Not as often as women. You know that! If we had a long history of the genders being equal, this wouldn’t be an issue. But we don’t.

“get out. assert your agency and objectify a man.”

Seriously? So, the answer to getting crap is giving crap back?

Feminism isn’t about revenge, it’s about equal rights for everyone (otherwise they’re not really equal, get it?) If the crowning achievement of feminism is that women of the 21st century can go out and objectify men, then that’s a massive fail.

And remember folks, the fastest way to dismiss someone else’s concerns about any societal or sociological issue is to just conclude that the poor buggers can’t understand a joke. As seen in action.

Pssst, Anon – I never said it was hateful. But intention doesn’t supply societal context.

ok, I agree with your theoretical arguments. can you please explain how Joshua Allen’s project is particularly harmful? besides what he connotes or evokes (our sociologically telling thread included). just his website. who does the website objectify, how, and who is the victim (more specifically than all of womankind). does he offend you personally, how so?

Nope. I observed the attempt at irony and didn’t appreciate it. Unless it was meant to be Barol’s ironic not-criticism of this not funny thing? Clearly I got stuck on the not-funniness of the sexy-lady object rating system and my little lady brain couldn’t move forward.

Boondocker, something cannot be both ironic social commentary and arbitrarily meaningless. It means something. It means “ha ha, look at me objectifying ladies as if that were an absurd thing.” It’s not funny and absurd if it happens every day, and no amount of ironic intention can make it so.

Allen is using the “ten sexy ladies” rating system as part of a satirical persona, portraying someone to be appalled by and laughed at, in the same way that Sasha Baron Cohen and Sarah Silverman portray ignorant, racist ideas as part of their characters. Obviously the rating system itself is sexist, just as Cohen’s song “Throw the Jew down the well” is antisemitic.

Cohen’s stated intent about that song is to reveal incipient antisemitism by showing how quick people are to accept his overtly Jew hating character. I’ll say for myself, as a Jew, I think his work does more to trivialize the issue than to illuminate it. Dave Chappelle began to feel the same way about his own work when he saw that it seemed to make more white people feel more comfortable making racist jokes.

Allen doesn’t demonstrate any specific agenda by which he can be judged, other than wanting us to laugh. Clearly some do and some don’t. I did.

(And, for the demographers, I’m white, male, Jewish, 1.5 on the Kinsey scale, and proud to self-identify as a feminist.)

And, I personally found Iscah’s original comment to be disappointing. It takes the rating system at face value and doesn’t address the satirical intent, and suggests that boingboing has nauseated and let the reader down. Boingboing has made it clear over the years that they’re sharing what they like, not what they want us to like.

The irony escaped you. Quick, fire up those synapses and try to catch it!

It would’ve been ironic if those images would’ve been used to rate feminist books, for example.
But using them to rate any random product is not any different from using women to *sell* products: A cheap trick to get attention.

And, as far humor is concerned – sure, lots of people find sexist or racist jokes funny. But that doesn’t make them acceptable or even “ironic”.

That’s politics, and it’s pretty sausage-y.

And the fastest way to dismiss someone who legitimately disagrees with your offense level is to haul out Standard Non-response Response #13, “You’re trying to dismiss my concerns by saying I don’t get the joke!” Sometimes the shoe fits.

Your link is so good it makes me want to fuck you.

I still disagree, but I should’ve disagreed more respectfully.

That is all.

But then again: there’s a lot I don’t get. All these Twitterers tweeting about. . .what, exactly?

Lumberjack, Ok. . .nice imagery. Recycling pennies, hell yeah, quaint useless things. . .

Still. . .people just write random bits and send them off into the void to various people that request the privilege . . .it’s all too much for me: though I suppose if John Cleese were to tell me a hilarious joke everyday or Michelle Yeoh text me goodnight kisses, maybe I’d convert.

At any rate : I knew those sexy ladies would rile some folks. The sociological implications are. . .well. . . I don’t know what they might be. But after some deliberation I will accept said lady as the Archetype of All Sexy Ladies, The Ideal sexy lady on the wall of Platos cave, if you will.

Why not? Yet, I suppose if the sexy ladies so offend, one could come up with ones own ratings system to flip the script. . .giant phalluses, perhaps? (no. . no…I think Hustler already uses that one. . .Next!)

This crap is sexist and objectifying. FAIL.

it’s not as though men aren’t objectified as well. for starters, think of the linguistic and sociological connotations of terms like “hunk”. Despite issues like salary disparities and subtle (or not so subtle) remnants of the patriarchy, we live in the 21st feminist century! sex and the city!

if we’re going to bring terms like hateful and objectification and sexist into this discussion, it’s important to look at the context and intention of the work. also consider it from the other side, not just the perspective of the default-to-victimization, unfortunately misguided liberal.

get out. assert your agency and objectify a man. challenge the status quo. you don’t have to be a sexy lady. and if I’ve been wrongfully normative, all sorts of queers can also employ manipulative objectification, be it for good or evil or just to get off, or just for laughs.

-someone who considers hirself a progressive feminist