Matt Bors for December 11, 2013
Transcript:
From an article on objectifying women on the Daily Caller by Patrick Howley. In the progressive future, men will not be able to look at women's bodies because that is a terrible thing to do... Pretty soon, looking at a woman's chest will legally be a "hate" crime instead of a love crime. Maybe catching a side glance of some cleavage on the subway isn't for you. Fine...Why ban things that you might want to try sometime? I'm not saying looking at "breasts" is any kind of noble pursuit. But it's one more freedom... And you know what else? A lot of women like it.
Jason Allen over 10 years ago
That comes awfully close to reading like “the way she was dressed, she was asking for it.” When in doubt, interact with a woman the way you would want a gay man to interact with you.
Enoki over 10 years ago
And maybe they’ll ban women’s porn: The romance novel too!
Tue Elung-Jensen over 10 years ago
Jase – you never ask for being raped, but you are pretty dumb if you expect there not to be (at minimum) looks when dressing a certain way. Even if you don’t dress like that – depending on how you look – you will get looks.
lonecat over 10 years ago
It’s possible to notice that someone is good looking without saying “Oooga, oooga” and dripping drool on the floor.
dogday Premium Member over 10 years ago
You make a very good analogy. My husband and I have had conversations on this topic often (adult conversations, not THAT kind of conversation.) I think in many cases it’s a case of very aggressive feminism: “I can do anything I want and dress any way I please and you can’t do a THING about it.” For younger women I think it’s a bad case of cultural conditioning resulting in higher-function brain death.
ConserveGov over 10 years ago
Thanks Mr. Bors for keeping us abreast of the news.
FishingWithMissD over 10 years ago
Latest reason why Bors rules: working in references to Judge Dredd and Tex Avery in the same strip.
Uncle Joe Premium Member over 10 years ago
Omigosh, I went & read Howley’s ridiculous article. He claims that liberals want to start being the moral police, punishing anyone who objectifies women.Fortunately most everyone here seems to understand there is a big difference between an appreciative glance & ogling. Most of us have figured out that some “compliments” are demeaning & have learned to express ourselves with words instead of cat calls & wolf whistles.Howley goes on to say, “Ladies, how are you going to feel when the progressives prohibit men from paying you a compliment on your walk home from the bar?”The vast majority of women can do without those “compliments”. No one is going to outlaw boorish behavior. It’s sad that Howley thinks unwanted, crude behavior needs defending.
Durak Premium Member over 10 years ago
It seems like a pretty stupid thing to worry about. Next thing you know someone will figure out that they are NAKED underneath all their clothes! Imagine the rampant fantasizing that will be going on. You’ll never be able to face your mother again! Oh no!
Enoki over 10 years ago
The same bunch that made it illegal for men to look….Maybe “them” are ugly lesbian feminists who wear oversized sweaters, support hose, birkenstocks and still live with their parents at 40…. :)
lonecat over 10 years ago
Where did martens go?
OmqR-IV.0 over 10 years ago
DrC has been banished as well.
Spyderred over 10 years ago
The problem with ogling is that it completely ignores the person being ogled. It says to the woman that she has no existence other than as an object for impersonal male lust. That’s the same mentality that rapists use. That’s why it’s objectionable, and to argue that it’s natural for men to behave as boors is an insult to the sex.
SClark55 Premium Member over 10 years ago
Once again, Matt Bors to the rescue. Where would womankind be without Matt to stand up for them?
ConserveGov over 10 years ago
“Wow, vanished for being articulate? When trolls live large, often posting so many vile statements,and to the power of ten far more insulting than martens or DrC. Well Ruff and lonecat, I suspect they got targeted.” -———————————————-I just got inside info that they were banned for posting “continuous nonsense and falsehoods”.
Uncle Joe Premium Member over 10 years ago
For anyone familiar with the Gov’s posts, that comment is a nice bit of accidental satire.
Uncle Joe Premium Member over 10 years ago
I don’t agree with Dr Canuk on practically anything, but I would (and have) fight to the death for his right to speak his mind in this forum.I’m with you on equal access for all posters.Unless there are personal threats or vulgar language (this being a comics site, I suppose a few minors may wander over from reading Peanuts), I don’t see why anyone is getting kicked.
OmqR-IV.0 over 10 years ago
I see ya, RV.
Uncle Joe Premium Member over 10 years ago
The Gov talking about posting “continuous nonsense and falsehoods” is funny, IMO.