Uh oh Fender... Instagram accusations of being misogynistic

LastMantra

Quite right. Now where are the toyah's tits threads.

WiresDreamDisasters

DaevidJ said:

digitalscream said:

DaevidJ said:

digitalscream said:

You know what? I'd love it if it turned out that Dennis Galuszka was gay.

Just for a bit of variety on the tired old Offence Olympics trope.

Even if he was it makes no difference to the fact Fender put it out there and a person from Brazil was offended... This type of humour should have been consigned to the bin ages ago anyway.

Meh. Innuendo isn't offensive, except to those who want to be offended.

This whole thing reminds me of the time when, not so long ago, a local coffee shop was trying to advertise to the local mums on their Facebook page and talked about hot Italians, and everybody got so offended the shop had to close.

Except nobody did, and it didn't, because it's not actually that offensive to real people because everyone, Italians included, can laugh along with it.

Or maybe it was the photo of the male Italian model that did it, not sure.

Heh i don't think you or i get to make the call tbh in this instance on what is or is not offensive. In Fenders case recognising that they have a playerbase that is not just white dudes damage limitation is probably good for them. This is though very small news in comparison to other controversies. It just comes as a surprise that their PR didn't twig... Then again not everything probably goes through their PR...

You're doing this wrong. You need something to pedal to the masses before you adopt the moralistic perspective! You're losing sales man! You're losing your customer base! 

WiresDreamDisasters

westford said:

It’s just banter, right? 

In isolation, yeah. But when you are getting messages like that from all over, all the time, it builds and it builds and you end up with a bunch of men who think women only exist for their gratification and a bunch of women who think that’s all they’re worth.

It is tiresome.

No.

What is tiresome is that for some fucked up reason the silly billies like you are the ones we are all supposed to be listening to.

I'm not taking moral guidance or social commentary from cardigan wearers and Christmas jumper enthusiasts in the middle of July. Bollocks to that.

Bridgehouse

WiresDreamDisasters said:

pedal to the masses

Do you have a circuit diagram for that?

WiresDreamDisasters

Bridgehouse said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

pedal to the masses

Do you have a circuit diagram for that?

Yes. Get some cardboard from the 1800's, poke some holes in it, draw on some rosey red lips, and there you go. You've got a NOS RAT circuit! Enjoy!

Bridgehouse

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Bridgehouse said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

pedal to the masses

Do you have a circuit diagram for that?

Yes. Get some cardboard from the 1800's, poke some holes in it, draw on some rosey red lips, and there you go. You've got a NOS RAT circuit! Enjoy!

So it’s soulderless then?

poopot

They’ll still sell by the bucket loads... prolly to most of the folk commenting!!!!

thegummy

westford said:

It’s just banter, right? 

In isolation, yeah. But when you are getting messages like that from all over, all the time, it builds and it builds and you end up with a bunch of men who think women only exist for their gratification and a bunch of women who think that’s all they’re worth.

It is tiresome.

This post reads like you feel the masses are much more gullible and less intelligent than you and that you have to protect them because you know what's best for them.

Do the activists have to keep fighting to censor political incorrectness to hide it from the weak minded innocents who don't know their own worth?

soma1975

thegummy said:

westford said:

It’s just banter, right? 

In isolation, yeah. But when you are getting messages like that from all over, all the time, it builds and it builds and you end up with a bunch of men who think women only exist for their gratification and a bunch of women who think that’s all they’re worth.

It is tiresome.

This post reads like you feel the masses are much more gullible and less intelligent than you and that you have to protect them because you know what's best for them.

Do the activists have to keep fighting to censor political incorrectness to hide it from the weak minded innocents who don't know their own worth?

What is this bollocks?

You don't have to be an activist to recognise the effects of a patriarchal society on women. 

Frankly I find it hard to reach any other conclusion than anyone that believes the concept of political correctness, which is an attempt to stop centuries of institutionalised bullying, is wrong or has gone too far, probably had something to lose due to political correctness. As in they can no longer freely express bullying or bigoted sentiments without being called out on it. 

And how my heart bleeds for them. 

Sassafras

It's unfortunate that guitarists are still seen as sex obsessed misogynists who bang underage groupies all day long.
I stopped all that behaviour in the 70s.

I bet bassoonists aren't viewed as predatory degenerates.

poopot

I like the sunburst one...

digitalscream

soma1975 said:

What is this bollocks?

You don't have to be an activist to recognise the effects of a patriarchal society on women. 

Frankly I find it hard to reach any other conclusion than anyone that believes the concept of political correctness, which is an attempt to stop centuries of institutionalised bullying, is wrong or has gone too far, probably had something to lose due to political correctness. As in they can no longer freely express bullying or bigoted sentiments without being called out on it. 

And how my heart bleeds for them. 

There you go, making assumptions again.

Is it not possible, by any stretch of your imagination, that some folk can see beyond what you see, that we all have something to lose as this escalates and ever more expression is curtailed and more people are marginalised in the name of "equality"?

Making the assumption that people are bigots because they don't subscribe to your world view is the thin end of the wedge. Dog-whistling by calling them bullies and bigots in the hope of marginalising them is...worse.

soma1975

In fairness 'thin end of the wedge' is pretty much the calling card number 1 complaint for people railing against political correctness. 

My world view is one of base fairness and equality so it would be pretty hard to not subscribe to it and not harbour some notion to the contrary. What is it specifically then you have a problem with about PC? 

If you're talking about the whole 'it should be called a personhole not a manhole' tripe then that's not an issue of political correctness, no matter how much the media will say it is. 

Other than that I am at a loss. Please enlighten me. 

digitalscream

soma1975 said:

If you're talking about the whole 'it should be called a personhole not a manhole' tripe then that's not an issue of political correctness, no matter how much the media will say it is. 

Why? Because you say it's not? There are a whole lot of people out there who say that's not tripe at all.

Where's the line between what you say is right, and there? Why is that line there? Who decides?

Those should, if you're correct, be easy questions to answer completely unambiguously.

soma1975

digitalscream said:

soma1975 said:

If you're talking about the whole 'it should be called a personhole not a manhole' tripe then that's not an issue of political correctness, no matter how much the media will say it is. 

Why? Because you say it's not? There are a whole lot of people out there who say that's not tripe at all.

Where's the line between what you say is right, and there? Why is that line there? Who decides?

Those should, if you're correct, be easy questions to answer completely unambiguously.

Sure, by all means answer my genuine question with a question.

I'd start at a commonly agreed upon definition, say from the dictionary; and I'd discount the agendas of publications that wish to reserve the right to say bigoted things with impunity, such as the Mail etc. that seek to use the outliers of the odd crazy person talking about Personholes as the whole reason we should ditch this PC nonsense and go back to speaking like we are in a non-ironic Alf Garnett-land. 


Political Correctness

Noun:
the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

I hope that was unambiguous enough for you. So I ask you again. Which specific area is it you have a problem with about political correctness?

ennspek

I'm glad they weren't roasted maple. Think of the Mounties....

poopot

Not too keen on the teal...

thegummy

ennspek said:

I'm glad they weren't roasted maple. Think of the Mounties....

Can't wait til Fender bring out a calendar that compares various tonewoods to eye candy with different ethnic backgrounds.

digitalscream

soma1975 said:

digitalscream said:

soma1975 said:

If you're talking about the whole 'it should be called a personhole not a manhole' tripe then that's not an issue of political correctness, no matter how much the media will say it is. 

Why? Because you say it's not? There are a whole lot of people out there who say that's not tripe at all.

Where's the line between what you say is right, and there? Why is that line there? Who decides?

Those should, if you're correct, be easy questions to answer completely unambiguously.

Sure, by all means answer my genuine question with a question.

I'd start at a commonly agreed upon definition, say from the dictionary; and I'd discount the agendas of publications that wish to reserve the right to say bigoted things with impunity, such as the Mail etc. that seek to use the outliers of the odd crazy person talking about Personholes as the whole reason we should ditch this PC nonsense and go back to speaking like we are in a non-ironic Alf Garnett-land. 


Political Correctness

Noun:
the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

I hope that was unambiguous enough for you. So I ask you again. Which specific area is it you have a problem with about political correctness?

Yes, yes...well done.

The thing is, a lot of people do believe "it should be called a personhole not a manhole" and the like - and they use that very same definition that you're using. Gendered language offends them greatly because they feel it marginalises them (I have no idea how they feel about the French language...).

Do you see the problem with the definitions yet? They are neither absolute nor unambiguous. You might believe them to be so, but the evidence suggests you'd be wrong.

What everybody seems to miss is that intent matters. There's this insistence that apologies are necessary (which are never sincere, they're just a marketing exercise), and that there should be boycotts of people and companies, and that people should be labelled as bullies and bigots...and at no point does anybody ask, "What did you mean? Was the meaning I took from it intentional on your part?".

When you label people as bigots and bullies, you preclude that entire conversation. And that's how entire groups of people become polarised.

Getting back on topic...

So how does that fit with the post that everybody's complaining about here? Brazilians aren't socially disadvantaged or discriminated against, and the post doesn't exclude them, marginalise them or insult them.

Yet again, you have to make a set of assumptions in order to be offended by it. In order to take it as offensively sexist, you have to assume:

- that the author is male
- that the author is straight
- that the author is sexist

And those things all have to be distinct and unrelated for it to be valid (ie it's not a true statement to say, "It was written by a straight, white male therefore it's sexist" without displaying your own social biases), since gender is not actually mentioned in the post (and since both straight women and gay men have been known to make stereotypical sexual innuendos about South American men, just like they have Mediterranean men, or European men, or black men etc).

This is my absolute point. When you have to work that hard to take offence at something, it's objectively more a statement about the reader than it is the author. And that's when political correctness falls down (although I hate the term itself, because it lost its actual meaning long ago).

And, like everybody else who holds your opinion about this post, you never asked what the original intent was.

soma1975

digitalscream said:

soma1975 said:

digitalscream said:

soma1975 said:

If you're talking about the whole 'it should be called a personhole not a manhole' tripe then that's not an issue of political correctness, no matter how much the media will say it is. 

Why? Because you say it's not? There are a whole lot of people out there who say that's not tripe at all.

Where's the line between what you say is right, and there? Why is that line there? Who decides?

Those should, if you're correct, be easy questions to answer completely unambiguously.

Sure, by all means answer my genuine question with a question.

I'd start at a commonly agreed upon definition, say from the dictionary; and I'd discount the agendas of publications that wish to reserve the right to say bigoted things with impunity, such as the Mail etc. that seek to use the outliers of the odd crazy person talking about Personholes as the whole reason we should ditch this PC nonsense and go back to speaking like we are in a non-ironic Alf Garnett-land. 


Political Correctness

Noun:
the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

I hope that was unambiguous enough for you. So I ask you again. Which specific area is it you have a problem with about political correctness?

Yes, yes...well done.

The thing is, a lot of people do believe "it should be called a personhole not a manhole" and the like - and they use that very same definition that you're using. Gendered language offends them greatly because they feel it marginalises them (I have no idea how they feel about the French language...).

Do you see the problem with the definitions yet? They are neither absolute nor unambiguous. You might believe them to be so, but the evidence suggests you'd be wrong.

What everybody seems to miss is that intent matters. There's this insistence that apologies are necessary (which are never sincere, they're just a marketing exercise), and that there should be boycotts of people and companies, and that people should be labelled as bullies and bigots...and at no point does anybody ask, "What did you mean? Was the meaning I took from it intentional on your part?".

When you label people as bigots and bullies, you preclude that entire conversation. And that's how entire groups of people become polarised.

Getting back on topic...

So how does that fit with the post that everybody's complaining about here? Brazilians aren't socially disadvantaged or discriminated against, and the post doesn't exclude them, marginalise them or insult them.

Yet again, you have to make a set of assumptions in order to be offended by it. In order to take it as offensively sexist, you have to assume:

- that the author is male
- that the author is straight
- that the author is sexist

And those things all have to be distinct and unrelated for it to be valid (ie it's not a true statement to say, "It was written by a straight, white male therefore it's sexist" without displaying your own social biases), since gender is not actually mentioned in the post (and since both straight women and gay men have been known to make stereotypical sexual innuendos about South American men, just like they have Mediterranean men, or European men, or black men etc).

This is my absolute point. When you have to work that hard to take offence at something, it's objectively more a statement about the reader than it is the author. And that's when political correctness falls down (although I hate the term itself, because it lost its actual meaning long ago).

And, like everybody else who holds your opinion about this post, you never asked what the original intent was.

You've still not answered my question. It's clear you won't so I won't ask a third time.

Define 'a lot' of people who believe personhole is the way forward in terms of the greater conversation. It's simply one example of the type of extreme story that gets picked up on and rinsed to death by the people who want to maintain their ability to speak without being called on it.

Political Correctness is about protecting people. The people who want to continue to maintain the staus quo and who control the narrative weaponise the language of empathy so the 'do-gooder' the 'snowflake' and 'political correctness' become pejoratives and 'PC gone mad' becomes a way of complaining about being called out on your shit. 

As for your last point. Women are disadvantaged. The post plays on the idea of sexy Brazilian women and putting them on your knee of having them around your neck and you know, compares them to objects. I'm sure you know that and are just being deliberately obtuse for the sake our a conversation. It's not about the intent which I feel was a bit Nigel Tufnel 'hey what's wrong with being sexy?'

It's about the PR team retweeting it and not giving it a second thought. Which was a mistake. End of. 

I've nothing really further to add so shall leave you to it. 


EDIT: Oh I do have 1 more thing. All Fender needed to do was go, 'oh yeah sorry that was a bit naff we didn't really pay attention to the description' when some of their artists called it out. The end.