Debate the hottest political topics, poll the public opinion, post your own opinion polls and find out what others think!
You can even post your own public opinion polls using our poll builder and find out what others think on the issues that matter to you!
A petition titled "Demand Facebook Remove Pages That Promote Sexual Violence" is pitting fans of caustic humor against those who feel that social networking giant Facebook is providing a forum to celebrate violence against women. Is Facebook doing a poor job of policing itself and its users? Or are well-meaning folks seeking justice jumping to conclusions?With over 80,000 signatures, the petition proposed by a change.org member demands that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and executives Sheryl Sandberg and Andrew Noyes implement a three part plan to remove pages with content seemingly condoning sexual assault. It includes acknowledging that the pages are an infraction upon current FB standards, establishing that when verbiage implying threatening sexual violence is reported it will be removed immediately by FB, and specified language in the site's Terms that condemns promotion of any form of sexual violence, resulting in a ban from the site. An email alert issued this afternoon from change.org about the petition reads, "Facebook says that hate speech and incitements to violence are banned and will be removed from their site. So why are they maintaining a page called "Riding Your Girlfriend Softly Cause You Don't Want to Wake Her Up"? And another page about "throwing bricks at sluts" that includes a photo gallery of portraits asking "Bang or Brick"?" Unfortunately, the first page mentioned could not be located, while the second exists but does not seem to include the portrait gallery mentioned. The petition itself goes on to also list the pages "Raping your mates girlfriend to see if she can put up a fight", “Kicking Sluts in the Vagina,” and “I know a silly little bitch that needs a good slap.”"There has even been an organized effort," the email goes on, "to use Facebook’s own reporting system to flag these and other pages that encourage rape and violence against women so they’ll be taken down. But Facebook hasn’t done a thing."'Throwing Bricks at Sluts' in particular assures that their page is comedic [below] and does not genuinely incite or support violence. Isn't there a way to weed out those getting a kick out of an abrasive joke from those who clearly have rape fantasies on their mind or directly say so in the improper forum? They are called communities, after all, shouldn't they function as such? It's easy to throw a blanket over concepts that seem wrong. For example, to go the way of 1984 one might say "anyone who discusses rape/assault/murder outside of condemning it ought to be ostracized/imprisoned." Yet comedian Louis CK can efficiently squeeze both molestation and murder into a single hilarious joke that's acerbic and ironic, without the slightest threat or suggestion his audience attempt it. Should he be forbade from discussing rape in a public forum, as his monologues are mostly delivered? No. But if a neighbor walks up and coolly uses the same verbiage to suggest abducting and torturing your kid, by all means call the police. White comedians joke about racism but when Michael Richards hurled racial slurs at an audience member during a monologue it was easy to see which is right and which is wrong.That seems to be a basic step in evaluating these pages that change.org is missing, which is context. Each individual should be using their better judgement to decide what's right for them, their personal standards and beliefs. There is joining communities that interest or amuse you or ignoring them. Joining a page then discovering it is malicious is certainly a reason to report. Threatening speech utilized outside of context should definitely get a specific user reported. It's not seeing the forest for the trees to suggest that all of a certain type of forum close because people can be sick. Why not take down Facebook entirely?Perhaps Facebook is remiss in taking down perverse and revolting content. Sarah Palin has a page, after all. But perhaps Facebook hasn't addressed some of these sites because the complaints aren't there, because their fans are supporting it. Change.org provided no evidence to back their email's declaration that these pages have been flagged relentlessly. Do we close comedy clubs because jokes can be crass? Or do we choose those comedians who specifically carry off vulgarity and sick humor with class and walk out on those instigating attack or trying for a tasteless laugh without intellect? Are these pages bad for women or good for a laugh?
Doctor Pepper has a new product, a 10-calorie diet soda with 2 grams of tasty sugar. I've never liked diet soda but a low-calorie pop with sugar instead of aspartame sounds like it would be way more tolerable than the usual formula. Unfortunately I'm not allowed to try it; Doctor Pepper 10 is not for women. Advertisers often try to alleviate the perceived social stigma of light drinks when marketing them to men. Bitch Magazine, who graced Doctor Pepper 10 with this week's Douchebag Decree, point out that Miller Lite, Pepsi Max and Coke Zero have used this angle in the past. Doctor Pepper 10 beats them all with its bluntness. Besides the "It's Not for Women" tagline, the commercial spot features army dudes doing manly things in a jungle and the Facebook page features an app that excludes women visitors and lists ten "man'ments" for gender-appropriate behavior.The New York Times coverage makes me think the minds behind this campaign are onto something, in terms of the publicity the ads will receive as a result of their controversial, exclusionary message. They quote an expert who explains, "One topic people never tire of talking or arguing about is differences between men and women, particularly if women are excluded. That will always get someone's attention." And of course, getting attention is the point of an ad campaign.Doctor Pepper's executive vice president of marketing commented, "Women get the joke. 'Is this really for men or really for women?' is a way to start the conversation that can spread and get people engaged in the product." This sounds to me like glossy PR-speak for "people and media are going to get riled up and tell other people about this, and it will raise the public's brand awareness!" It's pretty genius. I mean, I'm participating in such a marketing method right now, by writing this.Of course, if it's offensive enough, such a method could backfire and even prompt boycotts. Change.org has a petition urging Doctor Pepper to end the campaign. Do you think "It's Not for Women" will prompt coverage of the product and increase sales, or will its offensive message fail to engage customers?
Single ladies aren't building their future around a ring on their finger anymore, instead statistics show long-term trends of women advancing their education, devoting energy to building a thriving career, and earning in a higher income bracket-- a seemingly boastful offset of the trade-off of resisting a wedding band. How is giving up on the institution of marriage what equates success for the modern woman? Those who are opposed to their personal commitment to monogamy and marriage are certainly entitled to be. But can't a woman with romantic notions as well as strong personal and professional aspirations also have a husband without feeling like she's succumbed to old -fashioned ideals? Why must women tear down others' similarly well cultivated choices to validate their own?"In this month's Atlantic Monthly," according to The Daily Beast, "writer Kate Bolick argues that she's perfectly happy being 39 and single, and investigates whether marriage is logical—forget about necessary—for the modern woman. With girls out-learning boys in school, and women out-earning men at work, the traditional incentives for marriage are slowly falling away, and even beginning to disappear altogether. The result: marriage has become an option, not a necessity, which in itself is a revolution."Has marriage been a necessity since women's suffrage? Young women in the United States are not being forced into marriage nor do they need it. They are choosing to maintain their autonomy, spending time exploring life and society, carefully choosing a partner, struggling and succeeding as single moms and divorcees. This is where heterosexuals show that they've lost touch with the government-endowed privilege that their homosexual brothers and sisters are fighting for every day-- more than a social and governmental contract, a so-called necessity, marriage is a product of past and a pact of a future of love.Why must the image of the modern woman embracing and taking advantage of her freedoms be such a cold one? In a society of advanced intellect and philosophies, a contemporary woman should be free to carefully chose to love and be loved well in return, even under the heinous contract of marriage, as well as retain her ambition. And plenty do. Are the woman who insist on eschewing marriage settling the feminist movement back with their boasts of how much giving up a man gives them?
Nancy Upton, a current Internet favorite, won the popular vote with her artistic protest against American Apparel's plus-size model search contest. American Apparel's "Next BIG Thing" contest raised eyebrows for its disrespectful language, but it probably won't have made so much news if Nancy Upton hadn't called a photographer friend to take photos of her drenched in ranch dressing and eating a chicken in a pool and entered them in the contest.Upton wants to send the message that weight and beauty are not mutually exclusive, and that being a large person is not a sole defining characteristic. Her tagline on the contest site read, "I just can't stop eating," and the photos show an over-the-top, satirized version of what American Apparel (and other clothing companies) thinks of fat people. She objected to the contest's implication that "a subservient, nearly naked woman has always earned a place in American Apparel’s advertising with no trouble, but that larger women need to vote each other down and compete against one another to even deserve a chance." American Apparel heard this message as loud and clear as Upton's supporters did, and they've decided not to give her the first-place contest prize.Upton didn't intend or aim to win the contest -- she encouraged readers to vote for the other applicants, and said that she wouldn't accept the prize were it offered to her. She predicted that she wouldn't ever hear from the company if she were to win the popular vote. (American Apparel had a waiver attached to the contest reserving the right to give any or none of the prizes to any or none or the applicants.) However, earlier this week Iris Alonzo, creative director at American Apparel, sent Upton an open letter explain why she wouldn't receive the prize. oxJane.com calls the letter "bizarrely defensive," and "flat-out scolds Upton, schoolmarm style, for daring to question their good intentions." The full letter is here on Upton's blog and at The Frisky, who find the letter "douchey" and "nasty". Upton spoke with Alonzo today, and the American Apparel executive offered to fly Upton and photographer Shannon Skloss to LA to "get a look at what it’s really like being inside the company." Upton "agreed, as long as I could write about what I saw." I look forward to reading about it.Do you think an open letter denying Upton the prize was the best approach to the situation? The Atlantic Wire thinks "American Apparel might have been better-served swallowing its pride and giving Upton the win, or maybe issued an apology for the clunky advertisements." Maybe it doesn't matter, but do you think American Apparel should have handled Nancy Upton's win differently?
"What's your vice?" ManWall.com wants to know. From sports and hot rods, to grills and hot girls, the new guys-only social networking site boasts a safe haven for hen-pecked he-men to revel in all things dude away from the prying eyes of the woman folk on the web. But is the concept destined to be a place for boy bonding and cultivating a new network of buds, or is it just another budding soft core porn site, prime for trolls and spam?"The site has several “walls” on various topics where users can post pictures, videos and other content. Topics include: humor, entertainment, UFC results, fishing, funny photos, cars and hot girls," according to Social Times. "Users may either register and log in or post anonymously which, according to the press release, gives men a freedom them don’t have on sites such as Facebook: “This means no more judgmental looks from your Facebook-savvy grandmother at Thanksgiving or squabbles with your girlfriend over your collection of Megan Fox bikini photos.”" The site's terms of service note that members may not "Post content which we find objectionable. This includes, but is not limited to, pornography, illegal content, hateful content like anti-Semitism, threats, spam, and content which encourages unsafe acts. ManWall will determine what’s offensive at its own discretion". But who's held accountable when an anonymous poster, another feature of the site, shares sexy photos from an unknowing girlfriend or bedroom pics of a bitchy ex? If one anonymous account generated from an anonymous email is shut down or blocked, how hard can it be to create another of each, after all? To that end, what's to stop ladies from joining and investigating? Deception regarding age is prohibited by the site's terms, users must be 18, but how are both age and sex verified aside from checking off a box? Not that there aren't plenty of URL's hosting ugly acts of debauchery, deception, and over-sharing. But offering it explicitly seems a bit, well, unseemly. Is building a “virtual wolf pack”, as the site calls it, a positive step, giving guys a safe space to let it all hang out? Or is a specifically sans lady destination a potential Pandora's Box?
The New Girl, the much-anticipated new Fox sitcom starring hipster icon Zooey Deschanel, premiered on Tuesday, September 20. The reception was huge -- the Wall Street Journal reports that more than 10 million viewers, including many desirable young viewers, tuned in to watch Deschanel's "adorkable" character Jess move in with three guys. The show flirts with a "male friends help dowdy girl become a Real Woman" plotline, but the LA Times reviewer thinks the show's self-awareness makes "their little experiment in gender studies much more intriguing than" a standard ugly ducking trope. The New Girl isn't the only female-centric show this fall. 2 Broke Girls stars Kat Dennings and Beth Behrs as servers in a Brooklyn diner. Kat Dennings does for this CBS sitcom what Zooey Deschanel does for The New Girl -- people are tuning in just to see her. Monday's premiere recieved mixed reviews. The Washington Post found it a "lukewarm revamp of The Odd Couple," but the Boston Globe said "The actresses transcend their types," and the LA Times reviewer agrees. I think transcending stereotypes is essential to the success of these female-driven comedies -- if they don't move beyond cliche, the shows will simply rehash tired jokes about how different men and women are. Besides being unoriginal, plots based on gender differences perpetuate limiting roles for both men and women. It would be great to see these shows embrace female leads while letting each character develop as a full person with non-gender-based personality traits. Sounds like 2 Broke Girls is well on its way to surpassing trope "rich girl" and "city girl" characters, and the self-awareness of The New Girl may rescue it from a self-improvement-to-get-a-man scenario. EW.com's preview of the shows doesn't necessarily agree: "These two shows aren’t so much about girl power as they are about girl strategy: All three protagonists are young women who use their stereotypical “girl” qualities — flirtiness, mock-innocence, adroit manipulation of dumb males — to achieve some of their goals." There may be some truth there, but we can't expect a sitcom to break barriers right out of the gate. Only the pilot episodes have aired so far. There are less promising shows along these same lines this season -- Whitney is especially disappointing -- but these two in particular seem like they may turn out great.
Larry King
March Madness
Natasha Fame Leslie
Ryan Seacrest
Sanu Dellafiore
John Armstrong
Fred Hanna
Georgia Hester
