170
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by sentientity@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

There’s a sexual ideology that holds all of these concepts together in a single place: the idea that you can celebrate Hawk Tuah girl and use her catchphrase to degrade a female politician; the idea that a starlet in a low-cut dress is yours to objectify, while contraception and sexual education are dangerous and probably immoral and should be restricted.

It harks back to the idea that was dominant in the Bush era, a moment when our culture was capable of prizing Girls Gone Wild and purity balls in equal measure, when pop stars like Britney Spears were expected to serve their audiences sex on a platter while avowing their virginity at the same time. It’s the ideology that unites Republican raunch and purity culture, that makes them two sides of the same coin: one based on the idea that women’s sexuality should exist in the service of men. The right once again championing this brand of bawdiness while working relentlessly to restrict women’s autonomy and denigrating the women they don’t like isn’t a departure. It’s a return to form.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] dumples@midwest.social 64 points 3 months ago

This is classic sex negativity through the Madonna-Whore Complex where women are either "pure" virgin mothers or dirty whores. This is an old problem that still lingers. I remember my formative years in the Britney Spear, Man show raunchy period. I did enjoy portions of it at the time as a straight young man but even then I felt exploitative and forced. In hindsight it was really messed up for both men and women and especially women,

The right can't claim any credit for the current more sex and body positive post #metoo world. People should be allowed to be both objectified if they want to be or not if they don't want to be. This is true for everyone and can change day to day. The current climate is showing both a kinder objectification of women when they choose to be as well as objectification of men. As a men is actually refreshing and satisfying to see men treated like objects in media. Its good to see a balance in both sexes. That was never part of the rights agenda where men are only held as success objects.

We want a future where both men and women can be valued for their mind, body and souls. We want sexy outfits in videogames for men and women (and everything in between). We want men and women CEOs, scientists and leaders who are valued for their mind. This is not the future the right wants and a sexy women isn't the antithesis of this. Sydney Sweeney and Margot Robbie being attractive and great actresses is part of this future. The same way that Chris Pine and Idris Elba can be sex symbols and great actors even in the same film. Ignore the rights stealing of something that had no hand in. Reject sex negativity

[-] BertramDitore@lemm.ee 31 points 3 months ago

Well said. I think it all comes down to having basic respect for people’s choices. We’re sexual animals, but we all have the right to express our sexuality as little or as much as we want.

People should be allowed to be both objectified if they want to be or not if they don't want to be. This is true for everyone and can change day to day.

I love this. Just because someone welcomes objectification one day, doesn’t imply they want it the next day.

[-] dumples@midwest.social 6 points 3 months ago

Exactly. It depends on the context of the situation.

I think one of the great things about Pride events and parades now is the celebration of human sexuality by everyone at it. Everyone is looking their best and celebrating that. Whether they are queer or not.

[-] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Man Show eh? Don't look up the Guy Game it's literally illegal

[-] dumples@midwest.social 3 points 3 months ago

Yeah. There are tons of gross examples out there.

[-] tuckerm@supermeter.social 32 points 3 months ago

Man, I had forgotten how much the "purity" of stars like Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson was talked about. It didn't even seem weird at the time. (Although I was a little kid, so I probably just couldn't notice the hypocrisy.)

A quote FTA:

“Wokeness is dead,” gloated right-wing commentator Richard Hanania on X back in March, over a video clip of Sweeney in a black dress with a plunging neckline, her breasts at the center of the frame. Hanania’s logic was obscure, but it seemed to go something like this: Sweeney’s prominently displayed chest was somehow inextricably opposed to the progressive ethos currently fashionable in popular culture.

This whole issue that this article is describing is a perfect example of why it's impossible to argue against the right on their own terms. Their process is like this:

  1. Have a very loosely defined set of ideals. You can believe anything at any time. Have more of a vibe than a set of principles.
  2. Invent an enemy. This enemy should be vaguely defined; it is everything and nothing at the same time. For example, wokeism.
  3. Because your enemy is whatever you want it to be, and because your values are whatever you want them to be, you alone get to decide when you've won. You can declare victory at any time, for any reason. This conveniently fits your insecurity-based need to feel like a winner.
[-] dumples@midwest.social 10 points 3 months ago

Because your enemy is whatever you want it to be, and because your values are whatever you want them to be, you alone get to decide when you’ve won. You can declare victory at any time, for any reason. This conveniently fits your insecurity-based need to feel like a winner.

I feel this so much with the definition of "woke" it means nothing and everything at the same time. Just a general vibe of something they hate. Similar to socialism.

[-] _stranger_@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

ALWAYS FUCKING HAVE BEEN. This was the whole lockeroom talk thing. They just feel it's ok to go mask off. We know this.

[-] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 6 points 3 months ago

Hawk Tuah is Brat for people who watch Duck Dynasty

[-] antaymonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

I don't understand anything in this sentence.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Vox - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Vox:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.vox.com/culture/371632/raunch-republicans-sydney-sweeney-hawk-tuah-girl
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
170 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19248 readers
2183 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS