03/10/2010 12:14:52 AM EST

Cenk, the Turkish Barbarian, is a sexist

posted by Smokin

Ah heck who am I kidding, this is all gonna just get deleted anyway!

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
Step right up and vote while you can!
< The electoral college | Rush wrong on UK healthcare >

Poll

Is Cenk sexist?!
Hell yes! Cenk thinks he can fix his washing machine by slapping her. 21%
Nah, obviously that chick got an oscar because she is a woman. She must have blown somebody. 15%
No, Cenk is just pervy! "Pervy" and "sexist" are two different things, though often confused. 34%
No, he just acts like one. 18%
No, Cenk is almost woman himself, hear him roar! 10%

Votes: 38
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
Cenk, the Turkish Barbarian, is a sexist | 24 comments (24 topical, 0 hidden)
object (none / 0)
Cenk is a man. Men are pervs. Its instinctive, its in our nature. Some people hide it, but Cenks up front and honest, he's a cenkleman.

by Adronias on 03/10/2010 02:15:29 AM EST

ok... (none / 0)
... but what's your point?

by designs on 03/10/2010 09:12:26 AM EST

All Wrong (none / 0)
First, the word "perv" is being used incorrectly.

Men are not naturally pervy. Men are naturally lusty. And there is nothing perverted about simple lust.

Cenk, on the other hand, in addition to being as lusty as any other guy, and very up-front about confessing it, is shamelessly sexist.

He conceives of women as inferior and not-quite-human beings.

None of this, up to this point, is any cause for more than a yawn of boredom. What annoys me is the fact that Cenk thinks he's being so damned clever with his sexist comments, as though he watched too much Johnny Carson as a small boy, and had an invisible Ed McMahon providing sycophantic laughter and rimshots.

It's the smugly self-congratulatory nature of his sexism that bothers me, not the sexism itself; that's too common to be getting excited over.

by RedPossum on 03/10/2010 10:10:36 AM EST

To add to your comment... (none / 0)
I think it's that Cenk is a bit immature... I mean, look at the two films he thought were the top contenders for the Oscar - Basterds and Avatar. In his mind, these were the best two movies of the year.

Hurt Locker on the other hand, was more low-key and showed realistic people in realistic situations. There were no monsters, no aliens, no car chases and no big "shoot 'em up" scenes.  There was no "fantasy" and no sex scenes.  Cenk's favorite movies of all times are probably The Blues Brothers and Caddyshack. And, you know, I can't fault him for being immature. All men are basically "little boys" on some level.

Come on, would watching Cenk's views on politics be as fun if he weren't Cenk?  Anybody can watch some egghead geek wax on about politics... b-o-r-i-n-g. We like Cenk because he's absolutely hilarious and somewhat childish while making fun of all the political figures... What other political commentator has all those little buttons that make the crying baby sound effects and plays them to torment the conservative right wing?

So, as a woman, I have already forgiven Cenk for his stupid comments on the director of the Hurt Locker... I mean, Smokin's right, she probably blew half the Academy to get that award.  (just kidding, folks).  But seriously, women have to deal with this immature man-stuff everyday. We don't like it but we're used to it.   I mean, you men don't fully realize it but we completely control your thoughts and actions and we get our revenge every once in a while...

by ilovecenk99 on 03/10/2010 11:26:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Th-topit! You're offending meeeeeeeee! (none / 0)

"All men are basically "little boys" on some level."

"But seriously, women have to deal with this immature man-stuff everyday. We don't like it but we're used to it.   I mean, you men don't fully realize it but we completely control your thoughts and actions and we get our revenge every once in a while..."

How sexist! I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Men are human beings too!

WWWWAAAAAAAAA!!!!! &nb sp; WWWWAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

by mr science on 03/10/2010 11:49:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Sorry, this is my first inflammatory post.. (none / 0)
but Cenk started it...

give me some proof otherwise...

by ilovecenk99 on 03/10/2010 12:15:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Started what? (none / 0)
If you think Cenk started something, you have the burdern of proof for that. I can't prove a negative.

by mr science on 03/10/2010 12:30:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
no, that men aren't all little boys deep inside... (none / 0)

by ilovecenk99 on 03/10/2010 12:58:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Mr Science? (none / 0)
You sound like a LadyFriend sock-puppet.

First the whole burden of proof thing:
This only applies in a court of law. In every other situation both side in an argument have to argue their positions and the one with the stronger arguments wins. Saying the burden of proof is on you is just childish in a situation like this.

"I can't prove a negative."
That's one of the most stupid sentences EVER!
Why not? I is not so hard to "proof" that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth. Another negative that is even easier to proof: I didn't kill JFK. I wasn't born when he died.
I can only redeem the sentence when I delete the "a negative" or I add "nor a positive".
In scientific (and philosophical) terms you can't proof anything. You can only disproof a theory or statement.
An experiment can work a million times and it would still proof nothing, because it is possible that it doesn't work the next time.
When people (in Britain) wanted to say something is impossible they used to say:"That's as likely as a black swan."
They have all seen swans. They were always white, and they "knew" that the next swan they were going to see would be white again. This observation has worked billions of times.
They were extremly sure that swans have to be white.
Then Australia was dicovered and a little later black swans.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/11/2010 02:31:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
example? (none / 0)

I've been a listener to TYT for many years. I first started listening to the show when I discovered it on Radiopower in 2004. In that time I have never heard Cenk say anything seriously sexist or treat woman as inferior to men. Cenk is a defender of women's rights and is highly critical of how some Islamic cultures treat women. If you think he is sexist what are some specific examples of his sexism.

by mr science on 03/10/2010 10:28:33 AM EST

Eh, Cenk is sexist (none / 0)
Does he believe in women's rights and does he stick up for them if they are discriminated against, YES. But realistically Cenk objectifies 90% of the women based on appearance and forms opinions based on how good looking or unattractive a woman is. Is it childish and does he reject and denounce himself many times when he does it, YES, which means we can many times be indulgent in the sophomoric nature of it all.

Hands down cenk is pervy, in a funny way and sometimes gross uncomfortable way, but definitely pervy. But is there real sexism there as a foundation?

When he says that good looking female teachers who sleep with their students, its ok, and if its an ugly woman sleeps with a boy its rape. Its funny, some people can sypathize with that POV, but there is no question its sexist. If a woman's guilt or innocence is based how good looking she is, she is objectified.

If a reporter is less attractive than most and gets hired, to assume its because she was the most qualified for the job is objectifying her based on her looks again. No facts, no background information on qualifications, just a simple "well she isnt hot, she must be very qualified.

Do I pardon Cenk, yes I do. Cenk is entertaining and has a touch of Howard Stern in him, granted only a lil touch and most of his pervy/sexist stuff is tongue in cheek and funny and not nearly as over the top. But I think its important to call it what it is from time to time and be realistic.

by Smokin on 03/10/2010 02:22:29 PM EST

It all depends on intent. (none / 0)

It's not sexism for a man to express sexual desire for a woman. Men are programmed by genetics to feel desire for female physical characteristics. To express these feelings is genuine and healthy and never be condemned as "objectification" or "immature" whatever way you want to demonize it.

Condemning men for expressing their genuine sexual feelings only leads to repression which just makes matters worse.

It depends on intent. If there is no intent to cause harm, it should just be considered a compliment. There may be times when it is socially awkward or inappropriate, but this is not sexism. If there is intent to put down women then that's sexism. Cenk often has politically incorrect opinions but always gives reasons for those opinions. I've never heard Cenk say anything that could be considered intent to put down women. You don't have to like it or agree.

by mr science on 03/10/2010 04:59:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Back to Websters again (none / 0)
IF you use your made up definition that one requires an "intent to cause harm" for it to be considered sexist, then you would be right.

I however chose to use the definition Webster uses and the ones the one that practically every dictionary parrots.

Sexism:
1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

Prejudice:
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

discrimination:
1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment

Nowhere is "intent" mentioned in any of these definitions. A murderer is not  a murderer because they intend to kill another person, its because the committed the act of murder. A liar is not a liar because they intend to deceive, its because they commit the act of lying. People today take far too much liberty in redefining words and facts, if we cant see eye to eye on the definition of the word sexism, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

by Smokin on 03/10/2010 05:17:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
intent (none / 0)

We do in fact gauge murder by intent. First degree, second degree, third degree, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter. Intent plays a role in determining how we punish these crimes. The act of lying certainly is intentional deception.

First, discrimination isn't inherently bad. It could be just a matter of preference. It's only bad when it involves a "prejudiced or prejudicial outlook".

"some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights"

"preconceived judgment or opinion"

"an irrational attitude of hostility"

These statements from the prejudice definitions imply intent. I don't see how the definitions for prejudice cover Cenk or things he says. As far as I can tell, prejudice is intentional when it actively puts someone down based on race, gender, religion, etc...

The first definition for sexism implies intent. As for the second, I would extend it to mean when the social roles being promoted based on sex treat women as second class citizens or puts them down in some way. Again, this definition doesn't apply to Cenk.

We need to acknowledge that men and women are different in a lot of ways. Neither one is better than the other. Pointing out the differences isn't inherently harmful.

We all have unconscious biases. But when we act on those biases to put others down based on group association, it's hard for me to see how intent to harm is not involved.

by mr science on 03/10/2010 06:03:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Absurd logic (none / 0)
We do not "gauge murder by intent", our legal system assigns different levels of punishment which is influenced greatly by intent. The act of murder is still an all of nothing act, it either happened or it didnt.

"First, discrimination isn't inherently bad."

To have that argument, we would first have to acknowledge that there was discrimination, but so far you dispute that by saying there must be intent in order to discriminate.

Intent:
1 a : the act or fact of intending : purpose; especially : the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act <admitted wounding him with intent> b : the state of mind with which an act is done : volition
2 : a usually clearly formulated or planned intention : aim <the director's intent>

To use murder as an example, if someone runs over someone because they were drunk and killed that person, the lack of intent to kill does not make that person any less of murderer.

As for the "implied intent" being included in Webster's definition, its frankly utterly absurd. One does not need to intend to discriminate for the act to be committed. For example, in a recent study they found that children are more likely to point to a black man than a white man when asked who they should be more afraid of, these children don't intend to discriminate based on race, but its a form of discrimination nonetheless.  

by Smokin on 03/10/2010 06:18:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
oh brother... (none / 0)

Man, this is getting really tedious. Why do I let myself get dragged into these arguments. Heaven help me. It always boils down to language doesn't it. It's the easiest way to stand your ground and keep arguing until the other tires out. Well, you win. I'm exhausted. I stand by everything I said.

ciao

by mr science on 03/10/2010 06:29:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No (none / 0)
its only tedious when one has to remind someone to use the proper definition of a word rather than to make something up to fit their absurd logic. Im glad you can stand by your point, but my only point it your point has nothing to back it up. In a nut shell, weak sauce.

weak:
1 : lacking strength: as a : deficient in physical vigor : feeble, debilitated b : not able to sustain or exert much weight, pressure, or strain c : not able to resist external force or withstand attack d : easily upset or nauseated "a weak stomach"
2 a : mentally or intellectually deficient b : not firmly decided : vacillating c : resulting from or indicating lack of judgment or discernment d : not able to withstand temptation or persuasion "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak"

sauce
1 : a condiment or relish for food; especially : a fluid dressing or topping
2 : something that adds zest or piquancy
3 : stewed fruit eaten with other food or as a dessert
4 : pert or impudent language or actions

by Smokin on 03/10/2010 06:38:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
wha????? (none / 0)
"I've never heard Cenk say anything that could be considered intent to put women down?"

How about the fact that the woman who just won the Oscar didn't deserve to win and just got the Oscar because they needed a "token" woman.

That's insulting.  Furthermore, I don't think Cenk intended it to be insulting, but it still is.

Consider this, a woman works really hard to get a promotion. After she gets that promotion her co-worker says "she just got that job because she is a woman". While this person may truly believe that is the case, it's still insulting to the woman who worked hard and actually deserved the job.

If Cenk didn't like the Hurt Locker, he could just have said, "I don't agree".  However, he didn't just leave it at that... he had to write an entire blog about how she's a woman and that's why she got the Oscar.  I get that Cenk really believes in his mind that she didn't deserve the award and this is the most logical explanation... However, again, I ask you... If the director of Precious would have won the Oscar do you really think Cenk wouldn't have caught a boatload of shit if he wrote a blog titled "Did Lee Daniels win the Oscar because he's Black?"

Do you really a) think Cenk would have dared to write that blog even though we know he didn't think Precious deserved the award? b) Cenk wouldn't have been called a racist if he did? c) You'd be defending him right now?

You have to answer "no" to all those questions except maybe the last one because it seems you'd defend any stupid comment he makes.

by ilovecenk99 on 03/10/2010 05:55:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oscar politics (none / 0)

I've seen how these things get political and gender politics may have swayed peoples vote in this case. To point that out is to state the obvious.

Cenk never said women don't deserve to win Best Directing Oscars. That would be sexist. He just said that gender politics being what they are is why Katherine Bigelow won and gave his reasons. He said that it is just his opinion and he may be wrong. I think its a valid opinion.

If the same case applied to a black person and Cenk thought racial politics played a role and gave good reasons for thinking so, yes I'd defend him. When sanctimonious leebrals like you pass judgement and throw the charge of racism at people unjustly, you bet I would defend him.

by mr science on 03/10/2010 06:17:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Uhhhh.... sure, it was all gender politics... (none / 0)
there's no way a woman could have actually "earned" an Oscar for best director.  I see your point...  

The Tarantino's and Cameron's of the world just have to sit back and take it.. because if they speak up then those stupid sanctimonious liberals will scream about it.  Thank God they've got Cenk to speak up for them now.  I mean, those poor guys were robbed by the director with the vagina... Robbed, I tell you!!!!!

Most of the people promoted in corporate America these days, that's all racial and gender politics as well... You know, affirmative action and shit. They don't actually deserve it, but what can you do about it???

I'm going to take off my shoes and get back to the kitchen now, where I belong....

by ilovecenk99 on 03/10/2010 07:16:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
congratulations (none / 0)
You have completely misconstrued EVERYTHING I wrote. I will only say to you: come back when you have calmed down and reread my post when you can think more clearly. Anything else I can say will just get twisted into something grotesque... if its not already happening...

by mr science on 03/10/2010 07:25:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Chill (none / 0)
We are all animals are we not? Not only that, but the drive to reproduce is the most basic drive of all living things. Cenk is just having fun. Could he tone it down some. Sure, but the show would be boring if the whole crew was not open about what is running through their heads.

by finerbiner on 03/10/2010 03:16:29 PM EST

no doubt (none / 0)
but there is a fine line that has been crossed over from time to time. I wouldn't be the 2nd most open minded man in America if i didn't acknowledge that fact.

by Smokin on 03/10/2010 04:04:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
better phrasing... (none / 0)
I would be interested to see if Cenk would agree with this: "Her directing was worthy of an Oscar; it just wasn't *more* worthy than the other two I mentioned this year."

by tlrdevere on 03/10/2010 08:22:04 PM EST

Cenk, the Turkish Barbarian, is a sexist | 24 comments (24 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: