Guys, guys, guys... I think you missed the point entirely here. Have you
read the comments under that blog post?
Two thoughts crossed my mind that evening (when I read them):
1. That lady seems to be a minor FB celebrity. I don't have FB acct so I
cannot check, but she seems to have very loud voice and she seems to
say things that many don't take gladly. Whether or not she's right is
totally beside this specific point I'm about to make. What I'm saying
here is that having such an image on FB (for all I know in real life she
may be entirely different person), it seems only natural to me that she
has "enemies" or people who are on a look out for her even most minor
misstep to make her FB life bitter. It seems to be the case here. It
totally has nothing to do with what is shown on that picture as long as
"formally" the FB rules may be invoked.
2. The other point that struck me here was the fact that if I understand
correctly she posted the photograph of her baby girl in public access.
You see, when Paul Stenquist or recently Dag Thrane post pictures of
their (grand)kids to this list - this is what I would call "sharing your
personal family joy with your friends". Some of you seen my children in
person and I hope more of you will. Then if I post Anat's or Galia's
photograph here (which I rarely do, but still) - it would be totally
(<-- I cannot possibly stress that word enough) different than posting
something like this lady did in FB for public consumption. Granted I
would use flickr or other such resource, but nonetheless my point is
that the internet is way over saturated with family album pictures
posted for general public. Personally, I think it is a bad thing.
For example, now she's crying "wolf" because someone reported her pic as
child nudity or whatever. Now, may be she has to look in the mirror and
ask herself - "am I too exhibitionist?", "is it right to be so?".
And on a rather jocular note (I am not sure this was mentioned on the
list already):
A patient comes to see a psychiatrist.
Doctor: draws a vertical line, asks patient what it is?
Patient: it's a naked woman standing up
Doctor: draws a horizontal line, asks patient what it is?
Patient: it's a naked woman lying down.
Doctor: sir, you may have a serious problem.
Patient (vigorously): No, doctor, it is you who drew these dirty
pictures in the first place.
On 12/9/2013 3:57 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Muscular male trainers sell gym memberships, cheerleaders sell
football. Sex makes the world go 'round. It's not evil; it's human
nature.
Paul via phone
On Dec 8, 2013, at 7:50 PM, knarf <knarftheria...@gmail.com>
wrote:
They're using young shapely women to sell beer and chicken wings.
That's not sexist?
It's "tongue-in-cheek"?
You know that may be worse than more blatant forms of sexism
because it normalizes it, it makes it okay in the minds of too
many.
Even if is tongue-in-cheek (which I don't buy) it's not harmless
and IT'S NOT OKAY!!!
Anyway I'm out of this thread. It's doing nothing but infuriate
me. I don't want to lose friends because of this.
Have a great evening. See you on other threads.
Cheers, frank
Paul Stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> wrote:
Paul via phone
Hooters is tongue-in-cheek sexism. No bare breasts there. Much
less exposure than at the beach.
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE
from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
“Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from
the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the
directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
