LuLa - on a one way ticket to nowhere

[pegelli]

That is too personal, uncalled for, and below your dignity.

Isn't that a double standard Slobodan?

Is it OK to say "The problem is that you can stand on principle and stamp your feet about the awful things other people do, but unless you've walked in their shoes and learned what they've learned you really haven't a clue, and your foot-stamping comes across as a way to inflate your own ego. I see that too often on LuLa." but not OK to ask for some self reflection of the person who wrote that (without stating the outcome)?

[pegelli]

Thanks, Pieter. You illustrated my point exactly.

Glad to be of service, care to share the findings?

[Farmer]

Like I claimed before, you should know the business you want to crash.

And, again, therein lies the problem.  A little (well, a large) dose of exclusivity.  This is "our" domain, set by men who then are outraged that someone would complain about them behaving badly "because we've been here from the start, behaving this way, and no one complained before (but of course!)".

You don't get to claim that behaviour is acceptable simply because it is unchanged since the beginning.

Essentially, we have a bunch of spoiled brats who think they are men who insist that anyone who thinks differently to them is weak, wrong, lacking in life experience, and so on. 

And whilst we're on the topic of life experience, it doesn't really matter how old you are once you have the capacity for individual thought.  Many a fool spends their life doing nothing and learning nothing.

[RSL]

Including those who think the word "their" is singular?

[elliot_n]

Including those who think the word "their" is singular?

We changed the meaning – keep up!

[Rob C]

And, again, therein lies the problem.  A little (well, a large) dose of exclusivity.  This is "our" domain, set by men who then are outraged that someone would complain about them behaving badly "because we've been here from the start, behaving this way, and no one complained before (but of course!)".

You don't get to claim that behaviour is acceptable simply because it is unchanged since the beginning.

Essentially, we have a bunch of spoiled brats who think they are men who insist that anyone who thinks differently to them is weak, wrong, lacking in life experience, and so on. 

And whilst we're on the topic of life experience, it doesn't really matter how old you are once you have the capacity for individual thought.  Many a fool spends their life doing nothing and learning nothing.

Here we go again: a massive extrapolation from a handful of visible stars behaving badly because they can, right to the ignoring of the fact that far from being any boys' club, the business of fashion and glamour photography has forever enjoyed a large and successful female contingent.

Oh well, easier to hurl bricks than to lay them.

Rob

[Rob C]

I've never dated a model though I did meet one at a benefit where I was an invited speaker (and did have a delightful conversation).
Re-read Phil Brown's first response to you back on the Pros behaving normally thread.  The problem is not in what you say but the tacit acceptance that this is the way things work/worked.  YOu may have been one of the 'good' guys in a profession that had some bad actors.  I just finished listening to Marc Maron's interview with the actress Heather Graham this morning where they discussed the prevalence of harassment in the movie industry.  Again nothing new with this as it's been all over the news.  Look how long it took to bring some of the more egregious players to justice even though it was well known how long some of this had been going on.  Sexual harassment or offering sexual favors for career advancement are both wrong and should be called out and deemed unacceptable.

How strange; I had imagined that the picture you posted of you and the model also carried copy claiming it to have been a date...

But here we go again: you cannot quote anything I wrote directly, for obvious reasons, but can extrapolate from it and enjoy a righteous glory in your interpretation of those lines... just as is Farmer doing, probably without for a moment realising that he fights a fight with shadows: I am not his adversary at all! I have attempted, in this thread and associated ones, to underline my adoration of women, for what they are, represent to me, and for the love some have given me. But hey, as I say, it's impossible to whip the fog without losing interest...

[Rob C]

Including those who think the word "their" is singular?

Ouch!

[elliot_n]

But here we go again: you cannot quote anything I wrote directly, for obvious reasons...

I can quote you. You came to the defence of those ‘visible stars behaving badly’ with talk of ‘willing rape’ and the insistence that ‘it takes two to tango’. You followed this up by saying, ‘if you don’t like the club, stay the fuck away.’ And today you equated the #metoo movement with islamic fundamentalism. Can you not see how alienating these attitudes are to women who might want to participate in this forum?

[RSL]

We changed the meaning – keep up!

By "keep up" I guess you mean "join the PC illiterates."

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I can quote you...

Then why don’t you? Quote words that match your conjecture, instead of inspiring you to it, that is?

[elliot_n]

Then why don’t you?

I did.

And you said the same thing. 'It takes two to tango.'

In the context of the discussion, which was about successful fashion photographers abusing their power to sexually assault their models, that was offensive.

[Alan Goldhammer]

But here we go again: you cannot quote anything I wrote directly, for obvious reasons, but can extrapolate from it and enjoy a righteous glory in your interpretation of those lines... just as is Farmer doing, probably without for a moment realising that he fights a fight with shadows: I am not his adversary at all! I have attempted, in this thread and associated ones, to underline my adoration of women, for what they are, represent to me, and for the love some have given me. But hey, as I say, it's impossible to whip the fog without losing interest...

I'll not speak for Phil as he has more than ably made some key points.  Any occupation that relies on individuals (fashion, movies, sports to highlight perhaps the three major ones and let us not forget popular music) has seen abuse of various kinds over the years (certainly in the case of movies since its inception  with the "casting couch").  Now sometimes egregious behavior is/was tolerated with a wink and a nod; 'boys will be boys and girls will be girls.'  What angers me is how long it has taken for some of this behavior to be called out for what it is/was.  Look how many years the gymnastics doctor got away with sexually abusing young girls; same for Harvey Weinstein.  In the latter case, actresses were told never go into a room with Harvey alone.  Yet it was only in 2017 that he was stripped of his corporate power.  What we are seeing today is a rapid change in how such behavior is treated.  the old status quo is unacceptable and rightfully so.  For some of us, this outrageous behavior has to be called out every time it happens as that is the only way it can be stopped.

The female figure has been a center piece of art going back to early times (and there have been many published iconographic studies).  Photography, whether it is high fashion or something verging on the prurient, is no different.  What I object to is the abuse of subjects and similarly the intentional trading of sexual favors for career advancement (and this applies to many situations outside of the arts).  My reading of what you have written, and I apologize if I have misinterpreted, is that you are a little too cavalier in your acceptance of the way things were.  I'll leave it at that and let others continue to respond as they see fit.  As with many discussion on this forum of LuLa there are strongly held opinions and the Internet has never been a good place to discuss issues such as this one as we all end up talking past one another or engage in snarky repartee which doesn't advance any discussion.

[Rob C]

I can quote you. You came to the defence of those ‘visible stars behaving badly’ with talk of ‘willing rape’ and the insistence that ‘it takes two to tango’. You followed this up by saying, ‘if you don’t like the club, stay the fuck away.’ And today you equated the #metoo movement with islamic fundamentalism. Can you not see how alienating these attitudes are to women who might want to participate in this forum?

Oh brother! Willing rapes are not news and not reserved to the arts; two to tango is fact, not of someone's imagination. Yes, do stay away if the kitchen is too hot. You can take up cold, vegetarian cuisine instead, if you like. But do not preach to those within, wearing the aprons, on how to cook. And, if you wish to reply to posts addressed at specific correspondents, do the right thing and follow the request made to them and quote in full; cherry-picking is even frowned upon by European politicos, which is saying something!

For your clarification, I equated fundamentalists Christianity with its Islamic equivalents, of which there are several, just as with the Christian versions of same.

The Me2 movement I classify along with the bomb-banners and all the rest of the dreamers. I see them as people who may or may not have experienced the situation, but find it a convenient platform for appearing on the news. Has it escaped you that all the focus is on the bombshells in the cute, black, designer dresses? Miss or Mrs Average is as excluded by the glam set as ever she was. The entire show is a promotion. As for the moguls, they will simply function in different roles, as with all the gang bosses in prison today: their world rolls on.

As for the few women participating in LuLa today: it's up to them to play their card, express their indignation at this horrible little primate who doesn't buy the 21st Century crap so many swallow, hook line and bleedin' sinker. I would, of course, expect them to be accurate with their arrows should they feel the need to fire them. Hysteria doesn't equate with right either, but you know that.

:-)

[elliot_n]

You don't have a monopoly on photographing women. I photograph women too – though with less of an emphasis on their oiled breasts.

You've misunderstood the #metoo movement. It is a ground-up phenomenon of everyday women calling out everyday sexism. There's more to it than what you see on the telly.

[RSL]

I'll not speak for Phil as he has more than ably made some key points.  Any occupation that relies on individuals (fashion, movies, sports to highlight perhaps the three major ones and let us not forget popular music) has seen abuse of various kinds over the years (certainly in the case of movies since its inception  with the "casting couch").  Now sometimes egregious behavior is/was tolerated with a wink and a nod; 'boys will be boys and girls will be girls.'  What angers me is how long it has taken for some of this behavior to be called out for what it is/was.  Look how many years the gymnastics doctor got away with sexually abusing young girls; same for Harvey Weinstein.  In the latter case, actresses were told never go into a room with Harvey alone.  Yet it was only in 2017 that he was stripped of his corporate power.  What we are seeing today is a rapid change in how such behavior is treated.  the old status quo is unacceptable and rightfully so.  For some of us, this outrageous behavior has to be called out every time it happens as that is the only way it can be stopped.

The female figure has been a center piece of art going back to early times (and there have been many published iconographic studies).  Photography, whether it is high fashion or something verging on the prurient, is no different.  What I object to is the abuse of subjects and similarly the intentional trading of sexual favors for career advancement (and this applies to many situations outside of the arts).  My reading of what you have written, and I apologize if I have misinterpreted, is that you are a little too cavalier in your acceptance of the way things were.  I'll leave it at that and let others continue to respond as they see fit.  As with many discussion on this forum of LuLa there are strongly held opinions and the Internet has never been a good place to discuss issues such as this one as we all end up talking past one another or engage in snarky repartee which doesn't advance any discussion.

Hi Alan, and your point is? Stated perhaps in a single sentence?

By the way, I certainly agree that the female figure has been a "center piece" in art.

[amolitor]

The AP style guide now accepts "they/them/their" as singular pronouns in cases where appropriate.

Language evolves.

[RSL]

Let's face it, Andrew, the Associated Press will accept ANYTHING as long as it leans left. I'm not surprised that they'll accept left-imposed, PC corruptions of English grammar.

[RSL]

I think it's fascinating hearing how sexually oppressed and put-upon women are, and how they're simply unable to fight back and nail their oppressors. . . guys like the gymnast doctor and Weinstein (and those nasty fashion photographers), all of whom should have been arrested early in their careers, and would have been had the women they oppressed raised hell and gone to the cops. . .

And then, at the same time hearing about how tough women are; how they're perfectly capable of performing normal military duties along with men, and how they even belong in combat units.

Anyone else see at least a mild dichotomy in this?

[RSL]

Glad to be of service, care to share the findings?

The "findings" are that you stamped your foot at exactly the right moment.