Nuclear TFWOT

(That's Thursday Flamewar Open Thread, of course.)

So who said the following, and in response to whom?

"It is not probably prudent ... in today's world to threaten to obliterate any other country and in many cases civilians resident in such a country."

Comments

[indifferent children]

Does it matter who said it, if Bush wasn't paying attention?

[Robb]

It's a response to Hillary, but as to who said it. . . I'll say. . . Albert Speer?

[keith]

My guess is Rummy or Chaney, since it's both bitterly ironic and has a few to many polysyllabic words for Georgie Boy to say coherently.

[Vermic]

I'm gonna say Bush Sr., on account of the "prudent".

[Froborr]

Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, in response to Hillary.

[Froborr]

Clinton! Hillary CLINTON!

Argh, I can't believe I did that, I've been yelling at people for doing that very thing for MONTHS.

[Robb]

That's boring - and. . . aw. . . . I was hoping for something hilariously ironic like. . . Wesley Clark or Colin Powell or even Rumsfeld or . . . I dunno.

Whatever. . .

*****

[root] Bomb, Bomb, Bomb.
Bomb, Bomb, Iran
[3rd] Bomb, Bomb, Bomb.
Bomb, Bomb, Iran
[7th]Bomb, Bomb, Bomb.
Bomb, Bomb, Iran

Bomb IRAAAAAAAAN . . . .

[Froborr]

OT but important: Bush's FY2009 budget cuts all funding for Reading Is Fundamental. This must not stand. Send a letter to your Congressperson here.

That out of the way... great Ghu, I hadn't read to the end of the article until Robb linked it. Clinton tried to defend her comments by saying she wanted to start a Cold War with Iran? What is she thinking!?

[hapax]

Apparently Hillary Clinton has given up on the Democratic nomination and is angling for John McCain's veep slot.

[Robb]

What is she thinking!?

For some reason, she continues to think she needs to be 'tough'. It's crap like that makes me think that despite the political/ideological differences, from a personality standpoint, she would be a continuation of the Bush administration.

(how's that for flame bait? eh? eh?)

[bulbul]

For some reason, she continues to think she needs to be 'tough'.
No, she needs to look tough. Or, in other words, she needs to look less weak. And Obama needs to look less elitist and McCain needs to look less old.
Seriously, what is wrong with the people who keep bringing up how elitist Obama is? What struck me as most ironic is the whole bowling thing: Obama isn't an elitist because he doesn't bowl, he is an elitist because he doesn't bowl well. So actually he is an elitist because he does not excel at something. Heh.

OK, back to work now.

[Froborr]

Nah. Bush has principles. Foul, evil, disgusting principles, but he's got principles. Clinton (and McCain, for that matter), not so much.

[Spherical Time]

Here's another possible topic: Open Source Boobs via Scalzi

I haven't seen rational conversation about it yet.

[Spherical Time]

Ooops. Does that need a close tag? Sorry about that.

[lonespark]

Yeah, Spherical Time, that is awesome flamebait.

[Froborr]

*shrug*

The touching of breasts is regarded, in our society, as a sexual act. There's no compelling reason why this should be so, but it is nonetheless a fact of our culture.

A woman who chooses to wear a sign saying, in affect, "Attention random strangers: I welcome queries as to whether you may perform a single, highly specific sex act on me," is not doing anything wrong, nor is she indicating that people may perform the act without asking, nor is she indicating an interest in having any other sex acts performed on her by strangers. Of course, in many settings wearing such a sign would be very dangerous, because there's a lot of assholes who would take it as an invitation to something other than what it says.

So, yeah. What's the big deal? Some women decided to invite people to touch their breasts. They're their breasts; they can do with them what they will. Is it the end of civilization? Nope. Is it going to change the world for the better? Nope. It's just a stunt.

[Jeff]

Is the "Open Boobs" link safe for work? I'm going to err on the side of caution and check it out tonight.

[Spalanzani]

The link's fine. No pictures of anything, except for some covers of sci-fi books on the right-hand side.

[Ursula L]

Froborr wrote:

So, yeah. What's the big deal? Some women decided to invite people to touch their breasts. They're their breasts; they can do with them what they will. Is it the end of civilization? Nope. Is it going to change the world for the better? Nope. It's just a stunt.

It's a stunt that matters because it will involve other women in the stunt, whether they want to be involved or not, merely because they are in the place where the stunt is taking place. And if that place is one that has another purpose - such as a con - it effectively bars any women who don't want to be involved in the stunt.

If there is a general announcement that some women will be wearing a pin that says you can ask to touch their breasts every woman in that place is going to have men going out of their way to look to see if she's wearing such a pin. And women have enough trouble with men talking to their breasts without creating another reason.

If you want to open up such a discussion, why not have men wearing a pin saying "ask me if you'd like me to touch your breasts" and let women have control of the asking?

[Chris]

There are no images in the link. I can't vouch for programmes that catch potentially sexual words, though.

As a silly convention game, I can't criticise this, but it annoys me that a few people seem to think it's actually going to make anything change for the better.

I know this is a flame war thread, but I'm not going to waste my energy pointing out why that is idiotic.

On a sidenote, I've always been aggravated by (bad) male authors who seem to think that if they're writing from a female character's point of view, they're legally compelled to have her periodically think about her breasts and other gender-specific bits. Sickens me. Anyway, that's precisely the kind of attitude that Open Source Boobs isn't going to fix.

I also don't like the word "boobs", but that's neither here nor there.

[K]

And here I thought that "scalzi vs. open-source boobs" had something to do with his not-understanding-objectivity Wikipedia saga.

[cjmr]

And women have enough trouble with men talking to their breasts without creating another reason.

Seriously. I'd get a shirt that says, "My eyes are up there", except that it'd be counterproductive.

[Froborr]

Ursula: I don't have any problem with men wearing such a button.

The rest of your argument, however, appears to be that a woman shouldn't do it because it will cause some men to make other women uncomfortable. I am in awe of your ability to simultaneously dehumanize men into automata that respond mechanistically to stimuli, and grant them a free pass for uncouth behavior, putting the blame on the woman who "caused" them to spend more time looking at breasts. It's like double-ended sexism!

[Kristy]

Actually, if it's double-ended sexism, isn't it just equal-opportunity crankiness?

*shrugs* Context, people, context. If women started wearing buttons like that everywhere they went (grocery stores, football games, the movie theater, etc.), I could see how it might be worth discussing. But it's a sci-fi con. Ursula, have you been to many cons? Believe me, people walking around with red and green buttons explaining whether or not you're allowed to touch their breasts is actually pretty tame, all things considered. Honestly, I'm mostly just surprised anyone paid enough attention to make it blog-worthy.

Just out of curiosity, what's wrong with the word "boobs"?

[Froborr]

Kristy: I'd say there's a subtle distinction. Equal-opportunity crankiness would be applying the same negative assumption to everyone. Ursula seems to be applying one negative assumption to men, and an entirely different negative assumption to women.

[Chris]

I just don't like the word because of the associations it has for me. I've seen it used in sexual or cheeky contexts too often. "Breasts" is value-neutral.

[Raj]

Toledo Tit Parade? What sort of literature is that?

[Raka]

cjmr: Seriously. I'd get a shirt that says, "My eyes are up there", except that it'd be counterproductive.

How about glasses with translucent lettering saying "My eyes are right here"?

[Cowboy Diva]

Froborr.
do it another way. Instead of saying "Women will wear a red or green button for whether they want to be groped by strangers" say "Gay men will wear a pink triangle because they are gay."
No one should be forced to wear anything.
...
now contemplating nudity in the workplace; thanks a lot.

[Raka]

Froborr: Ursula seems to be applying one negative assumption to men, and an entirely different negative assumption to women.

Without getting into whether or not Ursula really was applying negative assumptions to anyone, what's sexist about doing so? Equality of opportunity does not dictate equality of identity or attributes, and I don't know why people keep insisting that it's sexist to recognize that.

[Spalanzani]

Kristy: Just out of curiosity, what's wrong with the word "boobs"?

I just don't like how it sounds, myself, but there's also its second meaning of "a stupid person". Actually, does anyone know which came first, the meaning of boob as referring to a woman's breasts, or as referring to a moron? Or did they both come about together, or what?

[Raka]

Cowboy Diva: Instead of saying "Women will wear a red or green button for whether they want to be groped by strangers" say "Gay men will wear a pink triangle because they are gay."
No one should be forced to wear anything.

Read the articles again. If there was no button, the default assumption was a "no"-- and again, that's a "no you may not ask", not a "no you may not touch". The "no" buttons were only provided for women who felt more comfortable making explicit what was already an implicit rule: unless you are given specific license to do so, it is inappropriate to ask to touch a person.

No one was forced to wear anything, there were no consequences for failing to wear either button, and I've heard no accounts of buttonless women being approached.

[Naked Bunny with a Whip]

So threatening mass slaughter isn't evil. It's just not prudent. Maybe.

Jesus effin' Christ.

[yagowe]

Spalanzani: Actually, does anyone know which came first, the meaning of boob as referring to a woman's breasts, or as referring to a moron?

They appear to be unrelated, etymologically. According to etymonline.com (one of my favourite places on the internet):

boobs "breasts," 1929, U.S. slang, probably from much older term boobies (late 17c.), related to 17c. bubby, perhaps ult. from L. puppa, lit. "little girl," hence, in child-talk, "breast" (cf. O.Fr. pope, popel "breast," Ger. dial. Bubbi, etc.).

whereas booby "stupid person," 1599, from Sp. bobo "stupid person, slow bird," probably from L. balbus "stammering" (like barbarian, from an imitative root, cf. Czech blblati "to stammer," Skt. balbala-karoti "he stammers").

[cjmr]

Actually, does anyone know which came first, the meaning of boob as referring to a woman's breasts, or as referring to a moron? Or did they both come about together, or what?

According to the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang*, 'boob' meaning 'fool; sucker; chump' was first used in 1907.

'Boob' referring to a woman's breast did not appear until 1929, whereas 'booby' used to mean the same thing appeared 13 years earlier in 1916.

'Booby hatch' (prison) dates from 1859.

(Yeah! I finally got to use one of the hyper-expensive reference books I bought 15 years ago!)

-----
*Volume 1 A-G

[cjmr]

But, being a reference book it was slower than the internet...

[Froborr]

Equality of opportunity is impossible unless all people are regarded as being of equal worth. Ursula's statements devalue men by dehumanizing them, and women by blaming them for the actions of men.

[Jesurgislac]

Believe me, people walking around with red and green buttons explaining whether or not you're allowed to touch their breasts is actually pretty tame, all things considered.

Depends how you define "tame", Kristy. I've probably been to more cons than you have. Also, I've certainly been going to cons a lot longer than you have. Hall and masquerade costuming aside, of course buttons and t-shirts are part of the con: but the Ferrett's creepy discourse on how women's breasts are to be groped by men and only a prude would say no... well, he's a disgusting creep, the kind of hairy smelly fan any woman in a revealing costume learns to stay well away from, but there are plenty of better men who go to cons.

I suspect Spherical Time is defining all feminist discussion about the Women's Bodies Are Open Source as "irrational", since there's certainly been plenty of that all over the internets, but for those who do not share that bigotry, I linked to a links-roundup from my journal.

Kristy, a few years ago, I went to a panel at a UK Worldcon on sex. One of the panellists was a lovely woman wearing an absolutely skin tight rubber dress, on which (in which) she looked... well, I don't have words for it, but will you accept fabulous as a hopeful attempt? She was glorious.

She was invited, she admitted at the start of the panel, primarily because of the rubber dress - in effect, the panel organiser had said "Talk about being a sex object! Wear the rubber dress!"

One of the things she wanted to talk about was this: The rubber dress made her look glorious. But she had found she could not wear it to conventions, because unless she walked around all the time with her boyfriend or other threatening-looking male bodyguard at her elbow, she got persistently harassed by men who, like this ferretty creep, felt that since she was wearing this outfit, she ought to welcome people asking her if they could touch her. And some of them didn't even wait to ask, certainly if she didn't have bodyguard-at-elbow: hands on, then ask.

(That was the Worldcon where among the ribbons they were handing out was Ladies From Hell, which I declined with reluctance on account of not being a lady.)

The Ferrett is a creep of "Hello, little fuck" standard: he belongs right in the same box with Harlan Ellison, except that Ellison writes better. One women who was at the con and who accepted one of the badges to wear admitted afterwards that she wouldn't have done so if she'd read the Ferrett's account of how Women's Breasts Are Open Source had come to be.

[Raj]

now contemplating nudity in the workplace; thanks a lot.

Full frontal nudity? Not in this part of the Yearning for Zion Ranch!

[Raj]

What I would like to to know is how they ever came to be called "hooters." I mean, it's not as if they hoot or anything.

[Froborr]

I have always been suspicious of the number of words for breasts that have a double-o in them.

Jesu: Having read your LJ post on the topic... yeah. That kind of changes matters. The project as described still sounds fairly innocent to me, but the person doing the describing is now *extremely* suspect.

[cjmr]

What I would like to to know is how they ever came to be called "hooters."

I don't know, but that's a relatively recent (late 20th century) slang term for them--no print or film references in American English before 1975.

(Volume 2, H-O)

[practicallyevil]

The Ferrett is a creep of "Hello, little fuck" standard: he belongs right in the same box with Harlan Ellison, except that Ellison writes better. One women who was at the con and who accepted one of the badges to wear admitted afterwards that she wouldn't have done so if she'd read the Ferrett's account of how Women's Breasts Are Open Source had come to be.

He certainly is, and the original spirit in which the comment was made was despicable. But despite that the phrase "Open Sources Boobs," was a clever enough play on words to catch a few peoples imaginations. People made their own interpretation of the original phrase and turned it into something positive that allowed a civil discourse on the subject of breasts. While it certainly may not work out in most Con's which are attended by the greasy sweaty social reject who gives everyone at the convention a bad name by virtue of his creepiness, Penguin Con seemed like the kind of environment were this sort of thing could work, on virtue of the fact that it did work.

Also if I may criticize, you were a bit quick to call SphericalTime a bigot, he was just providing flame bait. While it's possible he believes that all feminist concern about the issue is "irrational," it's entirely possible he hasn't seen a discussion that hasn't descended into a flame war, which means it would be a good thing for our Flame War Thursday. That and Right Behind is kind of my bread and butter right now, so I got to score points with the admins.

[Ursula L]

Perhaps I should expand on what I had to say.

Not all men talk to breasts. But many, many men do. Enough so that it is something a woman has to deal with as a possiblity much of the time.

And it is a problem - not because men are automatons who must behave this way, but because men are not automatons, and don't have to behave this way - but many men behave this way often enough that it is a problem for women in situations where having your breasts get more attention than you do puts you ten steps behind at the start of the race.

If men were automatons who could only respond to sexual stimuli in an obnoxious way, the only solution would be to lock men up, and only let them out in public when suitably chaperoned for proper behavior. But because men can behave appropriately, the appropriate way to handle the times when many men don't behave appropriately is to demand that men do behave appropriately, and structure things to encourage appropriate behavior while discouraging inappropriate behavior.

Things that reduce the problem of men talking to breasts are good, things that increse the problem are bad. This type of "button" system means that it takes what should be normal - men talking to women, not their breasts - and undermines the decency of most men (who talk to women rather than breasts) by giving them a specific reason to pay attention to the breasts of all women at the con - checking for the yes/no button - when their default behavior would be to just talk to the women as people. While also giving the sort of men who do talk to breasts an extra excuse for that behavior.

[Raka]

Raj: What I would like to to know is how they ever came to be called "hooters." I mean, it's not as if they hoot or anything.

They don't? Are you sure? Maybe you're operating them incorrectly.

[Froborr]

At this point, Jesu accusing people of bigotry barely registers. I was extremely surprised to find that her accusations of creepiness re: Ferrett were actually pretty well-founded. I guess it just goes to show, the smoke alarm which goes off every time you make toast is probably also going to go off when you set fire to the kitchen.

[McJulie]

Um.... As a frequent and long-term con-goer who happens to be female, all I can say is, ewwwwwwww...

But I guess if creepy guys want to take advantage of women with self-esteem issues, whatever. As long as it's all consensual and everything.

It still grosses me out though.

[Raka]

practicallyevil: you were a bit quick to call SphericalTime a bigot...

Jesurgislac? Quick to call someone a bigot? Never! I am affronted that you could even make such a suggestion!

Ursula L: ...undermines the decency of most men (who talk to women rather than breasts) by giving them a specific reason to pay attention to the breasts of all women at the con - checking for the yes/no button...

I don't share Froborr's judgment, but I have to admit that I find this reasoning a bit hard to follow. If the men are decent, and yet interested in breasts enough to want to ask for a touch when consent is pre-emptively asserted (if men with such an interest may be called "decent"), then I think it's reasonable to assume that their button-scanning will be extremely cursory, and no more offensive or obtrusive than anyone observing anyone else's general appearance and outfit. If they stare in a prolonged fashion, either there is a defensible reason for doing so (eg a lengthy printed witticism) or else the man was not, ipso facto, a decent man to begin with.

The only group of decent men who might be incited to prolonged thoracic examination by the existence of a button program would be those suffering some sort of accute visual or cognitive deficiency. I don't know that they make up a group large enough to justify impugning the entire program.

[Tonio]

he belongs right in the same box with Harlan Ellison

In another thread, I suggested that the story is probably a myth, since I've heard similar unbelievable stories about celebrities like Ellison that turned out to be false.

[Kristy]

lol, Jesu, if we weren't on different continents we should totally hit a con together...

But that's kind of my point, honestly. What with the rubber dresses, the revealing cosplay outfits, the amount of random touching that people - male and female - tend to think is more ok at a con than elsewhere... I'm not being facetious, I really am kind of scratching my head wondering why the buttons even got a mention. Frankly, as one who rather enjoys the relaxed personal boundaries so common at cons, I think a button explaining whether I am or am not at home to a request for random groping might, well... cut through a lot of the awkwardness, honestly!

And... oh, I know I'm gonna get in trouble for this, I know I know I know I'm gonna get yelled at, but I just gotta say it. I followed your link, I read this Ferret guy, and I... I...

I kinda like him.

I'm sorry! I do! He reminds me of a lot of the dudes I hang out with. He doesn't seem like a bad guy; we'd probably get along swimmingly if we met in person. I just can't jump on the "he's a disgusting creep" bandwagon, I'm sorry.