London mayor bans "body shaming" advertising (that depicts revealing women)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Khan's stated rationale is odd by Atlas standards, but not in a way that should be surprising or that's inconsistent with certain types of gender politics-oriented leftism. Bringing the man's religion into it is unparsimonious as well as distasteful, but I guess it's kind of reassuring to see the usual suspects doing so. Some things never change.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

(For reference: I don't really think this is that key an issue, at all (I'd be interested to know how much time and effort this required on Khan's part...), and characterizing the problem--even the specifically feminist side of the problem--with raunchy public advertising as one of 'body shaming' weirds me out because I've never really been on board with that kind of conceptual language, but if I had to choose whether I thought this was a good or bad decision I'd say it's a good one.)

Khan's stated rationale is odd by Atlas standards, but not in a way that should be surprising or that's inconsistent with certain types of gender politics-oriented leftism. Bringing the man's religion into it is unparsimonious as well as distasteful, but I guess it's kind of reassuring to see the usual suspects doing so. Some things never change.

     So his stated rationale is consistent with a terrible ideology...not looking good for Mr. Khan.

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

(For reference: I don't really think this is that key an issue, at all (I'd be interested to know how much time and effort this required on Khan's part...), and characterizing the problem--even the specifically feminist side of the problem--with raunchy public advertising as one of 'body shaming' weirds me out because I've never really been on board with that kind of conceptual language, but if I had to choose whether I thought this was a good or bad decision I'd say it's a good one.)

Khan's stated rationale is odd by Atlas standards, but not in a way that should be surprising or that's inconsistent with certain types of gender politics-oriented leftism. Bringing the man's religion into it is unparsimonious as well as distasteful, but I guess it's kind of reassuring to see the usual suspects doing so. Some things never change.

     So his stated rationale is consistent with a terrible ideology...not looking good for Mr. Khan.

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

     As someone who is of the opinion that government's role should not be to infantilize us ad hide bad thoughts and bad ideas from us, yes I would.

Well, you would frame it that way, wouldn't you?

Public transit, which is what this applies to, is a public service. It's under Khan's control. As the head of his city's government, he's allowed to choose what kinds of vendors and what kinds of advertisers using what kinds of images he wants that government to give a platform to. As it happens, he's chosen to not give that public platform to raunch. Suck it up.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

At least framing it as "not wanting to give a platform to raunch" would be more honest than trying to claim it's about "body shaming."

It would. Unfortunately, it'd also deviate from what current activist-y leftist politics is allowed to be concerned with.

The discussion of 'body shaming' reminds me though of this really bemusing and frankly kind of hilarious ad campaign that the MBTA had a few months back. Some swimsuit and lingerie brand festooned the sides of the Green Line streetcars with pictures of models captioned things like 'LOVE THE SWIM YOU'RE IN' and 'NO RETOUCHING ON THESE GIRLS'. Entirely ignoring the fact that these are still, well, bikini models. It was funny on the same level as some of those Dove ads about loving your body or whatever.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

[Deleted for giving you and your views more attention than they're worth]

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

[Deleted for giving you and your views more attention than they're worth]

You would use an escape hatch to get out of a debate, wouldn't you?

There's nothing worth 'debating'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This type of feminist policymaking is very stupid. Why target the symptoms of gender inequality using ineffectual policy tools that will accomplish nothing other than pissing everyone off?

I agree that it's kind of hollow and pointless, which is why I decided not to 'debate' it with PiT of all posters, but getting actively pissed off by it strikes me as...not the sort of reaction someone with a great personality or great priorities would have.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This type of feminist policymaking is very stupid. Why target the symptoms of gender inequality using ineffectual policy tools that will accomplish nothing other than pissing everyone off?

I agree that it's kind of hollow and pointless, which is why I decided not to 'debate' it with PiT of all posters, but getting actively pissed off by it strikes me as...not the sort of reaction someone with a great personality or great priorities would have.

     I can't tell if this is meant to be a dig at me or not, but I will say that hollow gesturing is an all-too common feature of modern feminist activism. It may help to ponder why.

I know why; I just don't think the reasons serve whatever your point is.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This type of feminist policymaking is very stupid. Why target the symptoms of gender inequality using ineffectual policy tools that will accomplish nothing other than pissing everyone off?

I agree that it's kind of hollow and pointless, which is why I decided not to 'debate' it with PiT of all posters, but getting actively pissed off by it strikes me as...not the sort of reaction someone with a great personality or great priorities would have.

     I can't tell if this is meant to be a dig at me or not, but I will say that hollow gesturing is an all-too common feature of modern feminist activism. It may help to ponder why.

I know why; I just don't think the reasons serve whatever your point is.

     This conversation is ultimately pointless too and I think it is time that we put it to rest, but first I would mention that it pleases me to know that you seem to agree that hollow gesturing is a problem with much of feminism today. I don't know if you would say the same about me, but you are someone who thinks about issues and someone whose opinion I respect.

I definitely respect you a lot more than I did before after this last little interaction. Good talk.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You'd think that right-wingers would welcome the new body standards, as they imply a renewed celebration of fertility (child-bearing is the reason that "normal" women's bodies are built the way that they are).

That implies that there's anything ideologically or morally consistent about the contemporary right (or the contemporary mainstream left tbf).