The ManCrunch thing is meh.  Don’t see what the point of it is.

I am fascinated by the “space just for us” thing.  And it’s a very fine line between creating an atmosphere that comforts some group and accommodates or promotes their interests vs. purposely excluding some group or groups.  And of course the “Whitey Basketball League” smashes that line with a sledgehammer.

If you have a group that is devoted to say Star Wars, you’re not preventing Star Trek aficionados from joining, but setting up an atmosphere that Star Trek aficionados may not find appealing.

If you’re specifying that the players in your new league must be white, native-born Americans, you’re indirectly limiting your audience to people who would be only interested in seeing white players play — which audience probably will have few to no members of color, which is probably the intended outcome.

While that is blatant (one wonders who the KKK League thinks are the other 11 target cities for franchises), there are other more subtle examples.  Amanda brings up NFL, with its carefully groomed manly-man emphasis, but what about NASCAR?  Or NHL?  How many high-profile stars have there been in either of those organizations who are people of color (or, in the case of NASCAR, women)? 

(And before somebody get’s their knickers twisted and misses the point, I am aware that there have been both African-American drivers and female drivers in NASCAR, there may have even been an example or two of a player in the NHL who is not white.  However, those people are distinctly rare in those environments…)

What about the PGA?  How many people of color have been stars (of course Tiger), compared to the overwhelming whiteness of the PGA overall?  Tennis is probably better than the PGA, but is it as “colorful” as it could be?

There are examples of self-segregation all around us, many of which are probably innocuous, but there are also many examples that are deeply disturbing and should probably be taken more seriously…

Moose Lewis has had more than a little trouble finding cities who would host his teams, which is encouraging. Many cities have sent him preemptive letters basically saying “don’t even think about it.”

I think you’re right, Amanda, that this will become a marketing strategy—create commercials which hit potentially controversial topics, and then run yelling when the network decides not to run it. There’s always the chance that the network will call your bluff, so you better have the money ready, but it’s still a good idea. And I think the strategy is a good one for our society in general because it’s good that there be some sort of push-back against the ridiculousness of the far-right, even if the push-back doesn’t take the best possible form.

Mike,
About NASCAR—I saw a couple of days ago that they’re reducing the prize money at their races by 10% this year, which is actually a lower percentage than they’ve seen their revenues fall by. NASCAR is suffering from a couple of problems—one is that the sport is more indefensible than most from an environmental perspective, and two is that it tried to be more inclusive than its core fan base wanted it to be. Outsiders didn’t stick around as fans and core fans felt betrayed, and NASCAR is catching it from both sides now. And I can’t say I’m disappointed in that.

As a football fan, I’m offended at the sexism and homophobia associated with it.  I see football as a complex game of skill and smartness that just happens to have a largely male following.

I’m also as a Gator fan a fan of Tebow, but off the field the dude is a nut.  I do however see another potential benefit of the commercial to the pro-choice side.  I think the ad exposes the hypocrisy of the anti-choicers especially when it comes to the “health of the mother” copout.  Many anti-choicers would say, “I oppose abortion for sluts, but I make an exception for the health of the mother.”  But in the case of Pam Tebow, it was a health issue and she is lucky to be alive.  But the hint of the commercial is that any other “health” abortions are wrong also.  I think pro-choicers need to point this out to expose the radical anti-choicers.

What’s weird is that the idea that football is an exclusively male space is largely a myth - according to this study 42% of NFL fans are women. That’s still less than the 51% of the overall population that’s female, obviously, but it shows that the NFL is far from the exclusive province of straight, conservative men. I’d be surprised if the results weren’t similar for political ideology as well.

One wonders, then, what the advantage of pandering to that straight conservative male demographic is. My thought is that they’re the proverbial “squeaky wheel” - CBS thinks it won’t lose pro-choice viewers because of Ryan Leaf II’s ad but that the stink the Beck/Limbaugh crowd would cause by airing the Mancrunch ad would drive away whiny conservatives.

The fact that women watch football is really evidence of how sexism and racism diverge in practice in the U.S. Racists generally want people of color out of sight and not included at all.  But sexist men want women to be integrated into their lives!  They just want them to be subservient—-women are good for listening, serving, and fucking.  Sexist women figure they can game the system to be privileged over other women.

I am fascinated by the “space just for us” thing.  And it’s a very fine line between creating an atmosphere that comforts some group and accommodates or promotes their interests vs. purposely excluding some group or groups.

That’s a very tricky division. You have the same issue with sex-segregated gyms and fitness clubs: while there are rational reasons (both physical and emotional) for gender separation in that context, how can you pull it off without becoming “exclusive”?

And you’re right that a lot of times is just the attitude that makes the distinction. You can’t necessarily avoid the “things that make women comfortable” that happen to overlap with the “things that make men uncomfortable”, but maybe you can steer clear of those things that make men uncomfortable but don’t provide any significant comfort to women. Or try to identify those trappings that would make women comfortable specifically because they make men uncomfortable and stay away from those.*

I think a good judge of attitude might be “how much energy is invested in talking about other groups”, like the over the top conservatives who drive Hummers specifically to piss off Al Gore, or the Straw Feminists who spend all their time saying nasty things about men. If your real goal is creating “space for us”, why on earth would you constantly make it all about “them”?

*I’m using the dominant group as the excluded group in this example because I find it easier to talk about the abstract concepts that way. It’s hard to discuss “things that men find comforting specifically because they make women uncomfortable” without ending up in an argument about whether women should feel uncomfortable or if they need to get a sense of humor cause it’s just a joke or whatever.

“Why on earth would you constantly make it about them?”

Survival? It’s not like, say, women and other groups have been raped, killed, battered, stalked, etc., etc., by the dominant group.

Amanda, I’ve read the Burton-Nelson book, and while it’s been a while, I remember it was eye-opening in its analysis of sports and sports culture.  She’s got another book about sports and feminism out, too.

My nephew is a NASCAR fan. My nephew is also 8 years old and mixed-race (Irish, English, and Haitian). Since he lives in New Hampshire, he *might* get fewer hassles going to a race there, but I wouldn’t count on it.

As for the commercial, it’s kind of cliche but it is funny. I could argue that in a couple of years it would fly a bit better, but that really misses the point—CBS could put it on now and force the issue. I suspect, however, they’re still gunshy from the Janet Jackson incident—you notice that all the entertainers at Super Bowl halftime since have been men anyway.

But the hint of the commercial is that any other “health” abortions are wrong also.

It’s a sort of “I did so you should” logical fallacy.  They are arguing that since this person did not mind risking her life to make a baby, no other woman has any business minding either.  Bigots of all stripes are fond of this line of thought, and things like “we have a woman on our design panel, so it can’t be sexist!” and “my black friends aren’t offended by it!” use the same tactic.  At best, it’s a dismissal of someone’s individuality or experience or priorities, and at worst, it’s used as a coercive tactic to pressure someone into doing something.  Girls Gone Wild makes use of this to pressure women into stripping for their cameras—-“Other women agree, this is EMPOWERING, and if you don’t you’re repressed!” Et cetera.

So, yeah.  The whole point is to undermine life and health as valid reasons to have an abortion, which is a continuation of their D&X;ban and their crusade against Drs. Tiller and Carhart in which they’ve largely reframed “life-saving” and so forth as “late-term,” in order to disappear, as they do, the woman’s experience.

About the ad in question, I think a better question to ask is “why would this dating site want to call itself ‘Mancrunch?’”  When you have rampant homophobia in society, I would think “Mancrunch” would be the last name you would pick.

That’s a very tricky division. You have the same issue with sex-segregated gyms and fitness clubs: while there are rational reasons (both physical and emotional) for gender separation in that context, how can you pull it off without becoming “exclusive”?

Well, one way is to create truly equal access (i.e. two weight rooms of equal size and identical* equipment), so that nobody is actually kept out (they are selling/renting access to the facility, equipment usage, et cetera; they are NOT selling access to or socializationtime with or viewing opportunities of the opposite sex).  The other way is to police the space, HARD, with a strict no-tolerance policy for harassment and the like.  Since the latter is generally not advertised (and when it is, it tends to attract some degree of hostile attention from those who take offense that someone is telling them they can’t be assholes), and its success depends on the quality of its enforcement, I’d imagine there’s a consumer demand among women for women-only spaces on the basis that that’s the only real way they’ll be protected from male disdain/harassment/aggression.

The dynamics of safe space/separate space tend to be different for oppressed communities and not-oppressed communities.  Lacking an oppressive everyday world to set the tone of their existence, non-oppressed groups would experience less of the relief and sense of hopeful strength that comes with oppressed people coming together—-because their everyday lives provide that exact same thing and so they’re inured to it.  As such, it would be difficult for a nonmarginalized person to really get what safe space is to us; their versions of separate space, generally, have only the sense of community that is absent in the outer world—-which is itself worthwhile, but nowhere near the same.  I have been to both social-club/interest meetings, and LGBT/women’s/pagan gatherings, and there’s a huge difference in the meaning they hold. The social groups offer friendship and shared interests and community, but the safe-space groups . . . it’s like the whole world shifts, and relieves a burden.

*truly identical in terms of what’s available (though if there’s a massive demand difference the number of each equipment item can be varied), because if anyone is denied access to the equipment they want to use because it’s only in the other sex’s workout area, that has become exclusive.

Amanda, yeah, I read that book a long time ago, and I’d recommend it. It seemed like all common-sense stuff to me, yet needed to be written.

Speaking of sports and sexism and homophobia, has anyone else noticed that the promotion for the Winter Olympics features NO mention of figure skating, which I thought was one of the major draws? Speed skating, yes, and female skiers, yes, but NO figure skating that I’ve seen on NBC.

I wonder if they’re trying to macho-fy the Winter Olympics? I am VERY suspicious.

Why on earth would you constantly make it about them?”

Survival? It’s not like, say, women and other groups have been raped, killed, battered, stalked, etc., etc., by the dominant group.

To me, survival and support groups are about “us” instead of “them”: they’re focused on making women safe, improving women’s lives, etc., rather than focused on hurting men and making them suffer.

To me, survival and support groups are about “us” instead of “them”: they’re focused on making women safe, improving women’s lives, etc., rather than focused on hurting men and making them suffer.

O.o

Silly me, I thought teaching men/boys not to rape/beat women would improve women’s lives.

The fact that women watch football is really evidence of how sexism and racism diverge in practice in the U.S. Racists generally want people of color out of sight and not included at all.  But sexist men want women to be integrated into their lives!  They just want them to be subservient—-women are good for listening, serving, and fucking.  Sexist women figure they can game the system to be privileged over other women.

Yes.  This.

Also, While all marginalized groups have to deal with the dominant group, women generally want men in their lives as well and, imho, are therefore more prone to ignoring/excusing the everday sexism the men in their lives dish out.

The NFL seems to getting over-run with Christians, at least that is my feeling from listening to interviews with players and coaches on sports talk radio.  The NFL seems to have hit a point where they don’t even get how silly some of the stuff they say is.

It seems rather funny at how homophobic and sexist professional football is, considering that at one time players patted each other on the ass so often that it became something of a running joke in pop culture. As for the religious aspect, I can’t say how much more debased religion can be, but it shows that there really is no bottom for the religious to use their myths for ends that have nothing to do with the core concepts of the religion. I suggest that players hurl biblical imprecations at their opponents in televised interviews before games.

You’re absolutely right John Rove, the NFL is overrun by Christians.  I would love to know if there are any openly atheistic football players in the league.

I find it funny that they play on Sunday, but the 10 Commandments prohibit work on that day.

The NFL seems to getting over-run with Christians, at least that is my feeling from listening to interviews with players and coaches on sports talk radio.

I think they’ve always been there—at the very least, pro athletes tend to be politically conservative, which makes economic sense at least—they just haven’t been as outspoken in the past. It’s part of the whole move in the last twenty years toward a more vocal <strike>ignorance</strike> faith.

They’re focused on making women safe, improving women’s lives, etc., rather than focused on hurting men and making them suffer.

Oh, for fuck’s sake.  Somebody’s paranoid fantasies are showing. Go back to Rush.

Girls Gone Wild makes use of this to pressure women into stripping for their cameras—-“Other women agree, this is EMPOWERING, and if you don’t you’re repressed!”

Only tangentially related, but I bet they have hours and hours of footage of people refusing to strip. Which I find much hotter than the stuff they actually release.

If sexist, homophobic men want a space of their own, they should try the Republican party, not the national airwaves.

“health of the mother” copout.  Many anti-choicers would say, “I oppose abortion for sluts, but I make an exception for the health of the mother.”

So I guess this is my hobbyhorse - there is no exception for health in any anti-choice law, only life. Basically a septic infection where death is guaranteed, nothing else. It makes me think that adding a health exception would be politically possible, since everyone seems to think they are already there.

There are a lot of guys who are really wierded out by women who are into football. They are okay with Go Team! but arguing about pass interference calls and so forth they hate. I guess they prefer a macho zone where girls play cheerleaders, not as refs or coaches.

Completely OT, but Utah is making it illegal for a woman to obtain an illegal abortion.

They’re focused on making women safe, improving women’s lives, etc., rather than focused on hurting men and making them suffer.

Oh, for fuck’s sake.  Somebody’s paranoid fantasies are showing. Go back to Rush.

What the fuck is that for?

That sentence right there says that that women’s groups are not focused on hurting men, no matter what bullshit various MRA and anti-feminist groups spew. The whole point was that women’s groups are about women: How do you parse that into Rush-inspired paranoia?

A commenter asked how we draw a line between making “a space for us” versus “excluding someone else”. All I said was that groups that are honestly about having a safe space tend to focus on their own members and work for things that will benefit their members, where groups that are actually about excluding other people seem to spend a lot of time talking about what shits the non-members are and working on ways to keep the non-members from getting anything.

I don’t see anything controversial in that statement. I think it explains where some MRA assholes come up with the whole paranoid fantasy of the Straw Feminists who spend all their time scheming against men: it’s just a projection of the goals and attitudes of their own groups.

Shit, feel free to say my comments are banal or stupid or not very helpful—I have no issue with that, but both your reactions were completely unwarranted. I’m sorry if I pushed one of your buttons, but I have never once said or implied anything remotely like the crap you’re accusing me of.

The ManCrunch ad, with its cheesy production value and flailing fake make-out,  seems dangerously close to anti-gay parody.

It just seems weird that some people are freaking out over an ad THAT THEY HAVEN’T SEEN.  I’m getting flashbacks to certain Catholic parishioners and the “Last Temptation of Christ.”  None of them had actually seen the freakin’ thing.

What pro-choice groups SHOULD have done,  from a tactical perspective, is wait for the ad to air and spin the whole, isn’t it wonderful that Pam Tebow had a choice thing?  Instead, they come off like they are upset that Pam Tebow didn’t make the “right” choice.  If the right ever succeeds in painting these groups as “pro-abortion” instead of “pro-choice” it’ll be game over.

liviaclaudia-  I appreciate the artistry of figure skating, but the subjectivity of the judging drives me nuts.  At least with downhill skiing you can’t argue with the stopwatch.

Everybody- Don’t rip on football.  It’s may favorite sport involving men in tight spandex.

I think the ad exposes the hypocrisy of the anti-choicers especially when it comes to the “health of the mother” copout.  Many anti-choicers would say, “I oppose abortion for sluts, but I make an exception for the health of the mother.” But in the case of Pam Tebow, it was a health issue and she is lucky to be alive.  But the hint of the commercial is that any other “health” abortions are wrong also.  I think pro-choicers need to point this out to expose the radical anti-choicers.

Anti-choicers are lying, and they’re getting less careful about hiding.  You should check out the thread on the Roeder verdict.  Some trolls are actually supporting this murderer, even though his victim performed therapeutic abortions, not elective ones.  They know full well that more women will die because they won’t be able to safely end a dangerous pregnancy, and they’re glad about it.  This has never been about life, either of women or of embryos.  This is about using childbirth as a punishment for female sexuality, even if it means a death sentence for the woman and her fetus too.

“(And before somebody get’s their knickers twisted and misses the point, I am aware that there have been both African-American drivers and female drivers in NASCAR, there may have even been an example or two of a player in the NHL who is not white.  However, those people are distinctly rare in those environments…)”

Here are some explanations:

1. The NHL does have some black NHL players.  I can even name some off the top of my head - Brashear, Iginla, Ray Emery, Laraque.  The reason there aren’t more is because hockey is primarily played in northern climates.  Most NHL players are Canadian, Russian, Nordic, from the northern U.S. states, or Czech.  So right away you’re limited to a smaller pool of black men available to develop into hockey players, because you’re only getting them from the northern U.S. and Canada, which has way fewer black people than you may think.  If racism was a major factor in sports popularity, then hockey would be more popular in the U.S. than football or basketball - but it’s not.  Not even close.

2. NASCAR - smaller people handle g-forces better than big people.  Black men tend to be taller and larger than white men - so it’s more likely you’ll get the puny white guys needed to race effectively.  Women have smaller bodies too, but not too many are interested in racing.  Maybe there’s just something about fast-moving objects and crashes that attracts more boys than girls?  I dunno.

It’s a shame PeterZeroOne didn’t make a comment like this last week, because it would have been a perfect example of mansplainin’ to link to on the other blogs where that term was coined.

“It’s a shame PeterZeroOne didn’t make a comment like this last week, because it would have been a perfect example of mansplainin’ to link to on the other blogs where that term was coined. “

So I counter someone else’s assertions with facts and arguments.  This is apparently “mansplaining”. 

What is an acceptable form of discourse?  Launching into Personal Story Time?  Seriously, what the fuck?

So I counter someone else’s assertions with facts and arguments.

Your “facts” are a bit dubious.  You don’t know what you’re talking about, but you arrogantly explain these things like you’re some kind of expert, simply due to the nature of your privilege.

Girls Gone Wild makes use of this to pressure women into stripping for their cameras—-“Other women agree, this is EMPOWERING, and if you don’t you’re repressed!”

Kind of like how the free love movement started out by empowering women to have sex when they wanted, and quickly morphed into judging women who didn’t put out “enough” or with any man who offered.  The more things change…

They have athletic men running around in tight pants and they think the sport should be a straight man’s domain?

Punting has to be the most homoerotic element of any sport outside of wrestling.

I think the quarterback cupping the center’s balls and fondling his ass waiting for the snap is more homoerotic.  I swear no QB ever just positions his hands down there, there is always a caress and the TV camera pulls in so you don’t miss an instant of muscular men touching each other.

Peter, the average height for white and black people in the U.S. is almost identical.  Black men actually average a little bit shorter (by maybe half an inch) than white men.  Are you seriously arguing that a completely imaginary difference in size between white men and black men gives white men a massive advantage in car racing, while the actual size difference between men and women confers no advantage?  You don’t think it might be more of a cultural thing?

I’m a European non-NHL fan, but I would also imagine that there are a lot of First Nations people in the NHL. What with Peter’s fact-based argument about longitude/NHL participation correlation.

I like football a lot, but the ads can be annoying.  These ads from last year tried to sell trucks using masculine anxiety:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGI8IRXRqpo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cagPZOAtZp4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgVYOX-ZFAc&feature=related

They yanked them because men found them unsettling.
Comment #34: lemmy caution on 02/01 at 04:28 PM

It’s interesting that in two of the three while they’re feminizing Ford/Ford owners, they are touting Chevy’s fuel economy. I thought getting better mpg was just for hippies, not manly men.

I guess we can be thankful for baby steps.

“Peter, the average height for white and black people in the U.S. is almost identical.  Black men actually average a little bit shorter (by maybe half an inch) than white me”

Really?  That’s interesting, I genuinely didn’t know that. 

And yes, a possible cause of the difference in the number of men and women NASCAR drivers could be sexism.  But not necessarily so.  There is ample proof that in some abilities men and women very in average abilty. Like women having a better sense of taste and smell than men.  In that case, it can be very well argued that the overwhelming dominance of the winemaking industry by men is indeed caused by sexism. 

On the other hand, the U.S. airforce recruits female pilots because of their much smaller statures.  Since the USAF is hardly a bastion of feminism, I can conclude that the visuospacial acuity of these female recruits is not significantly inferior to that of males.  Therefore, in the case of NASCAR drivers, it is quite possible a pool of talented female driving prospects is indeed being held back by sexism.

But I stand by my NHL comments.

“I’m a European non-NHL fan, but I would also imagine that there are a lot of First Nations people in the NHL. What with Peter’s fact-based argument about longitude/NHL participation correlation. “

chris simon
arron asham
chris kelly
sheldon souray
wade redden
jordin tootoo
darcy tucker
jon cheechoo
dan cloutier

And since most of Canada’s “white” population has parlty native ancestry (see John Rolson Saul), you can include many more Canadian NHL players in that figure.  Also, the best Canadian hockey players now come from Western Canada - higher in longitude.

President Obama gave a pep talk to Democrats on Saturday, assuring them that despite recent setbacks he would Mother of Bride Dressescontinue pushing his ambitious domestic agenda, including his plan to overhaul the nation’s health-care system.
Speaking at the winter Rolex Watch Blogmeeting of the Democratic National Committee at the Capital Hilton in snowbound Washington, Obama drew loud applause with his pledge to see his plans through.
“Let me be clear,” he said. “I am not A line Sash Satin Lace Wedding Dressgoing to walk away from health insurance reform. I’m not A line Sash Satin Organdie Wedding Dressgoing to walk away from the American people. I’m not going to walk away on this challenge. I’m not going to walk away on any challenge.”A line Satin Bridesmaid Dress
Obama warned that Democrats must change how they work with Republicans, who have blocked many of Obama’s initiatives and now areA line Satin Lace Wedding Dress buoyed by the prospect of major gains in this fall’s congressional elections.