On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 03:51:07PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 12:07:53AM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > > > - The only mention women get in the text is thus through a sexual > > > objetification. > > > > This amounts to concluding that any mention of sexuality is sexual > > objectification of women, which is patently absurd. > > No, the claim isn't that broad. The message specifically discusses > women as objects: it promises they will be “delivered directly at > home”, and the entire message discusses women as some kind of reward > being offered to customers. It seems like a reasonable pastiche of many spams I've received. I don't think it should be assumed to express sexism on Joss's part. The problem I have with it is that it is protesting perceived misuse of d-d-a with deliberate misuse of d-d-a. Such hypocrisy is not very constructive.
Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Any smoothly functioning technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
