Couldn't agree more. Even the drawing is offensive. (Unlike your drawing on your Web site, which is humorous and makes a point, this is intended to suggest eroticism.) The message of this sexy politics site is clear: men are animals.

How this image different from the FEministing.com, webstie image? Noah claims the difference is that it is "humorous and makes a point"...but how does it do that? What point does the image convey? Any why is it humorous?

JanAdia, the Feministing image is flipping the bird to those who'd gaze at her like a sex-object.

meh, if this were even on my radar of social injustice I could die a happy person (well, as happy as my chemical imbalance allows me to be anyhow).

btw: the "just men interested in politics...." diatribe is specious reasoning. This is targeted at a certain kind of person (and not absolutely a male person, could be a female or trans person who likes women of this type), but just because this deal targets that group does not mean there is any implication as to who is or should be interested in politics.

for example: Feministing has a decidedly female centric criteria for posting articles. Would I be correct to therefore assume that "only women are interested in feminism or equality"? No, of course not. You cannot be all things to all persons, so don't break balls when nobody else can either.

Seriously, what is UP with the influx of dudes boasting about their male privilege on Feministing?

SarahMC - for serious!

LogrusZed - give me a break. Also, coming onto a feminist site and accusing the writers of "breaking balls" is pretty cliche...

So... the idea is that you have to turn politics into a game of strip poker, or the "average guy" won't be interested?

If I were a guy, I'd be insulted.

“Seriously, what is UP with the influx of dudes boasting about their male privilege on Feministing?�
I know, I have stopped reading the comments pretty much altogether, unless I see a name I am familiar with. I feel like until a couple of months ago there were a lot more intelligent/progressive people commenting on Feministing, and I find that to be depressing.

ShifterCat,

You have to turn politics into a game of strip poker in order to get the "average guy" interested.

At the same time, men are allegedly the logical, rational sex - more fit for political leadership (and political commentary) than women.

They get to have their cake and eat it too!

LogrusZed, have you been sent to the Feminism 101 page? Because you really ought to go and read that.

I guess the males have nothing better to do today but criticize why we-as women-see this "sexy politics" things as absurd!

If the best some of you can do is to insult or malign someone who isn't even antagonistic rather than explain calmly why you feel the way you do and enter into a genuine exchange of ideas then my level of personal and intellectual respect for some of you has certainly diminished.

I'll continue to support, both vocally and through my franchise and any other means available to me, equality for all but I will also reject logical fallacy as I see it; and I'll continue to hope that instead of reactionary vitriol when my opinions diverge from the popular party line (because being an individual is neat like that) that someone might actually engage me and we can find some common ground rather than some one sided exchange, in which I have no real interest once it becomes heated.

Also "break balls" is idiomatic. It's no more "stereotypical" than parroting "white male privilege", don't look for an insult where none is intended.

Honestly, if someone tried to encourage me to be more politically active with this kind of low-brow pandering, I'd be insulted beyond belief.

actually LogrusZed reminds me of something that is really irritating.

I'm getting tired of people using a very narrow heterosexual male vision of what constitutes sexy. It's so played out all over the damn place.

Ugh, I just went back to the site with my browser plug-ins turned on. MY EYES! MY EYES!

LogrusZed,

"White male privilige" is actually a fairly complex concept. Morseo than "breaking balls". The "breaking balls" thing is more similar to "all men are rapists" (which no really person actually every said in seriousness, it's misattributed all the time. It was really just something a fictional character in a book said)

spike the cat:

I personally am also tired of a very narrow heterosexual male vision of what constitutes "logic".

You know what's kind of funny? I was going to post what LogrusZed did (ie. 'Maybe the target was gay women.') but I was going to post it as a joke! LOL! How hysterical that you're floating it as a possible amelioration for the obvious objectification of women! As if objectifying people is okay if women are getting their rocks off too. Even if the site offered you possibility of seeing a sexy male model undress with every correct answer, it would still be pathetic.

Politics - especially in a democracy - is not a joke or a game that people are encouraged to participate in by appeals to their basest instincts. It's how countries are run and what's needed in the 21st century is a raising of the standards of political dialogue, not a lowering of them.

So, while in the grand scehme of 'social injustices' this website isn't worse than female genital mutilation, it's bad enough to be mentioned and deplored on a feminist blog.

Honestly.

LogrusZed:

"If the best some of you can do is to insult or malign someone who isn't even antagonistic rather than explain calmly why you feel the way you do and enter into a genuine exchange of ideas then my level of personal and intellectual respect for some of you has certainly diminished."

You are an ass. Men have been telling women to be fucking polite forever. Funny how when people like you are called out on their privilege you immediately run to the, "But you're being rude! I want civilized discourse!" defense.

STOP IT.

You are trying to silence us.

Women have been oppressed by a system that privileges men. Of COURSE we are angry about it. Why the Hell should we be polite in explaining to you -- who is appearing to be unwilling to examine your privilege -- what the FUCK is going on here? We can speak about injustice and we have a right to speak angrily about it. I am NOT going to "calm down," just because you are so butthurt about being called out.

I'm actually going to have to agree with a part of what LogrusZed said, and I'm a female so don't call me out on parading white male privilege.

The statement he made about "btw: the "just men interested in politics...." diatribe is specious reasoning. This is targeted at a certain kind of person, [..] but just because this deal targets that group does not mean there is any implication as to who is or should be interested in politics."

Is actually true. Just because the application is aimed at a group of people (and while I would disagree that it could be aimed at trans or lesbians, I think it is pretty obvious it is aimed at straight men), in this case straight men, doesn't mean it insinuates that only men are interested in politics. That's just logically false.

And in response to emneal, who said,
"You are an ass. Men have been telling women to be fucking polite forever. Funny how when people like you are called out on their privilege you immediately run to the, "But you're being rude! I want civilized discourse!" defense.

I would have to disagree there. LogrusZed was making a point, part of it which could be construed as controversial, and instead of engaging him in discussion about the controversial aspects of his post, the first person jumped on him by accusing him of accessing his white male privilege. As a feminist who believes above all in discourse and education to accomplish our goals, I don't understand how insulting and marginalizing someone whom you disagree with would accomplish any goal and make the other person more keen to see your side.

LorgusZed,

Here is what your words are implying:

"I'll support your ideas IF you present them in a way that is sensitive to my (unexamined and privileged) needs. If any of you act in a manner I find unappealing, I will use it as a reason to dismiss all of you."

When you come into a forum and the first thing you do is be dismissive, why do you think we should be polite?

If you are truly willing to learn, I appreciate it. But your learning will at time make you very, very uncomfortable (as we have all been made uncomfortable by our own learning and our experiences with patriarchy). If you are not willing to do that, then please leave.

Ninapendamaish:

I'm not commenting on the gravity of WMP, but it's ubiquity.

It's a given that if someone with a prick disagrees with a given notion then the focus is on WMP and not the nature of the disagreement. It's a write off of the same caliber as when a male-figure dismisses the opinion or statements of a woman with "hysteria".

The focus should not be on my penis, but on my opinion. Should I weigh your beliefs based first on your genitals?

Why is it that when a male agrees with a popular feminist stance nobody ever brings up WMP? Surely is all my beliefs are jaundiced by my privilege (MP, really; as I'm not "white") then why is it that only those opinions you disagree with are suspect?

Also if you could cite and reference this fictional female character I would appreciate it. I've heard this sentiment before, but never knew it's origins.

You know, I don't see this as saying that only men are interested in politics, but I *do* have to wonder who thought it was a good idea to politically educate Neanderthals who are a member of the class that *dominates* politics by offering them the cookie of sex.

I mean, women have an excuse for not participating in politics -- the very tiny number of female pundits, the even tinier number of female politicians, and the unchallenged sexism that goes on in political discourse can make women feel like politics is a boys' club and they're not allowed. The only excuse *men* have for not knowing anything about politics is that they're dumbasses. So why is it considered a good idea to politically educate dumbasses? If "you might get drafted and sent to Iraq, dude", isn't a good reason for a man to care about politics, why do we think he *should* be educated with a sexy model? I mean, if the sexy model is what he needs to learn about shit that could *kill* him, then maybe we don't need him to worry his pretty little head about it. Maybe he's just proved he's too mind-bogglingly stupid for us to care if he's politically informed.

I want to inform young people of both sexes, women who feel excluded from politics, people of color who feel excluded from politics, anyone who feels like politics doesn't apply to them or that they haven't had a chance to learn about it. But if you're stupid, and you're so proud of being stupid that only pix of naked chix will get you to get off your keister and learn, then I think you just failed your democracy test. Do not pass go, do not vote. You suck.

Men who are not stupid, or not proud of their ignorance, will learn what they need to about politics as soon as they realize that their lives and futures are on the line, because they have no institutional barrier telling them "no, no, this is not for you." (Well, if they are MOCs they do, but this whole "Sexy Politics" concept is way too condescending to be aimed at anyone but white men. MOCs' problem is that they feel excluded from politics, not that they feel the ratio of naked chicks in it is too low.) If a man is such an enthusiastic participant in what the Brits call "laddism" that they need naked pictures of women to get interested, let them stay uninterested. They probably have nothing interesting to add to the discussion.

(Besides, even those guys watch South Park. So who exactly *are* these uninformed guys who are willing to learn about politics only if there are undressing models in it for them?)

Not really related, but this is the second time this week I've heard the phrase "butt hurt". What does that mean?

Also, what Jessica said.

Not really related, but this is the second time this week I've heard the phrase "butt hurt". What does that mean?

Also, what Jessica said.

LogrusZed could have been less offensive to some by using different wording, but there is nothing privileged, unexamined, or male about requiring a conclusion to logically follow true premises before you accept the conclusion as true.

"Butt hurt" is a homophobic way of saying someone is taking something to seriously or too personally.

emneal wrote: Women have been oppressed by a system that privileges men. Of COURSE we are angry about it. Why the Hell should we be polite in explaining to you -- who is appearing to be unwilling to examine your privilege -- what the FUCK is going on here? We can speak about injustice and we have a right to speak angrily about it. I am NOT going to "calm down," just because you are so butthurt about being called out.

Exactly right, and well said.

For those us who do wish to learn, I hope you continue to have the patience to deal with our periodic clumsiness about these issues.

Speaking for myself, although I humbly wish to support Feminism, because, not only is it grossly unjust to oppress women, I think our society will only improve when women take more positions of leadership, no doubt I unintentionally express myself incorrectly at times, but it is not because I am not completely supportive. It is just ignorance on my part, ignorance I am hoping to correct, in large part, by reading Feministing.com.

david

emneal wrote: Women have been oppressed by a system that privileges men. Of COURSE we are angry about it. Why the Hell should we be polite in explaining to you -- who is appearing to be unwilling to examine your privilege -- what the FUCK is going on here? We can speak about injustice and we have a right to speak angrily about it. I am NOT going to "calm down," just because you are so butthurt about being called out.

Exactly right, and well said.

For those us who do wish to learn, I hope you continue to have the patience to deal with our periodic clumsiness about these issues.

Speaking for myself, although I humbly wish to support Feminism, because, not only is it grossly unjust to oppress women, I think our society will only improve when women take more positions of leadership, no doubt I unintentionally express myself incorrectly at times, but it is not because I am not completely supportive. It is just ignorance on my part, ignorance I am hoping to correct, in large part, by reading Feministing.com.

david

"Just because the application is aimed at a group of people ...in this case straight men, doesn't mean it insinuates that only men are interested in politics. That's just logically false."

It's true that one particular incidence of targeted advertising like this doesn't necessarily imply anything grand. But seen as an example of a trend, it does. Is there an equivalent application targeted at other groups, thereby implying that those groups are also interested in politics? (I'm betting no) In other venues than MySpace applications, are politics systematically targeted at straight White men? (I'm betting yes) The value of critiquing something like this in a blog post is to study it as evidence of a trend. Also, I'm not entirely convinced that this application by itself doesn't imply anything. It equates "sexy" with "outline of a thin woman in a submissive pose." It could be targeted at hetero men and use a picture of a hetero couple to illustrate the concept of "sexy." It doesn't. It chooses to use an objectified symbol of femininity.

P.S. to AlaraJRogers- I consider all of your excuses to women to be really good reasons why women SHOULD participate in politics...

emneal:

Why the Hell should we be polite in explaining to you

Because you're going to need our cooperation, (male) if not our help, to get anywhere. If you think being an asshole is the best way to go about changing hearts and minds then you might be a moron.

-- who is appearing to be unwilling to examine your privilege

Stating that WMP isn't the reason for my finding fault with a logic set isn't the same as not examining the concept of WMP. But by all means set up a strawman and light it on fire, or don't. I certainly don't want you to think I'm telling you what to do.

-- what the FUCK is going on here? We can speak about injustice

What was the injustice again?

and we have a right to speak angrily about it.

Yes, you have every right to alienate people who might wish to support you (you haven't btw. It would take a lot more than one, or several, jerks to make me decide to be against equality) by being a creep. It's just that it might be counterproductive.

I am NOT going to "calm down," just because you are so butthurt about being called out.

Homophobic comments aside, who the fuck are you quoting? You do know those little you're using to bracket "calm down" (note my quote is contextually accurate) are often referred to as quotation marks. They imply a use of someone else's text. Since I never told you, or anyone else, to "calm down" I'm curious if you're even addressing me here.

Meanwhile you're attempting to silence my voice while claiming I'm doing this to you. Hypocrisy smells like a house full of cat shit no matter what gender the person flinging it is.

Now I could have said simply: "I think you've misinterpreted my meaning. All I was saying is that by targeting one group (straight men in this instance) you are not automatically excluding all other groups. Just as when hygiene products target women (Secret antiperspirant for example) they are not stating that men don't wash their armpits." But you chose the tenor of the exchange and I am following your lead.

By all means post angrily some more if you wish. It's just that I have a feeling that your intellect might be a bit more apparent if you didn't.

@Ninapendamaishi,

"I personally am also tired of a very narrow heterosexual male vision of what constitutes "logic"."

there's more than one version of logic?

@Eveyone,

also, apart from the blatantly absurd "strip-politics" web application in particular, I can't help but wonder about a standards issue - assuming that heterosexual men are on average enjoying the sight of a female body (as heterosexual women are on average enjoying the sight of a male body) and that looking at bodies of the opposite (or same) sex for pleasure isn't necessarily morally wrong, under what circumstances would you consider it would be ok to use sexy pictures of the people of the sex a person is sexually interested in to entice that person to do something else (like learn about something). Is this an esthetic issue? What's the critera you'd apply?

Angry ≠ stupid.
Emotional ≠ illogical.

exelizabeth:

Here is what your words are implying:

"I'll support your ideas IF you present them in a way that is sensitive to my (unexamined and privileged) needs. If any of you act in a manner I find unappealing, I will use it as a reason to dismiss all of you."

I would respectfully disagree that my request for civil discourse is an implication of anything other than my desire to keep things as polite and free from name-calling, etc. as possible; but if you feel I was stating any intent to dismiss all female voices or any which disagree with me then let me be clear: I'm absolutely willing to listen to anyone who disagrees with me and accept the possibility that I may be wrong. However it's certainly been my experience that if you really want a person to change then you don't go about it by browbeating them or alienating them.

Also please re-read my statements and see how I've repeatedly stated that just because a few people are hostile towards me will never change my personal dedication to equality for all people.

When you come into a forum and the first thing you do is be dismissive, why do you think we should be polite?

Because I'm willing to engage in discourse and it's a pretty simple notion that nearly any subject can be debated respectfully.

If you are truly willing to learn, I appreciate it.

Depends on what you mean by "learn". If that statement has an implied subtext of "change until you agree with the party line" then I guess I'm not ready to learn. I'm ready to attempt to understand and make changes as such changes fit into my ever-adapting personal ethos. Just like any other thinking human being. I presume that most people here have a similar process.

But your learning will at time make you very, very uncomfortable (as we have all been made uncomfortable by our own learning and our experiences with patriarchy). If you are not willing to do that, then please leave.

This is kind of a loaded context here with the implication being that I'm already wrong. Point of fact the only argument here is really that I have a problem with the logic of the initial post. Specifically:

The fact that something is targeted at a specific group does not equate to the automatic exclusion of all other groups.

Is this such a controversial notion?

the only other possible source of contention here, at least in regards to myself, is that it's probably better to be polite as a first option and that discussion and even debate is not the same as oppression, nor is it a sign of WMP.

However it's certainly been my experience that if you really want a person to change then you don't go about it by browbeating them or alienating them.

Says the person who, IN HIS VERY FIRST COMMENT, described the post with as a "diatribe," "specious," and ball-breaking, and then later called comments and commenters "reactionary vitriol," "asshole," "moron," and "jerks," and also used plenty of condescending sarcasm -- i.e., "because being an individual is neat like that" and "You do know those little you're using to bracket 'calm down' (note my quote is contextually accurate) are often referred to as quotation marks."

Hey, LogrusZed: Your "hypocrisy smells like a house full of cat shit." (I'm only quoting you, so I'm obviously not being uncivil.) THIS is why people are objecting to your posts, not because you're male, and not because you disagree with the original post.

PS. If you're going to get pissy about grammar, you should probably learn the difference between "its" and "it's."

As to the original post:

The fact that something is targeted at a specific group does not equate to the automatic exclusion of all other groups.

But the original post does not in any way say that politics are for men only. It suggests that the "Sexy Politics" MySpace page is, by targeting its "awards" to hetero men, implying that politics is not for women. That's sexist. And I'll add that it's part of a larger culture that associates politics in general with men and levels gender-based attacks against female candidates. That's also sexist.

Is that such a controversial notion?

*laughs nervously*

Maybe LogrusZed would like to step back and ask himself if its possible anything he said is reminiscent of other trolls? Maybe... maybe he might want to ask himself who his belligerence and refusal to stand on the other side of the issue is helping and if this is the fight he wants. Maybe? Come on. I know you're smarter than that. You know the women here are under pressure because they're in a mind to dismantle patriarchy. I, too, come here for my daily dose of outrage.

Anger is the only logical way to meet a system of oppression. Please don't misunderstand where that anger is coming from or at whom it's directed. Why don't we all try to focus it where it belongs? This space has been created for the voices of women who otherwise are not heard. It is not unreasonable that they would be sensitive to those who seem not to want to listen or take them seriously.

I know. I'm one of these women.

Come on, dude. I know your heart is in the right place. Who is this argument about who said what and how it can be interpreted helping?

Hestia:

Diatribe: Bitter or abusive speech or writing; ironic or satirical criticism.

Saying someone has spoken/written a diatribe is not a negative comment about the speaker, only an observation as to the nature of what they said. The OP was a diatribe.

Specious: Having the false look of truth.

When someone presents a flawed argument they don't actually present is as flawed but as valid. This makes it specious reasoning, a fallacy presented as fact.

If I didn't find fault with the argument I wouldn't really be in here debating it.

As to "grammar": If it wasn't clear that I was sarcastically responding to the mis-attributed quote and not improper use of grammar then let it be clear now that that was my concern. Can you spot how many times I've mis-used "it's/its" in this thread?

But the original post does not in any way say that politics are for men only. It suggests that the "Sexy Politics" MySpace page is, by targeting its "awards" to hetero men, implying that politics is not for women.

Nor did I say the OP made such and implication. But what the OP did state was:

I also find it really irritating that assumption is that it's just men who are interested in politics.

Now what was your argument? Because I don't think it has anything to do with me.

We're resorting to having models strip in order to get people interested in politics? Really?

It is too bad sex sells. Maybe if we weren't so sexually repressed as a country...

Cola:

I don't know that I was being belligerent, at least not in my general comments. Certainly I responded to directed hostility with a measure of the same after asking that a non-hostile approach be considered and then being insulted with a homophobic slur.

But I'll defer to your wisdom here. Am I wrong?

1) Is the predicating argument valid? Does appealing to men exclude women intrinsically?

2) Is it automatically oppression (or WMP) when I disagree with or call in to question the logic of a woman?

3) Is it an attempt to silence women when a male asks for a reasoned discourse?

If you say I'm wrong then I'm wrong. I've told you before you're smarter than I am, and it wasn't ego-fluff. I trust your intellect and your integrity enough to take your word for it and offer apology for any offense.

@ TS:"also, apart from the blatantly absurd "strip-politics" web application in particular, I can't help but wonder about a standards issue - assuming that heterosexual men are on average enjoying the sight of a female body (as heterosexual women are on average enjoying the sight of a male body) and that looking at bodies of the opposite (or same) sex for pleasure isn't necessarily morally wrong, under what circumstances would you consider it would be ok to use sexy pictures of the people of the sex a person is sexually interested in to entice that person to do something else (like learn about something). Is this an esthetic issue? What's the critera you'd apply?"

Well for one I'd tone down the tendency to de-emphasize male sexuality and over-emphasize female sexuality. Typically we usually see a woman who is totally sexed up, in the current style of the culture and day, alongside a man who seems to be no more than a neutered prop.

Subsequently, most of what people claim to be "SEXXAY" usually means a woman doing all the work (e.g. play stripping, looking alluring, posing with the product, wearing the skimpy clothing, dancing for the camera, etc, etc);

and a man if present---well, all bets are off that he's dressed at the same level she is, that he moves seductively or that he exhibits any sexiness other than what the viewer is to infer from his placement in the vicinity of the scantily clad woman.

It really pains me to read this comment thread. I was going to say something pertaining to the original post, but after seeing LogrusZed pick apart nearly EVERY other comment, I'm afraid to look like a dummy. I guess I will need to re-take that college composition course to check up on logical fallacies and proper ways of writing before I come back here and comment again.

TS- First off, this isn't men looking at women because men like women. This is men looking at a pornified illustration of a woman because many of them prefer pornified women to real women. Pornified women are like real women except that they pretend their sexuality does not exist outside of a desire to please male partners, since heterosexual males are the majority of porn consumers. Men enjoy pornified and therefore dehumanized women far far far more often than women enjoy dehumanized men. Yes, women will often have ridiculous and arbitrary standards for men which depend on the ways that society has brainwashed them into thinking only certain types of partners are acceptable, but the men that these brainwashed women routinely go after have not been dehumanized, or at least not to the same extent. I hope I have lucidly and calmly explained to you why the use of the mudflap girl, a pornified woman, is not the same thing as "enjoying the sight of a female body" and is not a healthy way to enjoy the sight of a female body.

I would also argue that women and men as a general rule do not enjoy the sight of each other's bodies in the same way because we've been exposed to a culture which spreads misogyny through its media (including hetporn and fake lesbian porn, which is almost always little more than a tool for making domination of women by men look sexy) in order to perpetuate a system in which males continue to be more powerful than women and control them. This system is otherwise known as a patriarchy.

The assumption that sex is needed in order to market politics to men enforces the idea that men are brutes who will be interested in nothing without the offer of pussy and women are meatsocks whose purpose is to motivate stupid assholes into an interest in politics. That is why this particular application is unacceptable.

Finally, sex or sexy imagery should not be used to make somebody interested in anything ever. Advertising shouldn't exist and is bad for your mental health. An unhealthy fixation on sex shouldn't exist and is bad for your mental health. Combining the two is a practice which should not exist and is bad for your mental health.

"This space has been created for the voices of women who otherwise are not heard"

Lol. Women who have access to the internet already have plenty of voice.

did anyone actually try the game?

the questions were pretty difficult, i don't think this was created for dumbasses and brutes. you definitely need knowledge of politics and legal history in order to get any of them right.

TS:

There is no criteria. It's just subjective reaction. Every night on TV, actors and actresses mouth words written by other people, but no one bats an eye. Sexually explicit films rarely even use scripts and yet guess which one gets labeled dehumanizing. Never forget that we do not live in a sex positive society!.

qwerty,

I doubt if most have... can't let the details like having both male and female stripper options get in the way of a good hate fest.

Perhaps the game changed drastically since this was posted, but when I played it, the game offered both male and female strippers of all different types (and given how elaborate each "strip" is, it couldn't have been done in a hurry). There's even a little background on the strippers, e.g. "Rebecca wrote a thesis on Global Hegemony while at Yale". You then have a choice of having the stripper appear first in various getups, such as investment banker. The actual stripping seems to involve a lot of hammy acting out of the getup. It seems more intended as comedy than as titillation. The questions are actually quite in depth, even if the tone is occasionally frivolous.

Based on that, I don't think the game is intended to lure a narrow subset of heterosexual men into an interest in politics. I think it's just political information served up with a bit of comedy and a flirty wink from a diverse group of college students. Think of it as The Daily Show, only Jon Stewart takes his shirt off at the end. The goal is to lighten the mood on the often very contentious and serious topic of politics while still getting people to think about the relevant information.

Why, there is something so *different* about Penetration's comment. S/he disagreed, but was courteous and refrained from mocking and demeaning the writer of the post or the commenters. How refreshing.

spikethecat, sera, iqonefiftynine,

thanks for the kind replies -

Sera, no need to get into a patriarchy discussion, just two things - I was in a couple of discussions with women who almost violently argued against essentialist claims like "women don't like to see naked men as much as men like to see naked women" (which is actually true to the extent that you accept MRA scans and different reactions to visual depictions in male and female cerebral pleasure centres, but it's not a logical proof of perceived differences, or a solution of the nature/nurture dilemma),

The other thing is this -

"TS- First off, this isn't men looking at women because men like women. This is men looking at a pornified illustration of a woman because many of them prefer pornified women to real women."

I'm not sure I understand - I'm a bloke, and I don't like looking at pictures of women as a consequence of my sexual interest in real women? And I'm more interested in pornified women than in real ones? Well, I can't really think of anyone who wouldn't prefer a real chat with a real women to any kind of imagery. But maybe I'm wrong...

�The only excuse *men* have for not knowing anything about politics is that they're dumbasses. So why is it considered a good idea to politically educate dumbasses?� – AlaraJRogers

So they will no longer be dumbasses (using your rather unfair word)? I would think it would be in all of our best interests to educate anyone who might take part in our political process. Maybe that way we wouldn’t end up with a president being elected because he seemed like a fun guy to have a beer with.

�btw: the "just men interested in politics...." diatribe is specious reasoning. This is targeted at a certain kind of person (and not absolutely a male person, could be a female or trans person who likes women of this type), but just because this deal targets that group does not mean there is any implication as to who is or should be interested in politics.
for example: Feministing has a decidedly female centric criteria for posting articles. Would I be correct to therefore assume that "only women are interested in feminism or equality"? No, of course not. You cannot be all things to all persons, so don't break balls when nobody else can either.� – LogrusZed

Some of the words could have been softened, but I can’t find anything wrong with his reasoning.

If I were one of the many thousands of people employed in the massively inflated U.S. election campaigns currently under way, I'd probably look for ways to target the easily influenced. People who rely on porn-programs to help them form their political opinions sound almost as easy to influence as electronic voting machines!

I would expect that SexyPolitics was created with funds from either the Dems or Reps. I'm too lazy to install that piece of crapware to figure out which way the slant runs, but if somebody were to dig into this and follow the money I'm sure the party responsible would be appropriately embarrassed.

This, of course, would be productive, and probably much less fun than bickering over the sexuality of logic and white male privilege.

LogrusZed, how about responding to any of the rest of my comment instead of picking on a SINGLE WORD, about which, by the way, you're wrong: The word "diatribe" obviously has negative connotations, and, as I clearly said in my comment, you used it to describe a POST, not a person. By calling a post a "diatribe" and thus implying that it's "bitter or abusive," you have no standing to complain about other people responding to you in a hostile manner.

How about the part where I said you're wrong in general, or the part where I called you a hypocrite? Am I being too logical for you?

Oops, sorry, LogrusZed, I thought you were responding to someone named Specious for the rest of the post. So let's see what else you had to say...

"Specious" also clearly has negative connotations. Words mean things beyond merely technical definitions. Calling things "specious" implies that you think it's a load of crap -- that's hostile.

If it wasn't clear that I was sarcastically responding to the mis-attributed quote and not improper use of grammar then let it be clear now that that was my concern.

And I, too, was sarcastically responding to something you said that had absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Nor did I say the OP made such and implication.

So what the heck is your point? You aren't being at all clear. It sounds like you're criticizing the belief that women don't belong in politics (when you aren't being bitter about others' responses to you), but no one here said that. At all.

The sentence "I also find it really irritating that assumption is that it's just men who are interested in politics" clearly applies to the MySpace page, not anyone or anything else.

I'm getting tired of your semantic pettiness and hope you can move past all that to the actual content of this thread -- which, after all, has been your stated intent all along. So:

Do you, or do you not, agree that the MySpace page is sexist? Because that's the entire and only meaning of the original post.

Some of the words could have been softened, but I can't find anything wrong with his reasoning.

You aren't looking hard enough, then.

1. Using a sexy-female-model interface on a political Web site CLEARLY implies that the developers of the MySpace page believe politics aren't for women. The only way it could be any more obvious would be if they wrote "POLITICS ARE NOT FOR WOMEN" in large letters across the top of the page.

2. Feministing is not a "female centric" Web site, but a FEMINIST-centric Web site. Men can be feminists, too, and in fact there are many male posters here. So it's totally inaccurate to say that "only women are interested in feminism or equality." Which makes the metaphor incredibly inapt.

1) Is the predicating argument valid? Does appealing to men exclude women intrinsically?

Yes.

2) Is it automatically oppression (or WMP) when I disagree with or call in to question the logic of a woman?

No. But you not only disagreed, you did it in a hostile and sarcastic manner. See your words like "diatribe" and "specious," which have negative connotations and indicate that you aren't taking the argument seriously.

3) Is it an attempt to silence women when a male asks for a reasoned discourse?

Yes, when that male does not himself offer "reasoned discourse," when he instead makes petty and condescending remarks about either a comment or a commenter.

Also yes because context matters: You're only one of a long history of men who visit feminist Web sites and complain that the commenters aren't being polite or "logical" enough. Given this history -- which one would hope you would understand before you comment -- it makes sense that women would be irritated by your attempts to get them to discuss a topic in the way you want them to discuss it.

I'm late to the party and doubt anybody will see this, but -- three observations:

1. I took the time to install the application and try it. It is absolutely sexist, but at least it makes an attempt towards equal opportunity sexism: they offer both male and female strippers.

2. The political questions posed are without doubt the most sophisticated I've seen posed in an open forum. I believe there may be a slight progressive bias, but the questions asked are legitimately informative and difficult, even for an acknowledged politics junkie.

3. I think a case could be made that it is defensible to use sexuality to raise interest in a relatively wonkish topic. I'm about to refute it, but it's not the slam-dunk offense depicted in the original article.

4. Most importantly, their use of the "mudflap girl" in their logo is virulently odious, and completely obviates points 1-3. Any knee-jerk comparisons to the Feministing logo are specious. The Feministing logo is clearly female and proud of it, but not a sexual object; the SexyPolitics is clearly topless and thereby objectified. That logo has got to go.

Finally, as a male, I think I'm fully qualified to say this: LogrusZed, please just say you're sorry and shut up. You aren't completely wrong, but you're nowhere near right, and you're pedantically lecturing people who simply know more than you do about the topic (and I absolutely do not mean me). A little humility and listening would go a long way to making you look like less of an ass.

While I don't always agree with LogrusZed, I do think he tends to be respectful even if what he asks is controversial. What I have found is that instead of answering his questions he and other like him (I'm not talking about the obvious trolls) get shut down or flamed.

Sometimes I would love to know the feminist response to his questions because sometimes although I feel something may be off about an image I am not sure exactly what it is.

Yes, I am female and a feminist but I also wonder how fine the line is drawn between things like the naked woman on Jessica's book and the naked women on books that women (and men) on here say objectify women. I know this has been discussed, I'm just using it as an example where some feminist would disagree. As for the Feministing logo being humorous and objecting to being objectified, the PETA adds we all hate that use women as pigs and chickens are using their bodies to object to animals being objectified (no, I am not comparing women to animals, don't even go there). All I am saying is that I would love to see some of the commenters here whose opinions I greatly respect to stop seeing offense where no one intends it and just answer some of the questions. It makes commenting on this board dangerous. A closed circle of people "who simply know more" than anyone about the issues at hand who berate those who need or want to be educated. This is quickly becoming a site for those who know everything about feminism and agree on everything.

I have been reading this web site for almost a year and I think it's pretty obvious who the trolls are and aren't.

And my god! Sometimes even feminists just disagree with each other, folks! Stop with the whole, "I'm more feminist than you because...."

A frustrating factor behind sites like this is the potential for disgruntled guys to seek ideas from this drivel. As a hyper-political dude, I remember how most of my 20s were spent in search of women who cared about politics with the same zeal as I. College and post-college gave me the impression that women were not interested in these greater concerns, but I knew it was an aberration based on the particular demographic within my milieu (rdaughters of wealthy coal barons, etc).

One moment during the 2000 campaign, I approached a woman at a bar, asking her "So whom do you prefer in the primary, Gore or Bradley?" I figured I did not have to specify which primary. She looked at me like I was speaking French. Ouch.

Fast forward 4 years, and a new crowd, and I find myself surrounded by amazing, intelligent women with the intelligence to understand the political realm, and the intellectual curiosity to expand their knowledge. When I see some of my guy friends stuck in my former wasteland, bitter by the lack of cultural concerns within the female populace (they sure love dumb-lyrics-country, stupid TV, and guys with expensive cars back home, but find intellectual conversation too boring), I say "Get your asses to Minnesota, where the women are smarter and more intellectually curious than the men, and being into politics, indie rock, art and culture is considered a positive."

For example, look at our awesome Senator, future president Amy Kobuchar, and compare her with doofus eejit Governor Tim Pawlenty.

I seek to tell them that they should not judge an entire gender on the small sample size of a culturally-repressed town. However, just as the cool girls get disillusioned by the lack of cool dudes in their small towns, I tell my pals to buck up, and get to where being smart is actually an asset.

A frustrating factor behind sites like this is the potential for disgruntled guys to seek ideas from this drivel. As a hyper-political dude, I remember how most of my 20s were spent in search of women who cared about politics with the same zeal as I. College and post-college gave me the impression that women were not interested in these greater concerns, but I knew it was an aberration based on the particular demographic within my milieu (rdaughters of wealthy coal barons, etc).

One moment during the 2000 campaign, I approached a woman at a bar, asking her "So whom do you prefer in the primary, Gore or Bradley?" I figured I did not have to specify which primary. She looked at me like I was speaking French. Ouch.

Fast forward 4 years, and a new crowd, and I find myself surrounded by amazing, intelligent women with the intelligence to understand the political realm, and the intellectual curiosity to expand their knowledge. When I see some of my guy friends stuck in my former wasteland, bitter by the lack of cultural concerns within the female populace (they sure love dumb-lyrics-country, stupid TV, and guys with expensive cars back home, but find intellectual conversation too boring), I say "Get your asses to Minnesota, where the women are smarter and more intellectually curious than the men, and being into politics, indie rock, art and culture is considered a positive."

For example, look at our awesome Senator, future president Amy Kobuchar, and compare her with doofus eejit Governor Tim Pawlenty.

I seek to tell them that they should not judge an entire gender on the small sample size of a culturally-repressed town. However, just as the cool girls get disillusioned by the lack of cool dudes in their small towns, I tell my pals to buck up, and get to where being smart is actually an asset.