally as saying feminism is to blame for the video the rest of us saw and you didn’t. I too read you as blaming modern female sexuality for what we saw in the video.

Wordlass @58 pointed out that ultimately, it’s not feminism we need to address, but the lack of good judgement by the parents of the girls. You stopped reading her comment after “hit a nerve”, it seems, and have chosen to feel insulted by her response.

I have read all the responses to you, responses that all have understood you to be criticising feminism, and now you’re claiming you didn’t. If everybody is interpreting you wrongly, then you probably didn’t express yourself well to start with. So, clarify yourself rather than claim the rest of us are twisting your words and insulting you.

Igelino May 15th 2010 at 07:54 am 66

Far be it from me to escalate this argument in Bill’s “virtual living room.”

My opinion is that certain negative attitudes in our culture have a basis in “popular” feminism. I’m sorry that you take that as a personal attack.

I also think that trying to resolve the problem of irresponsible people starts with trying to identify a root cause that we can hope to address. I do not believe it is hopeless.

But without thought about cause, how can it be addressed?

So what do you think causes this kind of attitude in parents?

Nicole May 15th 2010 at 08:28 am 67

Igelino @59

Yes I was being sacrcastic in 50. In 61 I was ranting and in 62 I was quoting an old bumper sticker.

“What is it I hold feminists responsible for? Well, directly, the emphasis on female sexuality. Indirectly, the attitude that these kinds of “moves” are ok for children.”

Lets get something straight — listen closely. For a long long time it was not OK for women to like sex. Their only purpose in sex was to have somewhere for a man to “put it” when the man wanted to and then, should insemination take place have a baby. Anything else was not allowed. Feminists said that has got to change. It IS OK for women to like sex, they get to control with who they have sex with and when they have sex with them and they get to decide whether or not to have a baby.

No feminist would EVER think these moves are right for children and many would think they are inappropriate for adult women. Read that again — many feminists would not approve of this routine being performed by adults. Got it ? Even with adults, this routine continues the idea that women here sexual objects. It is designed to appeal to men and frankly arouse them .. that is were the EWWWWWWWWWWWWW factor comes in that we have all been talking about comes in. IMHO when adult women perform like this they set feminism back NOT move it forward.

You want to know what else feminism is about … it is about autonomy. Being in control of ourselves. I get to make the decisions that effect me. That is what is so revolting about this video. When adult women do this sort of thing, it is their choice … I don’t approve but I don’t get to tell them what to do. When children do this, as many have said, they don’t know the sexual nature of their actions, they were told ‘put your legs apart and wiggle as you squat down” they don’t know that that is overtly sexual. They are being manipulated into being sexual objects, by the people they trust and who have power over them, and as I said in the beginning, that in my mind is sexual abuse.

But please elaborate on how my liking sex, wanting control over my body and who I have sex with, has contributed to the idea that it is OK to trick little girls into being sex objects.

Nicole May 15th 2010 at 08:37 am 68

Igelino @59

Sorry I missed your last question about what I thought caused this kind of attitude in parents … simply put “Sex sells” . This maxim has been around long before feminism showed up

Igelino May 15th 2010 at 10:31 am 69

Nicole, as far as I can tell, sarcasm and personal attacks aren’t in line with the rules here. I’m sorry I’ve offended you.

Please stop ranting.

Igelino May 15th 2010 at 10:52 am 70

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism

…and also note that researchers consider it a “belief” that women have been systematically oppressed.

Wiki has a few articles about feminism, and there are books as well.

The link here also acknowledges the dangers of going backwards as a result of being too extreme.

I’m just saying, I think that’s being achieved.

Jay #60: do you really want me to post examples in mainstream media of snarky sexist comments?

Igelino May 15th 2010 at 11:05 am 71

Before THAT post causes an argument, I should suggest that the difference between radical and not (ie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism ) is not black and white. That is, it’s a matter of opinion, as well as comparing the individual characteristics of the two.

Keera May 15th 2010 at 11:17 am 72

Nicole @67, I agree with everything you say, but I am left with a question: Who decided to teach the girls to dance like Beyoncé? Who allowed it? Their dads - acting out a fantasy? Or their moms? Acting out their own fantasy, I’m sure. At what time did it become - in a country that will no longer let children walk a few blocks to school or a playmate’s house for fear of being kidnapped by a pervert - appropriate to let children do this sort of thing and before a live audience as well as on camera?

Igelino @70, it’s no “belief” that women are still paid 70% of what men earn with the same education, experience and responsibilities. I think you’ve got a hang-up about feminism, as shown by giving us a link to its more extreme expression (radical feminism) to make your point.

You know, I was willing to address your original claim, because there may be something to it. I.e. today’s young women consider it “liberated” to augment their breast size for example. Me, I don’t find the idea of anasthesizing and cutting into a perfectly healthy, young body merely to go up a bra size or three “liberated”. But of course, I’m a dried up menopausal woman (thank you, feminists, for removing that!) and missing the point. Today’s girls have “glamour model” as their career of choice and boob jobs are just a savvy business move.

Is that feminism? Is Beyoncé gyrating around on stage in clothes banned in Malaysia feminism? I say no. I say no because I have trouble seeing how it makes us valued on the same terms as men. Men still do not need looks and sex to sell (though that seems to be changing) while plain but talented women are still ignored, and nowadays pretty but flat-chested women are ignored. I say feminism got ahead quite a way and then started to backslide. The female body is used to sell stuff, be it cars or songs.

So back to the video based on Beyoncés gyrations, and my question to Nicole. I think the answer is that there is no one one fighting for equal rights any more and because the parental generation currently knows of nothing else, they believe everything is all right. They don’t remember when women had to demonstrate for the right to wear pants to school or for the right to decide how often to be pregnant or whether to be pregnant in the first place or even the right to have a credit card issued in their own name.

So no, this isn’t because of feminism; it is in spite of feminism.

Cidu Bill May 15th 2010 at 11:53 am 73

My own two cents, having read and written about the JonBenet Ramsey case far too much and for far too long … for the most part, “feminism” and sexuality for its own sake are both red herrings. Mothers push their girls into these pageants for the same reason some fatehrs puch their boys into sports: to vicariously become the alpha female/male they themselves never were (or were and want to recapture).

Winter Wallaby May 15th 2010 at 12:01 pm 74

Igelino, I don’t see anything in Nicole’s comments that I would call a “personal attack.” She attacking your ideas, which is perfectly legitimate. She’s attacking them rather emphatically (as I would have), and describing them as fitting into a consistent set of horribly wrong and somewhat disturbing ideas about feminism and women - but whether she’s right or wrong, that’s an attack on your ideas, not a personal attack.

Your comments about feminism are making very little sense to me, although I have little to say that hasn’t already been said.

Elyrest May 15th 2010 at 12:32 pm 75

This is the second time recently that someone has accused others of a personal attack when only the ideas and thoughts have been questioned. Cidu Bill has shut down people pretty quickly when they have gotten nasty. (Thank you very much, Bill.) I know it is hard to have our ideas pulled apart and dissected, but that is what most of us are here for.

And the comics.

Igelino May 15th 2010 at 12:41 pm 76

Sorry, Elyrest, calling someone’s opinion cow-poop is personal. As well as putting words in someone’s mouth. If you don’t understand, please ask for clarification.

Nicole: http://news.yahoo.com/comics/alley-oop#id=/comics/100515/cx_alleyoop_umedia/20101505

It reminded me of you. Again.

Bill has a good point. Kids being pushed into things for the sake of the parents’ personal issues. It’s very self-centered, and unfortunately more common than I wish.

Winter Wallaby May 15th 2010 at 12:58 pm 77

Igelino, if you’re going to take having your ideas attacked as a personal attack, you should probably avoid commenting on anything controversial.

As well as putting words in someone’s mouth. If you don’t understand, please ask for clarification.

As Keera @65 pointed out, virtually everyone has understood your comments in the same way. If people really aren’t understanding you, you might want to consider that the problem might lie in your comments, rather than the respondents.

Igelino May 15th 2010 at 01:03 pm 78

So Winter, are you justifying calling someone’s opinion bull? And not giving a reasonable argument why it might be bull?

The problem might indeed be in my comments. Does that justify calling them “bull”, extending them in odd ways that aren’t in my text, and being sarcastic about them?

Take some responsibility for your side of the communication as well.

Igelino May 15th 2010 at 01:06 pm 79

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/thats-life#id=/comics/100515/cx_tl_umedia/20101505

Igelino May 15th 2010 at 02:04 pm 80

Keera: I’m not sure if you can hear this, but I’ll post it.

You live in Europe, right? In Europe, the difference is closer to 85%. It would be interesting if you would post statistics that correlate years of experience and salary compared to gender.

Part of the difference is attributable to the social benefits in Europe. Women get maternity leave as well as paid leave from their employer until the children reach a certain age. While that may not apply to you personally, it applies to your employer. The employer is required to pay these benefits even while the mother is not providing the work that the employer hired her for. For the employer, the cost of employing a woman is different than the cost of employing a man.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with the idea of paying women while pregnant and taking care of newborns and toddlers. Just want to point out that the cost comes out of the employer’s pocket.

And there’s still an absence of evidence of “systematic oppression.” It may be there. Point it out to me.

http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article1902985/Warum_Frauen_weniger_als_Maenner_verdienen.html

Keera May 15th 2010 at 02:53 pm 81

Igelino @80, I don’t feel like repeating myself or getting into women’s history with you (again) because your attitude is reminding me of something else: Holocaust deniers.

Winter Wallaby May 15th 2010 at 04:41 pm 82

So Winter, are you justifying calling someone’s opinion bull?

Yeah. Not all opinions are sensible. It’s perfectly valid to argue that someone’s position is b.s.

And not giving a reasonable argument why it might be bull?

Well, that’s where we differ. I’m finding the arguments of Nicole et. al. pretty reasonable.

Jay May 15th 2010 at 05:24 pm 83

Igelino @70: I honestly don’t see how you can go from snarky sexist comments in mainstream media (which I’m sure exist; I think you could find any type of comments that you want in mainstream media) to the message that “women want to be treated as men, but at the same time want their sexuality”, so I would be interested in whatever snarky comments you had in mind and I would hope you explain how you use them to draw your message. I would seriously like to see where you are coming from, because right now it makes no sense to me.

Cidu Bill May 15th 2010 at 07:58 pm 84

Keera, whoa… Holocaust deniers?? That’s more than a little bit excessive, don’t you think?

CIDU Bill hands Keera a Godwin penalty card

Nicole May 16th 2010 at 01:38 am 85

Igelino

Sarcasm is certainly within the rules here. And what exactly did I say that you would consider a personal attack. Please quote.

as for @ 76 … I do believe that is a complement

Keera @ 72

“Who decided to teach the girls to dance like Beyoncé? Who allowed it?”

I would be the first to admit that women can sometime be their own worst enemy. We complain about being treated as sex objects and then perform in strip club, we proclaim that we are just as capable as men and then take a role as a ‘helpless female’ in a movie. I alluded to this problem when I said that some feminists would not approve of this routine being done by adults.

There are people who confuse claiming sexuality with being publicly sexual. They are very very different. What claiming my sexuality means to me is simply that sex is not bad, I can enjoy it and I get to decide who I have sex with and when I have sex with them. I think the confusion arises from the ’sex is not bad part’ … many people take that to mean I can do whatever I want wherever I want … because it is not bad. Well not bad does not mean not private. There are many things that are not bad that we keep private. The amount of money that is in our bank account (embarrassing is not the same as bad) . Sex is a private act and should be kept that way … I know that sound weird coming from me, given my reputation around here … but there is a big difference between joking about sex and putting it on public display.

And just for the record …. the ’sex is not bad’ came out of the sexual revolution … not feminism

Keera May 16th 2010 at 07:14 am 86

Sorry, Bill. That’s what this discussion with Igelino reminds me of. Probably because I can’t think of anything else similar to one person denying the entire history of another group of people, and demanding that all of us who know the history prove it exists to him.

Igelino May 16th 2010 at 07:34 am 87

Nicole #85

I don’t prefer online dictionaries, but in the interest of posting a reference:
Sarcasm: 1. Witty language used to convey insults or scorn
from http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/sarcasm

A quick search reveals similar definitions in several other online dictionaries. Some more severe.

In Bill’s “FAQ and contact information” (link way up on the upper left of most of the pages here) Bill says in the third paragraph “…I’m not keen on my house-guests insulting one another either.”

Is that enough or do you still need quotations?

As for other examples, I accept that they were in rants, and while that doesn’t justify it, I’ll take them with several grains of salt.

I stand by my (and Webster’s, et al) “interpretation” of sarcasm. It is personal.

As for 76: I don’t pay much attention to the story line in that strip. I like the dinosaur art, and sometimes the art and dialogue converge in a sweet way.

Nicole, thanks for cooling down. I can understand this post a lot better than the earlier ones.

: )

Jay, I’ll get to your question after lunch.

Igelino May 16th 2010 at 09:32 am 88

Jay, in my post #35 the second sentence of the second paragraph was more of an aside than a main point. It didn’t occur to me that it would be taken so seriously, much less raise hackles.

It’s an opinion based on feminist literature and on personal experience.

I don’t intend to write an essay on feminism here. The wiki links I put in #70 and #71 are pretty good - I don’t expect what I write here to come close.

For one thing, there’s a difference between the ideals of feminism and the popular expression of feminism. And my thinking wasn’t a simple one-step process that can be conveyed in a line or two, especially under personal criticism.

When I saw 7 year-olds doing clearly sexual things, my mind went to “how the heck do the mothers rationalise THIS??”

And the answers that came to mind were several. But by far the predominant one In My Mind, was that “it is a right for a women to express her sexuality, and this is valid. And what are you, Igelino, anti-feminist or something?”

So that gets you to how I came to connect this with feminism. The quotation marks in my post were intentional because as Nicole very correctly put it, this isn’t what feminism is about.

Ok, so my mind doesn’t stay quiet very long. Why do I go so far as to hold “feminism” responsible (or at the very least, Partly responsible)?

In 2002-2004 I took several classes at a local college that specializes in “lesser-paid” careers like social work, theology and nursing. I learned very quickly that I wasn’t allowed to voice any negative view of feminism as a man. “Not so!” said several classmates. Fortunately one of them was serious about the “not so!.” She suggested how to approach the topic, and observed several of my interactions. She said she was shocked at the results. In fact, men are severely discouraged from openly discussing feminism, and she had to agree.

No problem, that’s my experience. A little effort on your part may or may not validate it. And of course it depends on the culture and environment. Ie, results may vary. I’m just saying, my experience was rather eye-opening.

The next step in the reasoning is, if “real” feminists would insist on including men in cultural change, they would be a whole lot more successful than trying it unilaterally. For the decision to exclude men I hold them responsible.

Certainly you can argue that it’s not common. But please read the literature, the wiki posts and a couple of references.

Consider the difference between the ideals, the radical “beliefs” (in quotation marks because they’re debatable) and the excuses that women use in the name of “feminism” to justify public sexuality and exposure, as well as reinforcement to young children that such behavior is somehow a “human right.”

So I will suggest that my “aside” wasn’t the insane rambling of an old man, but one that is based on literature and personal experience.

Adding a couple of comments here: popular media enforces this. do you really need quotes from media? Sex in the City has some of it, and I know mothers that let their 7 year olds watch it. The strip with “The meaning of Lila” a few days ago had the quote that “he lost his rights when he let his pants down.” It was made by a young girl, and referred to some dialogue in Desperate Housewives. Regardless of how cute, like many of the comics here, it says something regarding our culture. Is it alone enough to be harmful? Admittedly not. But these kinds of examples are all over the place. What can a child think except “it’s ok to express an extreme or unjust position because lots of other people do.”

And apart from that, where are the feminists when these kinds of television shows get such high ratings? (That one is more rhetorical.) My belief is that if women would openly speak against these things, on personal level, amongst each other, it wouldn’t be so bad. And include men in your attempt to change the culture.

Igelino May 16th 2010 at 09:58 am 89

Hups, Jay I forgot to talk about my post #51.

Although it is something I believe, it’s more a reaction to previous posts (ie sarcasm and being called “bull”) than a direct relevance to my post #35.

Poorly worded, too.

But there are reasons for that opinion.

Nicole May 16th 2010 at 11:02 am 90

Igelino @ 87

Sarcasm is definitely meant to scorn — but I was directing my sarcasm at your ideas no you directly.

As for my rant … there was nothing sarcastic about it

And I never read Alley Oop

Jay May 16th 2010 at 11:12 am 91

Igelino : Sorry about the bad experience in the class. There will always be people like that. Given your posts in this thread, though, I wonder if the problem wasn’t so much voicing negative opinions as voicing offensive opinions.
The people that I know who refer to themselves as feminists do want to include men in the cultural change; they would practically need to. Also, they have objected (not encourage) having women viewed as objects, contrary to what you seem to be suggesting. And from what little experience I have of “Sex and the City”, I don’t really consider it to be a good example of … well, much, really.

Nicole May 16th 2010 at 12:28 pm 92

Here is a blog piece about the systematic religious oppression of women

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/sunday_sacrilege_daughters_of.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28Pharyngula%29&utm_content=LocalHost

My favorite is from Tertullian a christian writer:

Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil’s doorway. You should always go in mourning and in rags.

But don’t let me influence you … go to the blog and pick your own favorite quote.

Nope …. no oppression here … move along nothing to see.

Detcord May 16th 2010 at 12:32 pm 93

Well, this is my last day, last few hours actually, in the good old US of A. I thought this thread was pretty well finished at 20-ish, so imagine my horror when I return to discover it went viral to 90+ Wow! I wish I had paid more attention (than to my family? umm, no actually - sorry )

Had I been paying attention, I would have given much more support to Ingelino, as he (she?) made some valid points that got lost in the noise. As I don’t have much time, I will lightly focus on 2.

Nicole, I thought you made an excellent point at line 50, and I agree wholeheartedly with Elryest’s definition of feminism at point 53. Elryest seems to lose it after that point and Nicole at 61 (at this point I am note sure what you want! Surely “equal” and “same as” are synonyms?).

First, equal rights allows women (and men) the freedom to pursue the career/lifestyle of their choice. If that means gyrating on a stage in scanty clothing - that is their CHOICE! Other women (or men) cannot take that choice away from them - and still claim to believe in equal rights.

Equal rights does not exist, however, without equal responsibilities. If women do not believe they have achieved equal rights (I believe they have) then they should look to those responsibilities that support those rights. Maybe they’re missing something? (a rhetorical question)

I agreed completely, earlier, with Nicole as these comments do not relate to children. They cannot be held responsible for their actions (their parents can), so they cannot have equal rights to do what adults can do. Parents have a duty to their children, and I think these parents went way beyond the pale.

To Ingelino I can only say that this site can go pretty “rough and tumble” at times. The R&T can be a lot of fun (even on the receiving end), if one doesn’t take it too seriously (just see one of the Global Warming threads ).

Detcord May 16th 2010 at 12:42 pm 94

I should also point out that “pursue” does not equate to “get”. We all have strengths and weaknesses which facilitate or detract our efforts to attain our goals. No one would pay or even wish to see me gyrating in scanty clothes on a stage - even if I really, REALLY, wanted to do this. Fortunately, for everyone, I don’t, but I also recognise that I do not have the right to deny this opportunity to other adults. As noted earlier, children are another matter entirely - which is what this thread was initially about.

Elyrest May 16th 2010 at 01:00 pm 95

“I agree wholeheartedly with Elryest’s definition of feminism at point 53. Elryest seems to lose it after that point”

Lose it? When did I ever have it? Comedy aside, Detcord, what did I lose it on because my only comments after that were thanking Nicole and commenting on personal attacks. I’m not being sarcastic I’m just not sure what you are referring to.

On another note Detcord I do hope that you had a delightful trip back to the US and that the weather cooperated with your stay.

Igelino May 16th 2010 at 01:09 pm 96

Nicole #90:

Scorn:
1. Lack of respect accompanied by a feeling of intense dislike.
2. Open disrespect for a person or thing.

Still not on your side on this one. Lack of respect and/or open disrespect for my opinions is … well… lack of respect and/or open disrespect. Period.

We try to maintain and atmosphere of respect here.

Nicole May 16th 2010 at 01:16 pm 97

Detcord 93

Hmmmm … I am starting to think that we agree more that on topics than disagree — a frightening thought

Yes … in some ways ’same as’ does mean equal. But not always. What I was referring to the social interactions between as well as the pressures society puts on them. Yes, I do recognize that men are stuck in roles just like women are. Perhaps the best way to put it is that I do not want to be a man. I actually like being a woman. As I said at 61 … what I want is to be judged for my abilities, payed the same amount as a man doing the same job, and be treated as though I actually do have a brain. Or if you like … I want to be treated as though I have value as a human being. Not actually a whole lot to ask.

I agree with your comment about adults performing such a routine. In 91 I said as much. I would not begin to think I should deny women the choice to do something like this, but that doesn’t mean I have to approve and should not voice that disapproval. I said that I felt the when adults perform this type of thing it is detrimental to the cause of feminism and stand by that.

Again … I agree that equal rights require equal responsibilities. I was very disappointed that the feminists did not fight harder to have women register for the draft along with their male counterparts. Not that I approve of draft registration for anyone, but if we want equality we have to take the bad with the good.

Let me finish that I recognize that great strides have been made toward the goal of equality. Women are doing jobs today that a scant 30 years ago would be unheard of. But there is still a long way to go as this video proves.

An aside to Igelino: The discussions on this site tend to be quite tame and civilized as far as web discussion sites go. It is very rare to see any name calling or ad hominem attacks. And while you may feel I was attacking you directly, that was never my intent. I will certainly admit to attacking your ideas with some vehemence, but but those attacks were never meant to be directed at you.

Nicole May 16th 2010 at 01:26 pm 98

Igelino 96

Scorn:
1. Lack of respect accompanied by a feeling of intense dislike.
2. Open disrespect for a person or thing.

I freely admit that there are opinions I have scorn for. In fact there are many. Here are just a few, that whites are better than blacks, that straights are better than gays, that men are better than women …. the list could go on. But what is relevant is that yes, I do hold scorn for the idea that feminism had anything to do with this video being created. I am not required to respect every idea that is presented to me, and that every idea has equal value. However I don’t believe I have said anything that implies that I have scorn for you personally.

Note in your definition it says person OR thing … will the thing I have scorn for is your idea, not the person presenting it.

Igelino May 16th 2010 at 01:31 pm 99

Jay #91: actually, I don’t consider it bad. Just an eye-opener.

I doubt the reaction’s connection to presentation. The classmate coaching me told me how to present the views, and she made effort to make the same presentation.

Could it have been a reaction to the gender of the presenter? The experiment was her attempt to prove me wrong. Afterward she said, yes, definitely, gender of the presenter.

Igelino May 16th 2010 at 01:50 pm 100

Nicole, I’m not going to argue about radical feminism. It isn’t worth it. And as far as I’m concerned, it isn’t what feminism is about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism

Nicole May 16th 2010 at 02:05 pm 101

Igelino what have I said that qualifies as radical feminism ?

Igelino May 16th 2010 at 02:44 pm 102

Nicole, I read your links. At least you could open mine.

The first line reads “Radical feminism is a “current”[1] within feminism that focuses on the theory of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on an assumption of “male supremacy”[1] used to oppress women.”

The wiki goes into more detail, and I think it’s a good essay.

I don’t mind people having this view. But I agree with the wiki essay in that it can tend to be counter-productive and in some cases, detrimental to the feminist movement.

Igelino May 16th 2010 at 02:53 pm 103

Um, and before That post raises more hackles, I also want to say that, yes, it relies rather heavily on Willis. And yes that’s right, radical feminism isn’t all bad.

Winter Wallaby May 16th 2010 at 02:55 pm 104

Lack of respect and/or open disrespect for my opinions is … well… lack of respect and/or open disrespect. Period.

We try to maintain and atmosphere of respect here.

Is this the royal “we”? Because there are lots of long-time commentators here, and you seem to be the only one familiar with this rule that respect for people means that you have to respect their opinions as reasonable. I’ve been in lots of contentious discussions here, and lots of people have told me that my comments are a bunch of hooey (they’re always wrong, of course, but they do it anyway ). So long as they don’t start calling me an idiot, or other names, I don’t take it as a personal attack, and I don’t think it would be reasonable for me to do so.

Igelino May 16th 2010 at 02:56 pm 105

Jeez, walking on eggshells here. By “isn’t all bad” I mean there are positives and negatives.

Elyrest May 16th 2010 at 03:03 pm 106

Igelino - I have to agree with Nicole. Nothing she has written qualifies as radical feminism. The behavior that you experienced in that class sounds as if it was militant feminism and that sort of behavior scares even many women. Feminist come in all different flavors and colors and they are not all women.

Igelino May 16th 2010 at 03:09 pm 107

Winter: “you seem to be the only one familiar with this rule that respect for people means that you have to respect their opinions as reasonable.”

No Winter, I am not familiar with any such rule. You’re putting words into my mouth.

Where are we if we can’t agree on the meaning of words? Or if we attack someone (ie sarcasm) and then defend it by saying, “no, really, I was personifying your idea and attack IT.”

Our language allows us to discuss ideas in ways that can’t be misunderstood to be personal attacks.

Using sarcasm, personifying ideas, calling a person’s idea bull are way too easy to be misunderstood as personal attacks. In addition, their use is disouraged in newbie FAQs regarding posts and email.

And I’m perfectly willing to speak up and call it what it is.

Jay May 16th 2010 at 03:25 pm 108

Igelino @99: Given that your experiences differ completely from mine, and many others it seems, I still suspect that your presentation wasn’t altogether inoffensive. Rather than an eye-opener, it seems unfortunately as if you are saying that was an eye-closer.

Igelino May 16th 2010 at 03:40 pm 109

Oh, and thanks, Detcord. I appreciate it. : )
This one was tough at a few points, but in general I consider it an excellent exchange.

Nicole May 16th 2010 at 03:53 pm 110

Igelino Please quote exactly what I said that you think is a personal attack

Also, just because I asked you to quote what I said that qualifies as radical feminism, does not mean that I did not open the link

Igelino May 16th 2010 at 04:31 pm 111

Nicole #110: just your sarcasm. I thought you and I settled that at #87. What I’ve called personal attacks have come from several posters here. I shouldn’t have repeated myself in my reply at #107 to Winter at #104.

Sorry.

When I said “we try to maintain and atmosphere of respect here,” it was based on observation over a period of time, which, if I hadn’t observed it, I wouldn’t have ever posted here.

Sorry if I presume myself to be part of the group by saying “we.” I do tend to be rather detached, and wish I could insert little “funnies” like Elyrest did at #95.

Igelino May 16th 2010 at 04:43 pm 112

Oh and sorry, Winter, your humorous insertion was also well received. I do indeed intend to take things with a grin of salt.

Oops, or a grain of salt? How do you correct typos on these things?

I can’t guarantee that I will ignore several assaults from different angles at one time. At least I think I say say it ONCE without feeling the need to repeat myself.

Live and learn.

Elyrest May 16th 2010 at 05:44 pm 113

Igelino - I think maybe what you are interpreting as personal attacks may be what’s the problem. People aren’t attacking you. They are questioning your comments and ideas. It does appear that you have a problem stating things succinctly and don’t deal well with what you’re stating is sarcasm. I don’t see a lot of that sarcasm and I don’t interpret sarcasm as an attack. It’s not a humor that I use, but it can be effective if used correctly. It is often difficult to discern intent online and it might make it easier on you if you approached this from the attitude that people are not attacking you.

Nicole May 16th 2010 at 06:31 pm 114

Igelino #110 … clearly not, since we are still having this discussion … but I will end it with this:

Any sarcasm I posted was not meant as a personal attack. It was meant as a response to an idea that frankly, I find ludicrous. Please note … the idea is ludicrous not you. I have been commenting on this site for years and during that time I have often used sarcasm. You are the first person to interpret my style as a personal attack. I don’t often resort to this line of reasoning, but when Bill intervenes (as he sometimes does) and tells I am out of line or breaking the rules, that is when I will change the style of my commenting. And with that, I will end this part of the discussion

Detcord May 17th 2010 at 03:36 pm 115

Well! That was a bit longer than expected, but at least I did arrive. For a while there it looked as though I would be futzing about Paris rather than London. Paris is a nice place, been there lots, but getting dumped there, thanks to a poorly trained Icelandic volcano, is not my idea of fun. I mean Really! Great to see the thread is still going strong though.

Elyrest (95) My “lost it” comment related to the latter part of your (53) comment (i.e. I don’t think feminism has ever been ‘implemented” to my knowledge. I’m not really sure what that means.”) As you noted, your subsequent comments were simply supportive - no argument there! Regarding the former, if you’re not sure what feminism means, how can you say it has never been implemented? That struck me as a Non Sequitur.

I was also unhappy that lots of people talk about their “rights”, but few talk about the equivalent responsibilities that make those rights possible. ()

For example: Nicole, your (61) response to Ingelino, “How dare you say that my wanting to be treated as a [sic] equal has something to do with this trash”, completely misses the point about Equal Rights. Recall Voltaire’s comment, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. If you want Equal Rights for women, Nicole, you have to defend the rights of other women, such as those who want to cavort on stage in scantily clad clothing, regardless of your personal feelings on the activity. I happen to agree with you, and I stay away from such venues because I feel it cheapens me as well as them. But that’s just me, and who am I to say “NO” to other men and women who enjoy – or profit by – this sort of activity. Children don’t get these rights because that can’t be held responsible for them. That’s why parents have rights over children - because they are responsible for them. These parents seemed to have missed that later detail.

Ingelino (87) - Whoa! That Radical Feminist link was Long. Didn’t finish it either. Brain exploded. Fortunately, I think your link has helped me to catch a glimmer of the problem - and I now better understand what Elryest (53) was saying. What is Feminism? Is it Radical, Liberal, Working-class, Militant (to name a few)? I think I am finally just that one scintilla closer to the answer to the age-old male question, “What do women want?” Answer: They haven’t a clue, other than to keep men guessing.

Gilgamesh May 17th 2010 at 03:46 pm 116

@Igelino

I’ve read through the comments today and was surprised to see you took my silly expletive of “he-cow cookies” as vulgar and a personal insult.

I apologize for my mistake.

I did not mean to insult you, if we were talking face to face I would have still said it, but, you would have seen my smile. I do stand behind the rest of my comment, as I do believe strongly in equal rights for all humans.

It speaks to your integrity and maturity that you did not respond in kind when you thought yourself insulted with a vulgarity.

Igelino May 17th 2010 at 03:49 pm 117

I want to add a very important point to the feminism topic that hasn’t been made.

“Radical Feminism” isn’t about “extreme feminism.”

An unfortunate name, in my opinion. It is about “radical” as in “root.” I’ll re-post the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism

The definition is in the first line. The meaning of the word has nothing to do “extremism” and is clarified in the second paragraph. I.e. “In particular, it has nothing to do with a feminist’s degree of ideological fanaticism.”

This flavor of feminism has been a major force for positive change in the US. Some of those things are pointed out in the essay. It sounds like Keera was a part of that. : ) Good job.

Like most things, though, it is not 100% effective. Several “criticisms” are also noted in the essay. Even so, they do NOT invalidate the gains made by the movement.

Jay at 108: are you saying that a man talking about both the pros and the cons of feminism is offensive? If so, that is one evidence of the exclusion of men in the feminist movement.

Elyrest at #106: several of Nicole’s statements are in the Definition of radical feminism. Read up on it if you doubt me. It is not negative. The idea that it is negative somewhat offensive. And my experience was not with militant feminism. In fact, many feminists find that term rather offensive. I find your attribution of it to my classmates at an accredited private college which has respect for turning out social workers, teachers, theologists and nurses - well, I find it inappropriate.

Elyrest at #113: focusing on my formulation or on my emotions simply avoids the point. I have not let my emotions run rampant here, and my views are solidly backed in pro-feminist literature. Read it.

I am pro-feminist. Got it yet?

Detcord May 17th 2010 at 03:54 pm 118

Cidu Bill.

Saw your second, parent interview, posting. Clearly someone doesn’t get it (us, or them?). Both parents interviewed appeared completely clueless to the wider ramifications of their childrens’ dance routine. And I don’t know what to make of one parent’s comment that the girls’ inspiration for the dance was a Chipmunk movie cartoon. I’ve not seen it, so cannot comment further there, but if true …

amo May 17th 2010 at 04:04 pm 119

Wow Going to the link CIDU Bill just added with the Inside Edition interview of the parents. Did that bother anyone else? Essentially they were saying that they’re just little kids they don’t know any better and don’t think about it as sexual. Yes! Exactly! You’re the parents. You’re supposed to teach them what to do and help them make decisions so that they’ll make better decisions later in life as well. Also, you know that they are sexual moves and you should be concerned about how people are looking at your little girl. It doesn’t matter where they got the sexy dance moves from. *shudder*

Igelino May 17th 2010 at 04:07 pm 120

This is purely for Gilgamesh, if any feels it clutters the thread, sorry.

Gilgamesh, actually I thought the statement was cute, like I said in one of my posts. Yep, would have been great in person - I Did laugh. And a counter-phrase that came to mind was “shove it up your He-cow cookie-vent.” I’m laughing, ok? You should be able to hear it over there. : )

The unfortunate circumstance of several criticisms, bordering on personal, coming in before anyone even asking for clarification, startled me. I didn’t mean it to be a main point here. I tried very hard to only address that topic when it was directly addressed to me.

Anyway, I learned a lot about this site, and about internet threads, through this thread. I’ve avoided sites that show flames. This site is a refreshing change.

Cidu Bill May 17th 2010 at 04:07 pm 121

I think what startled me most about the interview was the parents’ belief that their 8-and-9-year-old daughters had never seen the Beyonce video. Yeah, maybe if they’re Amish…

These are the same parents who ten years from now will swear that their daughters have never kissed a boy.

Cidu Bill May 17th 2010 at 04:20 pm 122

Actually, it’s a good thing the girls were inspired by the Chipettes rather than Beyonce: do the Chipettes even wear pants??

Gilgamesh May 17th 2010 at 04:27 pm 123

@Igelino

Since you did not specify ’sideways’ I assume it is my choice.

I did hear the laughter, I just thought it was one of the voices in my head.

amo May 17th 2010 at 04:34 pm 124

@Cidu Bill #121 - I thought the same thing when I heard that. After all, they seem like the sort of parents who would be extremely concerned about what their children watch. They’ll be the same parents who wonder why their children have no respect for them later on. (Have you ever watched the Disney channel? Half of the shows are about how stupid and out of touch the parents are and the kids have to out-smart them to do what they want which is of course the most important thing.)

Susan T-O May 17th 2010 at 04:50 pm 125

Cidu Bill #122, I took a peek at the Chipettes version of the song. They don’t wear pants. They wear basically a long shirt with a skirt & a shrug (that’s a sort of cropped sweater that covers the shoulders & chest area but not the midriff). They’re certainly more modestly dressed than those kids were.

Amo #119, you pegged it completely IMHO. It doesn’t matter if the kids don’t think it’s sexy or even if they truly understand what sexy means; what matters is how the viewers perceive it (huh, now I’m sounding like the sexual harassment training videos). I will say that the girls are excellent dancers. What a shame the parents & choreographers showed such poor taste/judgement in allowing them to do this type of dancing.

Cidu Bill May 17th 2010 at 05:06 pm 126

Actually, Susan, I think what you’re saying is the opposite of the message in the sexual harassment training videos: they say that you feel you’re being harassed, then you’re being harassed, regardless of the actual intent of the alleged harasser. Here, the girls (supposedly) have no idea they’re being looked at sexually — but you know that somewhere out there, somebody is.

Igelino May 17th 2010 at 05:21 pm 127

Bill at #122, and Susan’s first line at #125

shut up shut up shut up, I’m plugging my ears “blahblahblahIcanthearyou,” scratching my eyeballs out please pass the sandpaper and mind bleach!

Cidu Bill May 17th 2010 at 05:32 pm 128

Uh oh, Igelino, are you feeling harassed?

Igelino May 17th 2010 at 06:26 pm 129

Pick your response Bill:
1) I still can’t hear you.
2) Yes, sometimes. Thank you for asking.

…

Does anyone here believe that what they’re saying in the new video is the same as how they would have justified it before they got media attention?

And what will we do with the girls when they grow up and express these experiences in inappropriate ways? Throw them in jail? Throw their mothers in jail? Throw the social workers and district attorneys in jail for Not having thrown the mothers in Jail?

Jeff S. May 17th 2010 at 06:27 pm 130

amo @119 & 124… You have nailed my thoughts exactly. And as far as Disney goes, almost all of their classic animated movies where they’re retelling the old fairytales have the mother missing and the father is nothing more than a dottard.

CIDU Bill @121… after this video, it wouldn’t shock me to hear if there were several dozens of adults waiting in line to kiss these young girls.

Igelino May 17th 2010 at 06:34 pm 131

Holy shamoly, my last post is full of rhetoric, that’s a terrible sign. And I can’t get expletives out of my head. I have to check out of here.

Cidu Bill May 17th 2010 at 06:35 pm 132

Jeff, that’s pretty much true of most juvenile “action” fiction: after all, if you have two functioning parents, how likely is it that you’ll end up on a dangerous adventure? “Huckleberry Alexander Finn, you just sit down and eat your dinner. I told you, you’re not going off on that raft with African-American Jim.”

John DiFool May 17th 2010 at 08:23 pm 133

Well, this is the 3rd time or so that I’ve been denied a chance to watch this video. If I thought it was worth 133 posts to watch it that is.

Nicole May 17th 2010 at 10:10 pm 134

Detcord @115 .. perhaps I did let my outrage get the best of me when I said ‘how dare you’ … I certainly did not mean that anyone did not have the right to speak their minds. This was a gut reaction to Igelino’s statement
“Funny thing is, I hold “feminists” responsible. To me this was tantamount to saying black people are responsible for racism .

And yes, I think adult women have the right to dance on stage in any state of undress, and I would do nothing to take away that right. But that doesn’t mean I have to approve

Welcome back

mkilby May 17th 2010 at 10:25 pm 135

@ John (133) - If you want to bypass Big Brother’s media censorship, try Hotspot Shield (http://hotspotshield.com/) - it hides your IP from the server, preventing denials based on your location.

mitch4 May 17th 2010 at 11:30 pm 136

“Grammer school” ??

mitch4 May 17th 2010 at 11:39 pm 137

I’m rather put off by the mother, also by the father but (perhaps surprisingly) less so, and finally really don’t like the interviewer, most of all.

Keera May 18th 2010 at 12:45 am 138

Curious about what Susan @125 saw, I took a look too. That Chipette clip was just as disturbing as the kid video because it is showing that nobody has any good judgment when it comes to children and what they get to watch or do. I find it amusing as an adult, but I can see where little girls, watching an animation which we all tend to think is OK for kids[1], would think they too can do that.

[1]I say that with a twinge of hypocrisy, because I loved Bugs Bunny cartoons on Saturday mornings, and those cartoons were not originally made for children. A cross-dressing rabbit and a man who never seemed to catch on? I guess the point was that parents didn’t ask us kids to do the same for entertainment.

Jeff S. May 18th 2010 at 03:02 am 139

John DiFool, you can see clips of the routine during the GMA interview –

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9I86MEycPs

Ted May 18th 2010 at 08:50 am 140

This is/are? kids having a good time. It says more about the people complaining about this, then it does the children.

Perverts have a problem with this, normal people know better.

John in Tronna May 18th 2010 at 09:02 am 141

Oy — I just waded thru all (well most, anyway) of the posts — skimming over the side discussion on feminism etc.

There seems to be some shock and surprise at the attitudes of the parents, choreographers, etc. As the Early Show puts it: “Who watches this?!?”

Three words:

“Toddlers and Tiaras”.

On, of all things, the “Learning” Channel. (Learning *what*, exactly?)

I have not watched the video: luckily, I read the discussion first. I know that every time an ad for “T&T” comes on I actually feel like upchucking. So I’m glad I won’t have to invest in a new laptop.

John in Tronna May 18th 2010 at 09:13 am 142

Ted #140:

The video and the posters here actually don’t say anything about the children — we all know they are innocent.

The people who planned, executed, etc this are the ones who we say *should* know better.

Look at what you wrote. Why would a *pervert* have a *problem* with this? This would be their bread and butter.

Perverts would *not* have a problem with this. They want to see more. That’s why they’re perverts. The rest of us would like to see these children protected from perverts.

I’d say you have your scorecard reversed. Normal people would have a problem with this, perverts would think it’s OK.

Caveat: A person who has no problem with this might be, instead, hopelessly deluded or ignorant. YMMV.

Ted May 18th 2010 at 09:51 am 143

Jeff S. May 18th 2010 at 03:02 am 139
John DiFool, you can see clips of the routine during the GMA interview –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9I86MEycPs

I can’t even finish watching the video. It’s so imflamatory (sp?)

These are kids. All they are doing is pretending that they are famous. Just like I did when I was a kid and thought I was Johny Cash.

We won’t even go to the fact the there’’s a boy named Sue.

“Your” comment system won’t accept a comma. That’s why *there”s* is/are spelled wrong.

wordlass May 18th 2010 at 12:29 pm 144

Ted:

An 8-year-old pretending to be a country singer is a lot different than a group of 8-year-old girls mimicking sex acts.

And none of think the girls did anything wrong. They simply did what the adults told them to do. It’s the adults who taught and encouraged these little girls to mimic sex acts who have us alarmed.

Igelino May 18th 2010 at 03:58 pm 145

I wasn’t on board the “freaked-out” crowd when I posted #35.

I saw Bills #126 “…but you know that somewhere out there, somebody is [looking at them sexually].” That is indeed creepy.

When I scrolled up and read Susan’s #125: “…I took a peek at the Chipettes version of the song. They don’t wear pants.” I didn’t get past the word pants. My mind went directly to “You know someone out there is visualizing them not wearing pants” and my mind shattered.

My brain is still squirming. I absolutely understand now the extreme reactions before my post. And the gut-reactions to it. I have to say it took some restraint and maturity not to outright flame me.

A couple of posts brought up the idea of responsibility. I’m with them. The idea of social responsibility is very close to me. Once the squirming in my head settles down a bit, I’ll post a couple of links.

I want to add something cute and funny, but my brain is having trouble finding that gear.

Keera May 18th 2010 at 04:11 pm 146

Right now, you’re the coolest person on the planet in my book, Igelino @145.

Gilgamesh May 18th 2010 at 04:36 pm 147

Context. I am surprised no one has mentioned it yet (or did I miss it?).

We have evolved to recognize the sexual signals from our own species. Chipmunks (clothed or au naturel; real or animated) can shake their booties with no sexual response from (normal) humans so we see the Chipette skit at harmless entertainment.

We are also hardwired by evolution to take actions to continue the propagation of our species. When I see an infant, my emotional response (somewhat difficult to describe) is to get myself, physically and mentally, between the baby and any harm, wrong, evil, etc., that may threaten it.

Scientifically, humans are considered to be infants until the brain stops growing - on average about 21 years of age.

I believe the reason most people, including myself, react so strongly when we see infants exhibiting a concentrated amount of sexual signals is because it causes a dissonance due to our evolutionary hardwiring. One part of our minds is clamoring for us to take notice of an opportunity to mate while another part is screaming: Wrong!, Stop!, No!.

(This is only my layman opinion. I am collage educated, but, not in biology or a related field. I do enjoy reading, discussing and thinking about human motivations.)

Dave May 19th 2010 at 11:45 am 148

At work we found out that if you play the Benny Hill theme (Yackety Sax) instead it is a much more enjoyable experience.

Detcord May 19th 2010 at 12:46 pm 149

Cidu Bill (122)

I think this is that Chipettes video you referred to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvaR9QlthJo

The Chipie outfits are fairly demure, and the routine reasonably tame. In my opinion, the girls’ apparent inspiration is much more consistent with the Beyoncé video than the Chipettes. The parent who suggested Chipette inspiration was either being naive or disingenuous. The kiddies’ costumes were even more risqué the Beyoncé’s own, but many of the dance routine moves clearly originate from the B and not the C routine.

I saw a subsequent interview of the parents where they tried to defend the routine by claiming it was for a specific, dance-contest, audience and not intended for the huddled masses of the USA. I’d say if your (children-oriented) closed shop contest can’t stand up to public scrutiny, then you’ve gone too far.

Regarding your question, the Chipettes are wearing skirts, which I suppose take the place of pants. Check out what the Chip boys are wearing though…

… but then, they are androgynous

PS: Thanks Nicole!

CIDU Bill May 19th 2010 at 01:13 pm 150

Actually, the Chipettes shake their fur a lot more in “the official movie version” — and they do one verse in the nude, full monty.

This is certainly anthropomorphism at its most disturbing.

Detcord May 19th 2010 at 01:56 pm 151

Cidu Bill (150)

Well, “nude” is a bit extreme. I mean, after all, they are wearing fur coats. Nevertheless, thank goodness, given your findings, that the “kids” didn’t use the Chipettes video for inspiration.

PS: I applaud your rigorous search skills.

wordlass May 19th 2010 at 02:01 pm 152

Even if the girls really haven’t seen the Beyonce version, it’s not like they choreographed their own routine. An adult coach is at the bottom of those dance moves. An adult who, quite obviously, IS very familiar with the original version.

Crafty of the parents to insert that red herring anyway. People aren’t up in arms about their daughters watching MTV. They are upset that the dance routine was inappropriate for little girls. and golly, if they think it’s inappropriate for their 8-year-old daughters to be WATCHING this stuff, why on earth is it okay with them that their daughters perform it? On stage? In front of ANYBODY???

Igelino May 19th 2010 at 02:27 pm 153

Those chipette videos are absolutely disgusting. What really blows my mind is that if you’re caught with that crap in your internet browsers temp, you can go to jail. But the people filming it and the people putting it onto the internet get media attention and not even a slap on the wrist.

And notice how often the chipettes’ feet go above their waists in comparison with the girls dancing. And how often their heads are at or below the level of their hips. Disgusting.

mitch4 May 19th 2010 at 06:37 pm 154

Wait, is that David Cross??

Nicole May 19th 2010 at 09:33 pm 155

An interesting development …. I was commenting on this thread from and guess what … They blocked it as porn. I can get to the rest of CIDU just fine … just this one thread. I wonder why that happened.

Igelino #125 ….. Welcome aboard I actually thought along those lines early on, I just didn’t say anything directly about it because the image was just so gross and I did not want anyone to get THAT stuck in their heads because of something I said.

Nicole May 19th 2010 at 10:33 pm 156

that is supposed to read … commenting from work

Tristara May 19th 2010 at 11:22 pm 157

And it gets worse; not the first time they did a video
http://www.popeater.com/2010/05/18/single-ladies-girls-video/?icid=main|main5|dl4|link1|4870

Keera May 20th 2010 at 01:03 am 158

Re girls being inspired by Chipettes: Honestly, that’s worse, IMO, because when I saw the Chipette clip, which had facial close-ups and facial expressions and a few hip moves not found in Beyoncé’s video, all I could think of was a bunch of guys having a wonderful time making porn under the guise of family entertainment (because it’s animated animals). As Bill said @150, it’s disturbing.

I don’t care if the girls are good dancers (re Tristara’s link @157). They aren’t doing dance moves suitable for kids and they aren’t projecting an image suitable for kids.

Igelino May 20th 2010 at 02:45 am 159

Kinda wish I could post to Gilgamesh without cluttering the thread. Tristara’s post … can’t see the video, but the photo… before I saw it - a few minutes ago - I thought abdomens and hot-pants were sexy. I must be a perv, I noticed the girls’ sexy abdomens and hot-pants. My brain is lurching again, I used to find those kinds of things sexy on adult women - will I ever again? ***Igelino says goodbye to his sexuality***

Gilgamesh, I wrote this a couple hours ago. Lucky, too. I can’t think straight again. I can hardly … time to go out into the fog again and contemplate the … can’t get the expletives out of my mind again … I’m glad it’s foggy today.

Gilgamesh #147: good things to think about. And what happens if someone’s wiring is different from our own? Humans are all over the board there. But what happens if someone’s hardware is too different?

I mean, a not-so-extreme example might be a bus crash, one person is still conscious, and there is a mixture of ages and genders on board. Without thinking about it, he or she saves a couple of adults, but several children perish before they can be saved.

Was it a difference in hard-wiring? Was it even a conscious choice? Or is it governed by their environment, affected by parents to peers to colleagues? Was it a mixture? If so, in what percentages? What if “everyone else” would have saved the children first and are outraged that the rescuer didn’t do that?

If hard-wiring plays an important role, is it even fair to criticize the behavior? At what point do we hold the individual responsible for their hard-wiring? Can someone change it once the brain stops growing? What if basic urges related to hard-wiring show up much more often under stress than in a controlled environment?
If a person’s environment plays an important role, is it even fair to criticize the behavior? At what point do we hold the individual responsible for their environment? What if the problem was caused by the person’s environment when they were too young to change it?
If conscious decision-making is important, to what extent does stress affect the quality of the decision?

If the answers are clear for this example : ) think of a more extreme example. Add in some behaviors that are known to be influenced by hormones or some that are known to be influenced by the environment.

And then what do we mean by “everyone else?” Is it the people that survived the crash? The village where the crash happened? The country where the crash happened? Or the news agency that reported it? Or perhaps some country that considers themselves the police of the world (yeah a little dig there)?
And anyway, once we determine who the everyone else is, what about variance within that group?

Well don’t ask me. My mind broke when I realized that the parents were a big enough group, and that this question would probably solved by democracy and politics rather than common sense. “Common sense” haha. Isn’t that just an acknowledgment of environmental influences?

chuckers May 20th 2010 at 05:40 am 160

>Actually, the Chipettes shake their fur a lot more in “the official movie version” — and they do one verse in the nude, full monty.

Heh. I started up the Chipettes link and my 4 year old daughter quickly came over to sit on my lap to watch it. At the full monty bit, she asked me “How come they are naked?” “Uh, I don’t know.”

THAT’S a little scary.

Igelino May 20th 2010 at 08:29 am 161

Nicole #155: I had the image back then. What makes me squirm the most is that there’s no politically correct way for me to say flat out WHY showing the girls is wrong.

I’ll say it.

There’s a small corner of my mind that says “yum.”

I’m neither a prude nor a child molester, nor do I indulge that corner of my mind inappropriately. But since it is inside me, I am sure it is there (bigger or smaller) in everyone else. Sexuality does not belong in public for that simple reason.

That no-one, not the newscaster nor Nicole nor anyone really, no-one is allowed to say it, That’s why Bill’s post from the parents threw me over the edge.

Igelino May 21st 2010 at 12:48 pm 162

Chuckers, I showed the video to my 14 year old yesterday. She said it seemed strange. I asked how, and she said, they were too young and the dance was too … sexy somehow. She covered my eyes and said I shouldn’t be watching this kind of stuff.

I said it was all over the internet, and she said maybe we should take my internet access away. I said, um, it was on tv as well. She was silent.

Then I asked her, you said they’re too young. How old are they then? And she said, hard to tell… 15, 16…

I showed her the photo on Tristara’s link, and she said, oh, that’s them when they were younger! How cute. Except they’re not wearing clothes, they look more like pajamas or something.

And when she saw the real ages of the dancers she said it was very terrible.

Yeah Chuckers, even kids see problems here.

Susan T-O May 23rd 2010 at 04:09 pm 163

CIDU Bill @ 126, we’re saying the same thing a different way. I meant that, saying “It’s not sexy because the kids don’t know that it is” is the same as saying, “My joke wasn’t offensive because I didn’t intend it to be.” It’s not the person saying (or doing the dance) that determines if an action is harassment/offensive; it’s the perception of those hearing/seeing it.

I wonder what those parents would say if the next dance includes a strip tease. “It’s OK, the girls are too young to know that dancing naked in front of people is sexual. Besides, they put a lot of time & practice into their art!”

Which brings me to the naked Chipettes. I hadn’t gotten that far in the video so re-watched to that point. Ick. It’s not so much the “nudity” as it was the guy at the table watching them like a dude at a strip club (although the moves they made while “naked”disturbed me for reasons I can’t quite pin down; something about a pseudo-sexy rodent. . .). Kinda felt like I was watching a scene from “Fritz the Cat” rather than a movie aimed at children.

I have no idea whether ”The Stars Are Indifferent to Astronomy” is a good album, but I might have to buy it just on the basis of its awesome name

And this year’s JonBenet Ramsey Award goes to… (Update)

163 Responses to “And this year’s JonBenet Ramsey Award goes to… (Update)”

Leave a Reply

comics

Other Sites of Interest

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Meta

May 2010
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Apr				Jun »
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31