Howard Stern's comments about "Precious" star Gabourey Sidibe

[wvjules]

Oh...okay...only a woman can make herself sexually exploited. Let us have all laws revoked on rape and such, because it is the woman's fault.

Rape is not sexual exploitation. Going on TV and shaking your Tata's is exploiting ones self. Can you not see the difference between the two?

 

[wvjules]

Well how nice!

It's too bad for you that you can't see past someone's physical appearance. Looks don't last forever, you know...

Holy hell peole. Apparently the was missed? If you read that into either one of my comments then you need to take a course in reading comprension.

 

[Shutterbug]

Oh...okay...only a woman can make herself sexually exploited. Let us have all laws revoked on rape and such, because it is the woman's fault.

That is the one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard on this board. It is entirely two different things. No one is forcing those women to go on his show.

Its like that Girls Gone Wild videos...none of those girls are forced into it, but they line up to do it. Girls stop lining up to do it, the videos stop being made.

I bet you go to any of the spring break places these next few weeks there will be hundreds of girls lined up for wet t-shirt contest and skimpy bikini contests and I will be hard pressed to believed they were physically forced into doing as if it was a rape.

 

[Amy&Dan]

Rape is not sexual exploitation. Going on TV and shaking your Tata's is exploiting ones self. Can you not see the difference between the two?

I think the point (at least the one I made which is what started this tangent) is that Howard Stern exploits women who are not exploiting themselves.

They are fat, they need to have sex before they get killed, etc., etc. If he only made crude comments about women who come on and shake their tata's that would be different.

But read my quote regarding his comments following Columbine and you'll see why I at least think he doesn't do much to differentiate between rape and sex.

 

[wvjules]

I think the point (at least the one I made which is what started this tangent) is that Howard Stern exploits women who are not exploiting themselves.

They are fat, they need to have sex before they get killed, etc., etc. If he only made crude comments about women who come on and shake their tata's that would be different.

But read my quote regarding his comments following Columbine and you'll see why I at least think he doesn't do much to differentiate between rape and sex.

I didn't even read the Columbine statements. I took the PP's post on face value about rape being the same as exploiting women. I don't think she was referring to that post either.


And one more time for the record....I did not infer in any way shape or form that it is ok to treat someone badly because they are fat, ugly, blue, black, short, tall, etc. If you read that into ANYTHING i have said on this thread then you are mistaken.

 

[SundaeAfternoon]

Holy hell peole. Apparently the was missed? If you read that into either one of my comments then you need to take a course in reading comprension.

My reading comprehension is just fine. LOL what was there to comprehend that I missed? You made an ignorant sounding statement. I asked you to clarify. When I have something to say, I say it. I don't use a smilie and expect people to read my mind. And FYI, there are other reasons to use an eyeroll smilie, like annoyance for example.

You stated that she was a big, fat black woman and Stern was just stating a fact. You don't think that is a prejudiced statement?

 

[Amy&Dan]

I didn't even read the Columbine statements. I took the PP's post on face value about rape being the same as exploiting women. I don't think she was referring to that post either.


And one more time for the record....I did not infer in any way shape or form that it is ok to treat someone badly because they are fat, ugly, blue, black, short, tall, etc. If you read that into ANYTHING i have said on this thread then you are mistaken.

I understand. But the poster you quoted, was quoting something someone said in reference to my Columbine comment! Sheesh, if that's not confusing I don't know what is.

That Columbine thing has stuck with me for ten years (I live in the Denver metro area and it was just all over the place around here when he said it). So to me, anything he says about women in general is coming from the muck after that.

 

[wvjules]

My reading comprehension is just fine. LOL what was there to comprehend that I missed? You made an ignorant sounding statement. I asked you to clarify. When I have something to say, I say it. I don't use a smilie and expect people to read my mind. And FYI, there are other reasons to use an eyeroll smilie, like annoyance for example.

Tell me which statment was ignorant?

Was it this one? "Granted it was said with bad intentions, however what he said is NOT untrue. She is a very, very large black woman. Not opinion, fact." If so, what was ignorant about it? I did not make fun of her size, color, creed, religion, hair, clothes, etc. What exactly was ignorant and offended you from those two sentences?

 

[Motherofboys]

I didn't even read the Columbine statements. I took the PP's post on face value about rape being the same as exploiting women. I don't think she was referring to that post either.


And one more time for the record....I did not infer in any way shape or form that it is ok to treat someone badly because they are fat, ugly, blue, black, short, tall, etc. If you read that into ANYTHING i have said on this thread then you are mistaken.

Not trying to go all "Women's Studies" here, but I believe what she was trying to convey is that things like Howard Stern, Girls Gone Wild, pornography, etc. objectify women and exploit them as a collection of body parts. This kind of "entertainment" turns women into objects, not people. Hence leading to things like rape and abuse against women.

It is easier for people to justify raping someone that is not a person, just a collection of body parts for a man's pleasure.

Dehumanization is a very dangerous thing, as history has shown us, whether it be waged against a race of people, gender, or body type.

 

[SundaeAfternoon]

Let's recap shall we:

Me: Granted it was said with bad intentions, however what he said is NOT untrue. She is a very, very large black woman. Not opinion, fact

You: So because it's a "fact" that makes it okay to make fun of her? Wow.

wvjules: Yes, that's exactly what I said.

You: Well how nice!

It's too bad for you that you can't see past someone's physical appearance. Looks don't last forever, you know...

Me again: Holy hell peole. Apparently the was missed? If you read that into either one of my comments then you need to take a course in reading comprension.

Me again: And one more time for the record....I did not infer in any way shape or form that it is ok to treat someone badly because they are fat, ugly, blue, black, short, tall, etc. If you read that into ANYTHING i have said on this thread then you are mistaken.

You: My reading comprehension is just fine. LOL what was there to comprehend that I missed? You made an ignorant sounding statement. I asked you to clarify. When I have something to say, I say it. I don't use a smilie and expect people to read my mind. And FYI, there are other reasons to use an eyeroll smilie, like annoyance for example.

Tell me which statment was ignorant?

Was it this one? "Granted it was said with bad intentions, however what he said is NOT untrue. She is a very, very large black woman. Not opinion, fact." If so, what was ignorant about it? I did not make fun of her size, color, creed, religion, hair, clothes, etc. What exactly was ignorant and offended you from those two sentences?

The bolded part is what you forgot to add.

And um yes, it was this statement:
"Granted it was said with bad intentions, however what he said is NOT untrue. She is a very, very large black woman. Not opinion, fact."

What exactly did you mean by your statement then?

 

[Sanchez]

My reading comprehension is just fine. LOL what was there to comprehend that I missed? You made an ignorant sounding statement. I asked you to clarify. When I have something to say, I say it. I don't use a smilie and expect people to read my mind. And FYI, there are other reasons to use an eyeroll smilie, like annoyance for example.

You stated that she was a big, fat black women and Stern was just stating a fact. You don't think that is a prejudiced statement?

I must have missed where you requested clarification. Seems to me that that your reply was presumptuous and condescending.

Further, how is calling someone a fat, black woman a prejudiced statement when she is in fact so?

 

[wvjules]

The bolded part is what you forgot to add.

And um yes, it was this statement:
"Granted it was said with bad intentions, however what he said is NOT untrue. She is a very, very large black woman. Not opinion, fact."

What exactly did you mean by your statement then?

I meant that it is a FACT that she is a large black woman. I don't understand what is so difficult? Is the fact that she is large, or that she is black, in dispute?

 

[SundaeAfternoon]

I meant that it is a FACT that she is a large black woman. I don't understand what is so difficult?

But what is the point of saying it if you weren't poking fun?

 

[AshleyW]

But what is the point of saying it if you weren't poking fun?

Seriously?! So, now people are no longer allowed to label others as 'fat' or 'overweight' because that automatically means we're poking fun? Um.. okay then.

 

[wvjules]

But what is the point of saying it if you weren't poking fun?

The point of saying that was to say that Howard Stern was correct in stating that she was a large (fat is his word) black woman. He did not make that up, nor is it his opinion. She is, infact, a large black woman. He did not make that up.

 

[chisnpeke]

Howard Stern is a jerk. However, this girl is funny and seems very nice and talented, so she does need to get HEALTHY. This is not about looking good, this is about her health. Her face always looks like she has broken out a sweat or that it is oily and she is morbidly overweight. I admire her confidence but she needs to lose weight or I do not see her living a long life or having a long career.

 

[SundaeAfternoon]

Seriously?! So, now people are no longer allowed to label others as 'fat' or 'overweight' because that automatically means we're poking fun? Um.. okay then.

I guess I'm just a nice person and I don't feel the need to put labels on people.

 

[AshleyW]

I guess I'm just a nice person and I don't feel the need to put labels on people.

Saying someone is large is no different than saying someone is a brunette or tall. If you're chastising or belittling someone for being large, then yes, that's not cool. But as a descriptor, there's nothing mean about it.

 

[Sanchez]

I meant that it is a FACT that she is a large black woman. I don't understand what is so difficult? Is the fact that she is large, or that she is black, in dispute?

Let it go. Some people like to be "offended."

 

[chisnpeke]

My reading comprehension is just fine. LOL what was there to comprehend that I missed? You made an ignorant sounding statement. I asked you to clarify. When I have something to say, I say it. I don't use a smilie and expect people to read my mind. And FYI, there are other reasons to use an eyeroll smilie, like annoyance for example.

You stated that she was a big, fat black woman and Stern was just stating a fact. You don't think that is a prejudiced statement?

I think that the only thing that could be prejudiced was mentioning her race. She is black, she is a large woman. It's just a fact. Was it nice to say? No. Was it prejudiced? Maybe. But it doesn't take away the fact that it's true.