Hehe

You must live in “la la land”, if where you live, a “businessperson’s interactions are entirely shaped by their need to satisfy you as a customer” Where the hell do you live?

And I already mentioned that I was referring to people playing community roles: The list of people, and types, and groups I didn’t mention is quite large — in – laws, Puerto Rican; relatives by marriage, black; other relatives by marriage, Irish – , Greek – and Polish – American; civil servants, my childrens’ teachers, my neighbors, Vinny, on braces and Bill (black) who sit on the bench outside the Senior citizens’ apartments across from me a lot of mornings. Do you want more?

You’re trying to push a point that just isn’t working out too well. The real world is not that simple.

As to whether you think everyone else sees minorities as you do, or you are trying to see through their eyes; all I can say is, from a psychological point of view (not that I’m an expert, but therapy is my graduate area of study) you may be doing both: Seeing yourself as a victim, embodied in the black man. I have a friend (white) who exhibits the very same symptom. He perceives himself as a victim and, thus, empathizes and sympathizes with other people and groups he perceives as society’s victims. Oh, and guess what, he’s liberal, too.

Yes, Frank, businesspersons there to appease and appeal to you to make a living. Businesspersons with whom your interactions are entirely shaped by their need to satisfy you as a customer. You didn’t mention a single person who wasn’t your peer, entirely unbeholden to you and your largess for their well being — even though you know many of these people and interact with them.

Oh and Frank, which is it, do I only see minorities or am I trying to see through their eyes?

They’re business people! Maybe you need to look at yourself. When I go into a store, I don’t see a servant, I see a businessman. Did you notice that I mentioned independent businessmen, not clerks or burger flippers? Why would you consider them servants? What’s your problem?

Maybe, you think other people see minorities as you do. I see people as people.

Plain and simple.

I mentioned before that I have lots of friends who are ex – offenders and recovering substance abusers. Of course, some of them are black. You know how I relate to them? Like anybody else. My language doesn’t change; my posture doesn’t change; my attitude doesn’t change, and you know what? We get along just fine. Some people don’t like me. If they are black, is it rcially motivated? Do I need to know?

You are attempting to see the world through a black person’s eyes. If you’re not black, it can’t be done. You will never imagine what it’s like to wake up and be black, be black all day, be black the rest of your life.

Never.

If you’re not Italian – American, I could never explain it to you, and you will never understand it. Does that make you prejudiced against Italians?

In itself, of course not.

The answer is no — I won’t spar with an idiot. My comment had to with roles played in the community. There are only about 7 or 8 people on my “Faculty”, i.e., teaching my courses, and, yes, although it is of no importance to me, the Director of Field Placement (also an instructor) is black. And, yes, I attend school with black people. For a minute there I thought you might disapprove, Heaven forbid.

And, yes, I readily admit that a subconscious racism played a part in my failing to ask you about the faculty. This is actually a good example of what I’m talking about. In taking you to task the picture in my mind of your campus did not include any faculty of color. There’s a reason for that and I can quite frankly admit that it’s because of a subconscious racism on my part. That’s the difference between me and you. I’m not afraid to admit it and deal with it. You live in la la land (it is, apparently, the first right after exurbia).

In your haste to criticize me, you failed to notice that. This is not, for me, anyway, a game of “gotcha”. The point I was trying to make is that in my world, the stereotypical black man is more than articulate.

You see, I come from exurbia (look it up), where lots of races and ethnic groups live together, sharing only the fact that we live in a “gray area” beyween the city and suburbs. There truly is very little bigotry and prejudice here — Not because there are no minorities, but because there are so many.

Here, all kinds of races and ethnic groups do all kinds of things: repair and restore furniture or make keys and repair shoes (two different black men); repair TVs and VCRs (a Mexican man); sell jewelry and drive Ambulettes (south Asians); manage cigarette stores that sell stuff from underwear to bandanas and run “Mom and Pop” grocery stores (Asians); run all night delis and small supermarkets (Arabs and Armenians); go to Graduate school and bust chops on left wing ‘blogs (that’s me).

Get the picture? It is expected that we’re all articulate — if you want to stay in business.

In case you missed it.

http://crookedtimber.org/2005/09/24/stopping-the-trafficking/

It becomes clearer when you put it in print

I just don t get the distinction between  exploitive nature and  sexist imagery …But it is still exploitative because it requires the woman who wishes to further her career, to participate in the furtherance of the stereotype.

You’ve got it.

There is another aspect of “exploitive” that isn’t necessarily related to sex/gender issues, one that you mentioned previously, which is the expoitation of the viewer; for example, using 15 year old models to sell wrinkle cream or atheletes selling…well, anything. This is an exploitation of our emotions and I do see it as separate from sexist imagery. Although sexism and sexist imagery are tools of exploitation.

Well, I’m done for the night…thanks for the discussion.

Maybe I don’t get it but you, myself and mouse are not disagreeing from my perspective.

I should be addressing this directly to mouse but she said:

“let me clarify: I m not discussing the exploitative nature of the ad. I m discussing its use of sexist imagery to sell a slport to its audience.”

I just don’t get the distinction between ‘exploitive nature’ and ’sexist imagery’

To me they are one and the same. The point is; a very powerful image of woman as ’sex object’ is harmful because it invariably dehumanizes her and makes it easier to abuse her. This message is carried throughout our culture and has, as it’s ultimately evil fruit,; violence itself. But it is still exploitative because it requires the woman who wishes to further her career, to participate in the furtherance of the stereotype. That is the only distinction I can see between your idea and mine.

::BUZZ:: Wrong

The idea that I might not know any black people is laughable, the idea that you might even suggest it, more so.

The idea that you are so certain of the content of my conversations with black people is just typical left wing arrogance — a complicated way of saying, “Some of my best friends are black.”

BTW, about 99% of the black people I know are articulate; if not 99%, then certainly a higher percentage of the white people I know.

Wait a minute, did I just insult somebody?

Please, don’t tell Oliver…

Seriously though, as a honky, I was emotionally injured by the movie White Men Can’t Jump. REPARATIONS!!!!!!!!

You do not elaborate on why you feel this has no  chilling effect on conversation.

That hasn’t been my experience with men that I know. Perhaps it’s been the experience of men that I don’t know and I can’t speak for them.

I understand you prefer not to hear some things said in a conversation.
I’m not sure what you mean by this.

But if the other person cannot find what he thinks is an acceptable way for Her/him to say it, often nothing is said at all. How does that help?

Perhaps the issue isn’t that he can’t find an acceptable way of saying what he thinks; maybe the issue is that what he thinks is not acceptable. Cognitive dissonance usually results in avoidance, whether it be in the form of silence or changing the subject (jokes are a common outlet).

But what you’re describing is the process of change, which is rarely comfortable or smooth. And the uncomfortable bits are temporary; we do get over them.

But don’t think I haven’t noticed that all the previous posters who pooh poohed this issue at the beginning are all strangely silent now. I don’t think they would have held their tongues had the subject been about partisan politics. I would have been flamed in 2 seconds flat. In a way, I would have preferred that; but just because someone has a penis, it doesn’t mean he has balls. But on the bright side, it appears that there are some things that both liberals and conservatives agree on.

And I tried to repost my comment “awaiting moderation” above and I would wager that the reason it’s being held up is not because of length (as I initially thought) but because I use a few words to make my point that some may find offensive. That’s hilarious given the subject at hand. At any rate, the gist is I would never change a word or idea in my writing because it might offend someone because it isn’t about sensitivity or feelings for me. It’s about power. This NHL ad is about power: It plays on the anxieties of straight white men in America by reducing women to servants in a space — the hockey arena — where men can be real men. That isn’t about senstitivity, that’s about power. I don’t care if the NHL pulls the ad — or even thinks twice the next time it produces one.

The point is, people can say, think, write, film whatever they want. They can disseminate wherever and however they want. But it s ridicuous to suggest that this ad doesn t present a challenge to progressive ideals. It does. And again that isn t a question of hurt feelings, it s a question of cultural and political power. Which is why its perfectly reasonable that it be met with a progressive critique and counter-argument.