91 years, 1000 women, what's that average out to? - RIP, Hef

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Jae said:
I feel some really just want to hear the positive.
Click to expand...

Actually, I mentioned the negative multiple times. But we need to hear both and it is quite clear that Kimmio and Waterfall consider any attempt to put a positive spin on Hef "stupid". They are the one sided ones.

And you, by the way, are playing the role of muckraker, which is not helping one bit.
 
Mendalla said:
Which can't happen when you and Waterfall call other opinions "stupid" and compare Hefner to Pol Pot.

As chansen said, this thread is done.
Click to expand...
It was how you framed your opinion - for me - there was subconscious objectification in saying that ones' attitude toward women doesn't have any impact on business or other major decisions of responsibility. As if we're a side issue, a little thing, not part of the whole of issues affecting people. As if we're not voters or consumers or innovators or part of the workforce, or even human beings, but things. That is part of the debate, about Hef. How he treated women was part of his legacy. Women were ornaments and toys for him and tools to get rich. And the issue is whether he is deserving in today's age of being revered.
 
Mendalla said:
Actually, I mentioned the negative multiple times. But we need to hear both and it is quite clear that Kimmio and Waterfall consider any attempt to put a positive spin on Hef "stupid". They are the one sided ones.

And you, by the way, are playing the role of muckraker, which is not helping one bit.
Click to expand...

How am I doing that? Most on here have mentioned both positive and negative. Certainly not everyone on the interwebs is doing as such.
 
My first impression was one step forward, two steps sideways and four steps backwards. The one step forward was for what was said about somewhat opening mentalities compared to what they were in the 1940s. But the more I think, the more I come to the conclusion that what little positive input he had on evolution of society wasn't done willingly but was rather a necessary byproduct of his work endeavours.

Maybe he wanted to start a sexual revolution, but he stopped after the first three letters.

The women that worked in his empire were paid, I read, but was the pay adequate? And can we buy or should we buy anything? And he wanted so much to improve our society like some writers have suggested, why didn't he used most of his money to subsidize the working poor or women shelters for example?
 
mgagnonlv said:
My first impression was one step forward, two steps sideways and four steps backwards. The one step forward was for what was said about somewhat opening mentalities compared to what they were in the 1940s. But the more I think, the more I come to the conclusion that what little positive input he had on evolution of society wasn't done willingly but was rather a necessary byproduct of his work endeavours.

Maybe he wanted to start a sexual revolution, but he stopped after the first three letters.

The women that worked in his empire were paid, I read, but was the pay adequate? And can we buy or should we buy anything? And he wanted so much to improve our society like some writers have suggested, why didn't he used most of his money to subsidize the working poor or women shelters for example?
Click to expand...

The point that I made back at the beginning was that Hefner was a complex and strange man, who publicly and editorially supported causes that often seemed at odds with the Playboy empire that he built. He was a walking contradiction in other words.
 
Kimmio said:
It's stupid because how one's attitude toward women and how one runs a business are not somehow mutually exclusive. It's not like saying his favourite flavour of ice cream has nothing to do with how he can run a business (which would've therefore make him a better president). Women are human beings and half of the voting population, and more than just pretty play-things to be held in seperate regard from other decisions in civic life and society - if he were to have been POTUS. It's like saying someone who built a business out of exploiting minorities would make a level headed POTUS. That's why it's stupid. Anyhooo...


He was certainly described by a few playmates as a tyrant. And his business empire was built on exploiting women.
Click to expand...

Considered the bridled prices for women in the bible that some patriarchs follow to a "t" ... and others avoid to preserve senses ... as the alternate to patriarchy may strike you as driving you off the end of adept territory ... terrorism of PTSD due to past imbedded abstraction? There is rumoured to be some mean women out there like psyche and Sophia ... something to avoid for those preferring determinate positions ...
 
mgagnonlv said:
My first impression was one step forward, two steps sideways and four steps backwards. The one step forward was for what was said about somewhat opening mentalities compared to what they were in the 1940s. But the more I think, the more I come to the conclusion that what little positive input he had on evolution of society wasn't done willingly but was rather a necessary byproduct of his work endeavours.

Maybe he wanted to start a sexual revolution, but he stopped after the first three letters.

The women that worked in his empire were paid, I read, but was the pay adequate? And can we buy or should we buy anything? And he wanted so much to improve our society like some writers have suggested, why didn't he used most of his money to subsidize the working poor or women shelters for example?
Click to expand...

Let the dance continue ... it is said we should dance and sing to the mental conflict caused big odd variants ... god loves a gutte gamma ...
 
Waterfall said:
As if being a good business man should negate his negative impact on women being treated like objects and commodities and what an ideal woman looks like.
Click to expand...
That's not what he wrote
Claude Van Damme apparently beat his wife
That doesn't mean that someone can't enjoy his films
There have been plenty of immoral artists that have done amazing art
 
Mendalla said:
22049867_1490826697670751_6087483132850861312_n.jpg


I have to thank @crazyheart for liking this on FB which brought it to my attention.
Click to expand...
When Osama Laden was still a concern
One o my idears was to "solve him" was to lock him up in the Playboy mansion and watch him change his ways lol
 
Kimmio said:
It was how you framed your opinion - for me - there was subconscious objectification in saying that ones' attitude toward women doesn't have any impact on business or other major decisions of responsibility. As if we're a side issue, a little thing, not part of the whole of issues affecting people. As if we're not voters or consumers or innovators or part of the workforce, or even human beings, but things. That is part of the debate, about Hef. How he treated women was part of his legacy. Women were ornaments and toys for him and tools to get rich. And the issue is whether he is deserving in today's age of being revered.
Click to expand...
Please don't speak for all women as if women are all the same
That's sexist
 
Silly little flamewar
How does it thrive?
By feeding it
Let it die
Let it
Die
You r better than this
U r much better than this
To share in the common human experience
Instead of showing how someone's glass is dirty and speaking ill of the dead (you bastiches who *only* do that:p) show how byootiful your glass is
Or for the betterment of our community
Surgical excision of those not of Landru might b on the table
Do not ask 4 whom the bell tolls
 
Inannawhimsey said:
Please don't speak for all women as if women are all the same
That's sexist
Click to expand...
Pardon me, sir?

There was nothing sexist about my comment.

Mendalla subconsciously put women in the "object" category by saying that Hef's views about women shouldn't affect his business ability. As if women are seperate and apart from that world and those considerations. Well, in a patriarchal world, I suppose they are - but that's not equality. It is not sexist to point that out. And shows we have more work to do on gender equality.
 
@Northwind, do you 'like' Inanna's posts - the ones designed to try to annoy me and little else - out of spite? I suspect you do.

(The passive aggressive bullying component of WC2 - you don't have to say anything, just 'like' a troll post and you've got it covered)

Ie. If I don't speak for all women - Inanna certainly doesn't. Who was being sexist?
 
Last edited:
I've informed Inanna that I will no longer discuss my political opinions with him directly. We can discuss other things but his political style of 'communication' I find manipulative and that drives me batsh*t. I will respond to his third party opinions/ links, with third party opinions/ links - and will not engage in his mind games. I'm done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top