So, I think this phrase may benefit from some context. Specifically, the cultural backdrop to the statement is that we[1] have a recent tradition of using the transition from "pure, sweet good-girl teen" to "raunchy, sexualised young woman" as a kind of marketing event for female pop stars who began their careers as teenage TV stars. Part of their marketing value derives directly from the public and "shocking" nature of the transition. It's essentially exploiting the Madonna-whore complex[2] for marketing purposes.
There are ambiguities, of course. Perhaps the "shock" value of female sexuality is a good thing and is helping us all to get out of outmoded views about female purity. Perhaps the presentation of female sexuality as being about raunch and nudity is catering to male fantasies and is thus bad. Perhaps the problem lies with the excessively "pure" image that teenage female entertainers need to maintain in order to be deemed "family-friendly".
Personally, I interpreted the comment in the article as being one about the exaggerated nature of the image change that stars like Miley Cyrus go through once they hit the age of consent. She's neither the whore of Babylon nor Hannah Montana, but it suited advertisers to portray her as both at different times.
Is this a suitable topic for a joke or a metaphor? I didn't interpret it negatively, so for me it was fine. I can appreciate why other people would disagree, but I thought adding some context might be useful[3].
[1] Actually this is mostly an American thing, so I'm not entirely entitled to use "we" here
your explanation is reasonable as far as it goes. Yes, the two states are being used to contrast the shocking change in nature of the product. However, this doesn't speak as to whether it's ok.
1) commodifying women is not ok.
2) comparing women as an object/product to a piece of tech is again problematic.
3) half your potential audience for your review is women. Do they want to read about other women being talked about like this?
4) using language like this makes it easier to accept it's reasonable and inoffensive. It's not inoffensive.
just saying oh well this is advertising and marketing is not enough. Questioning it's validity is worthwhile. Questioning whether we want to see this kind of exclusionary and sexist language in professional copy is worthwhile.
So much argument... I can't believe some people get this offended by simple words. In this case, Miley doesn't even deny it, she's trying hard to give that image, so it's really childish to complain about it.
I hate this attitude that makes people watch their words. It may be true of public and influential personalities, but who cares your choice of words as long as you convey the message? I believe that everything and everyone can be laughed at.
Sure, you may feel offended inside. But you should at least understand that it makes no sense and refrain from sharing your "I'm offended" feelings. Same thing goes for the other end of the spectrum by the way: you can be sexist but as long as you don't act on it, I don't see a problem. That's what freedom is about.
> So much argument... I can't believe some people get this offended by simple words.
I'm a man, I can walk down the street without being wolf whistled, leered at or otherwise feeling threatened.
Every single woman I know has been hassled in public by men with sexist, threatening language like this. walking down the street they will get an unwanted comments about their appearance, if they ignore them or complain, they get called the kind of things you call "simple words".
Because this kind of language is in the everyday lexicon of of some men, it's used to hurt, threaten and intimidate women.
but y'know, please don't get upset by my simple words yeah.
Some women have criticized Ms. Cyrus's image-transition as cynical and self-destructive – see for example Sinead O'Connor's "open letter" [1]. Those women might appreciate, rather than take offense at, a sly nod to the accelerated, commercial nature of Cyrus's sex-it-up-for-a-buck makeover. The review's throwaway line, to the extent it expresses any viewpoint at all, can equally be seen as embracing one particular feminist critique of sexualized-marketing.
So if some people find a word choice "offensive" based on a simple checklist of dos-and-don'ts, but others find the same phrasing a usefully vivid and possibly even progressive turn-of-phrase, which side should have its preference respected in future writing? Do we take a majority vote? Does one iota of declared offense, from the most easily-offended, always win, ensuring gray committee-vetted prose from here to eternity?
I was all set to agree with you and criticize OP for being overly sensitive; but yeah, the writer was less making a biblical reference than calling a young woman a slut. Uncalled for.
Actually, it doesn't belong anywhere. In the book "Women's Infidelity" the author makes a compelling argument that a lot of relationship issues today stem from the double standard society uses to shame womens sexuality. Promiscuous men are revered, while women are shamed. There's a LOT more to it and it's really interesting reading. Society is a changin' and this language needs to go, not just on tech sites.
Thank you. I came here specifically to say just that. I'm trying to do more to say something in cases like these and call it when I see it. That usage was jarring and yes, completely out of place / uncalled for. Glad others feel same. Of all the analogies in the world, that was the choice?
It's not sexism. There's nothing gender-specific about it.
EDIT: As an aside, I've been refreshing the page frequently and the dynamics of which comments are rapidly going gray and back to black are very interesting. Not to mention the order of comments on this page. Clearly there's some strong opinions here. I feel like an analysis of post voting frequency and vote type could be performed and would be very insightful.
Choosing to brand someone who is comfortable with publicly displaying their sexuality as a whore (however they choose to spell the sentence) shows either a low intellect, a meanness of spirit or simply someone who rushes to draw conclusions without thinking.
It's pertinent to the topic, in any of the above cases, as they all make you wonder if you can thus trust the rest of his review/opinion.
> shows either a low intellect, a meanness of spirit or simply someone who rushes to draw conclusions without thinking.
I disagree. And so do a lot of other people. Look up the word in the dictionary. It's an accurate definition.
I'm more bothered by the fact that as soon as I read that sentence in the review, I knew someone who loves to be offended by everything would have already commented about it on HN.
"whore of babylon" has a specific connotation that doesn't really seem to apply to Miley Cyrus. Either the author thinks Cyrus is the herald of the antichrist, or he's trying to use a biblical expression to make his naming and shaming seem clever.
Oh, please... the author is doing funny turn of phrases in every second paragraph. But sure, it is "racist" to joke about female celebrities?
(That said, I have no clue what Hanna Montana was. But Miley Cyrus is hardly extreme, even for mainstream music.
[Edit: And if copying black music culture should be condemned, I don't know how much will remain? :-) Not only in the US. I guess the jokes are about the contrast with Montana? Sure women often gets the short stick in criticism, but don't throw the baby out with the water. Enough discussion, please. ]
She's not a prostitute (you can google that definition too), so it's not an accurate definition. And, as you're keen on definitions, it's defined as derogatory, so that really does indicate at least meanness of spirit in the writer, yourself, and "a lot of other people".
> I knew someone who loves to be offended by everything...
Personally, I'm not offended by "everything", and when I am offended, I don't enjoy it. His statement simply was offensive.
> as soon as I read that sentence in the review...
You clearly show a level of awareness of what is potentially offensive. Perhaps you could try using a little empathy towards others when you come across something that triggers that awareness, and you might find yourself enlightened.
There are ambiguities, of course. Perhaps the "shock" value of female sexuality is a good thing and is helping us all to get out of outmoded views about female purity. Perhaps the presentation of female sexuality as being about raunch and nudity is catering to male fantasies and is thus bad. Perhaps the problem lies with the excessively "pure" image that teenage female entertainers need to maintain in order to be deemed "family-friendly".
Personally, I interpreted the comment in the article as being one about the exaggerated nature of the image change that stars like Miley Cyrus go through once they hit the age of consent. She's neither the whore of Babylon nor Hannah Montana, but it suited advertisers to portray her as both at different times.
Is this a suitable topic for a joke or a metaphor? I didn't interpret it negatively, so for me it was fine. I can appreciate why other people would disagree, but I thought adding some context might be useful[3].
[1] Actually this is mostly an American thing, so I'm not entirely entitled to use "we" here
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna%E2%80%93whore_complex
[3] Who am I kidding? I'm just giving my 2c on an internet forum like everyone else who has nothing better to do right now