When Being a ~~Spokes~~woman Attracts Leering Internet Trolls
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
35 points (88.9% liked)
New York Times gift articles
1174 readers
28 users here now
Share your New York Times gift articles links here.
Rules:
- Only post New York Times gift article links.
Info:
- The NYT Open Team. (2021-06-23). “A New Way to Share New York Times Stories”. open.nytimes.com.
- “Gift Articles for New York Times Subscribers”. (n.d.). help.nytimes.com.
Tip:
- Google "unlocked_article_code" and limit search results to the past week.
- Mastodon: Use control-F or ⌘-F to search this page. (ref)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Your point is valid, but this article is specifically examining whether it's worth it to become a spokeswoman in the age of internet trolls.
Men have an amazing capacity to ruin everything
Edit: uh oh, I made THE MENS angry
Downvoted for complaining about downvotes
While I'm not dismissing the misogyny here, I would argue this is once again capitalism ruining everything. There's a reason a young, attractive girl with big boobs got the gig. They objectified her just as the anonymous online trolls are doing. The only part AT&T and NYT find objectionable is when the trolling pierced the bland, sanitised corporate social media facade.
Let us turn our attention to a particularly illustrative remark within this discourse: 'Men have an amazing capacity to ruin everything' Such a statement, albeit perhaps born from a place of exasperation, warrants a closer examination for its pedagogical value.
This assertion exemplifies a rhetorical strategy known as overgeneralization, which, in this context, simplifies the complex dynamics of gender relations and media representation into a singular, all-encompassing narrative. Such a broad generalization obscures the nuanced reality of individual behaviors and societal structures that contribute to the phenomenon of women's objectification in media. It is imperative to dissect the layers of this issue, recognizing the multifaceted nature of gender dynamics and the diverse range of behaviors and attitudes that perpetuate these media representations.
Furthermore, the remark in question inadvertently steers the conversation away from a focused analysis of disrespectful behavior towards a broader, and often polarizing, debate about gender dynamics. This diversion is not merely unproductive but also obfuscates the original objective of fostering a more respectful and equitable discourse.
Compounding this issue is the unintended consequence of providing fodder for counter-narratives, particularly those propagated by groups with adversarial ideologies. By framing the discussion in terms that are easily co-opted by such factions, the comment risks diminishing the legitimacy of the conversation and alienating potential allies. It is a stark reminder of the necessity for precision in our language and the importance of eschewing broad-brush characterizations in favor of a more nuanced and targeted approach.
In essence, the journey towards a more respectful and inclusive discourse is often fraught with linguistic pitfalls. Our collective endeavor should be to navigate these with a keen awareness of the power of our words and the impact they wield in shaping the contours of this dialogue.
tl;dr: I believe you are better than this, and I encourage you to reflect that in your actions.
Downvoted for being cunty.
I’m gonna get downvoted and/or banned, I hate to even make this argument as I’ve seen it used to make shitty justifications before, but on this one topic it does seem apt, so whatever.
If you do two separate google image searches, one for ‘Stephanie Courtney’, the other for ‘Milana Vayntrub’, just the names and nothing else, you’ll see two very different sets of images. The top hits are all legit images and many of the top images are of these two people at different social functions or just out in public, it’s how they’ve chosen to present themselves to the world.
You’ll notice a stark contrast in how each person has presented themselves. ‘Stephanie Courtney’ images are pretty tame, not much to see, mostly just casual clothes mixed with her Flo outfit, while Vayntrub’s images are showing… a bit more to her, clothing that she herself decided to wear. That’s not to say people haven’t photoshopped nude images of Flo, BUT we’re talking about the basic name search, the first thing you’re likely to see if you google these people.
It’s not fair when only one gets trolled and made to feel sexualized, but at the same time, when you yourself invite leering by putting yourself and your body on display in a certain way, you shouldn’t be surprised by the kind of attention you end up getting. If you repeatedly put your breasts or your cleavage on display at public gatherings, you’re inviting people to look because you’re confident in the attractiveness of your body or you just feel comfortable or whatever, don’t be surprised when men want to see more of it and that’s what they know you for, that’s just how men are.
I’m not conservative, I don’t think women should have to dress modestly, wear whatever you do or don’t want, that’s your choice, but how you present yourself in public affects what people think about you, men are affected by this as much as women. Certainly men aren’t affected in the same way, but the point still stands. And no, I don’t think clothing can be blamed for rape, that’s completely unacceptable, I’m talking about public perception of a person based on how they dress.
"But what was she wearing??? Boys will be boys, it's her fault for making me look!" Yuck.
lol lots of downvotes and snark but nobody wants to put in any work to address why what you've said here is the wrong take. That said, let me be clear, what follows is not an invitation to debate me bro, I'm going to say my peace and skedaddle, so if you learn something from it great, if not then cool let's never meet. If you're just trolling then this is for the lurkers that come behind us.
Respect for individuals should not be contingent on their appearance. While we all have personal standards and cultural norms, the fundamental dignity of a person isn't something that should be revoked based on their clothing choices. It's important to differentiate between disagreeing with someone's choice of attire and denying them respect or decency.
The idea that someone is 'asking for' certain treatment based on their appearance suggests that the responsibility for others' behavior lies with the individual and their choices, rather than with those who choose to act disrespectfully. This shifts the focus away from personal accountability for one's actions.
Our goal should be to foster a society where people can express themselves without fear of disrespect or harm. This doesn't mean everyone has to agree with or like each other's choices. It means cultivating a culture of tolerance and respect, where disagreements about appearance don't translate into justifying disrespectful behavior.
Even if someone's appearance might not align with our personal or societal standards, it doesn't grant anyone the license to publicly objectify or demean them.
In closing, I want you to ask yourself, what motivated you to defend this kind of behavior?
Is the idea here that these two people are anywhere in the same zip code for attractiveness? Lol.