talk about insensitive :)

>You've almost played a nice slight of hand here, but it
>doesn't quite work. Her willingness to forgive isn't trumping
>other women, it's trumping a conversation that focuses on her.
>Nobody's stopped from talking about a broader issue here. Just
>stopped from making her a tentpole in that discussion.

so brent musburger doesn't need to apologize to her. cool. espn didn't apologize to her either. because that was one of two conjoined issues.

>Here's another pithy moment in catechism: sin is treating
>objects like people and people like objects. Whether she's
>text or t&a seems like six of one and half dozen of the other
>to me since neither one gets to be a person. So even if it
>plays better in an undergraduate WGS class, I don't think
>turning her into a stick with which to whap people we don't
>like is substantively better than turning her into a
>particularly pleasant arrangement of flesh.

that's a particular reading of the issue. And it's too individualized, imo, for it to resolve these issues. There were two aggrieved parties, disrespected through the same act. The particular woman and her family, who opted out of being aggrieved, and the entire audience, of which many were aggrieved. You believe we can't separate the two, I believe we have to.

Or, that is, we have to wait until the woman oggled on national broadcast is offended to decide that I can be offended by what I view as well? That's where you seem to be heading, and that's not accurate. As a viewer who wanted to watch a game, I shouldn't be subjected to a view of women I found degrading and demeaning to her, to women, and to me. That isn't negated by the fact that the woman involved is ok with it, because she is just one of of three groups involved. The speaker, the target, and the audience. As the target, her views need to be respected, and so I'm not trying to teach her to view the world differently or feel threatened by Musburger. I do, however, think the audience has a right to have an opinion and feel offended or hurt by having to view that action passively. Had Brent been walking with me in a park and Katherine Webb and McCarron were sitting on a bench and Musburger started talking about her like that, I'd have a right to tell him to STFU, right? Even if Webb said afterwards that she didn't mind once she heard it later?

>Civilization will, at some point, have to continue and that
>works most smoothly when we permit the aggrieved party power
>down the outrage machine themselves.

fanon comes to mind here, but i'm really just kinda done with this post, tbh.

anyway, it's still amusing to me how enraged and defensive the interwebs of men got over an issue that two professors gave quick quotes about in the nytimes. talk about an aggrieved party needing to power down an outrage machine...espn apologized and it could have been a non-starter. men got mad defending musburger's principle (of drunkenness? of talking about women at football games?) more so than feminists got upset. The internet went fox news.

-----------
It's only funny till someone gets mad. Then it's hilarious.