Anyone who is offended by this needs to get a life.

58 posts in (now 59) and I still have no clue what Clyde is getting at here....

 

Here's what the video was aiming to accomplish....Make every guy on Alabama's campus want to date a member of said sorority and make every girl on campus want to be a part of said sorority. I'd say they accomplished that goal in spades with about 99% of the student body.

You guys keep pointing out the obvious despite no one saying otherwise. I've yet to see anyone say all kids are equal in any way.

 

I've also yet to see anyone say they are offended.

 

Can we move past the obvious?

 

Yes, no one was injured.

Yes, they have the right to do the video.

Yes, they have the right to be in clubs with whom they want.

Yes, they are allowed to show they have fun.

Yes, not all girls are pretty.

Yes, life's not always fair.

 

Any other truths we want to put out here just to say we said them?

 

So what's the point of the thread then?

Offended is in the eye of the beholder. Yes, I am speculating on some women being offended. The question was asked how this video objectifies women. I answered it. It does and many of the posts in here support that.

I disagree

58 posts in (now 59) and I still have no clue what Clyde is getting at here....

 

Here's what the video was aiming to accomplish....Make every guy on Alabama's campus want to date a member of said sorority and make every girl on campus want to be a part of said sorority. I'd say they accomplished that goal in spades with about 99% of the student body.

 

I'm not trying to "get" at anything. It's silly, though, to argue that the person who suggested that this objectifies women was wrong. It's 100% objectification. To argue otherwise is silly.

So what's the point of the thread then?

 

For Clyde to attempt to take a contrarian view.

 

I disagree

 

Then what is your definition of "objectify?"

For Clyde to attempt to take a contrarian view.

 

That's just second nature yet does nothing to disprove what I say.

I disagree

 

Same here. The video in no way, shape, or form objectifies women.

For Clyde to attempt to take a contrarian view.

 

 

So you mean the same as all his other ~74K posts?

So what's the point of the thread then?

 

Why was it started? My guess is it was started since it's in the news and to take exception with the opinion piece linked to it.

 

The lady writing the opinion piece said they reinforced stereotypes that women have been trying to overcome. Who can argue she's wrong?

Same here. The video in no way, shape, or form objectifies women.

 

Your definition?

Your definition?

 

This video does not make these women look like objects that are to be used however anyone pleases. When someone talks about objectifying someone else to me it means they're treated as property or objects to be used, and they're made to not be seen as actual people. This video did none of that.

This video does not make these women look like objects that are to be used however anyone pleases. When someone talks about objectifying someone else to me it means they're treated as property or objects to be used, and they're made to not be seen as actual people. This video did none of that.

 

Agreed.

This video does not make these women look like objects that are to be used however anyone pleases. When someone talks about objectifying someone else to me it means they're treated as property or objects to be used, and they're made to not be seen as actual people. This video did none of that.

 

Then we have a different definition. By your definition how can one ever be objectified if "not seen as actual people" is the requirement?