What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

Ah, I got it now, I thought you were comparing the media coverage for the missing girls to the article about the young men, sorry.

I bet these parents are deeply worried, though. They just don't feel they have the right to show it in public. Their adult sons' actions contribute to the conflicts and problems this community already experiences, so the parents have to condemn the behaviour.

Yes, given the way the media reacts differently, it could well have made it impossible to publicly express their anxiety.

[feral chile]

Now... this is something that I dwell on, possibly far too much...

But, accepting 'some' generalisations, is like accepting all generalisations.

You know how much I respect you and your view....

I don't know, it feels like you're so aware of so much, but some other instinct gets in the way somehow. I don't understand why you put so much emphasis on your experiences of feminism and everything else. Yes, you're experiences resonate strongest, but you appear to be aware enough to understand how other people might experience things differently to you, but that doesn't help somehow

I'm a bit confused with this bit. Do you think my comments are working against feminism? Or for it?

Ana just isn't my idea of a role model, I think she could do with some assertiveness training, and Christian is far from my ideal man. As far as it's possible to be.

Bearing in mind, these are fictional characters, particular stereotypes, having a stereotypical (and highly unrealistic) relationship, romanticised by the author.

Edited February 24, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-lifshitz/a-letter-to-the-lady-on-the-bus_b_6699882.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

[midnight]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-lifshitz/a-letter-to-the-lady-on-the-bus_b_6699882.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

Been there, done that. I thought I had to hang onto it for our child's sake.

Not recommended.

[midnight]

The thing is, I have read a lot about patriarchy, and I know you think I don't understand it, and maybe I don't, but I do need some pointers as to what in particular, you believe I should be reconsidering.

Some of the stuff I've been reading about recently, has certainly made me reconsider advancements I thought we'd made.

For instance, my husband came home the other day saying that someone had shown him a pornographic clip on his phone of a woman with a donkey, and he was asking me 'why?'

And my first and only reaction so far, was that it was to degrade the woman.

I seriously thought the likes of Animal Farm (the porn film, not Orwell) and snuff movies and the like, had been pretty much done away with, along with the viciousness underlying them.

One of my personal pet annoyances, Rod Liddle, ends his autobiography with this (quote is from review):

He's still going strong at the end, wondering how his late father would have taken to the internet: "Would my dad have been up in the small hours of the morning, w*nking away to the inexpert film of some rather hard-faced post-Soviet babe being fucked in a field by an Alsatian?" Liddle says he hopes not but would prefer that to imagining his late mother posting inanities on Mumsnet.

http://www.standard.co.uk/arts/book/moans-and-groans-of-two-ageing-baby-boomers-9477593.html

He doesn't even have the excuse that it is supposed to be fiction. And it gets published. It's probably rip-roaringly funny and iconoclastic in a way I just don't get.

[midnight]

Regarding the page 3 debate, I was looking for this article I read some time ago (not sure what took me so long, just couldn't find it), it seems to be an attempt at "reclaiming the female body" in a way that is not aiming to please men. Not sure it works, but it is at least miles from page 3, although it refers to it.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/sep/06/womens-breasts-laura-dodsworth-photography

[midnight]

Just because it has relevance to the general idea of this thread....

So I've been led to believe, Glastonbury Festival have been going out of their way this year to get more female acts onto their stages, because it would be very easy for them to book a full line-up of just men without realising it.

I've mentioned this in one or more Glasto threads, and people are talking about it being "positive discrimination", and not necessarily in a good way.

I've had a look.

Given that it was never indicated that weaker performers would be booked as a result of this effort, and that we already have a "guys-rocking-with-guitars" headliner confirmed for Friday, there shouldn't have been much controversy, but there you go. On the other hand, thought that there was quite a good response from some people.

[bunique]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-lifshitz/a-letter-to-the-lady-on-the-bus_b_6699882.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

That's a tough one - I'd be concerned that he'd be pushed to beat the shit out of her (emotionally or physically) once they were alone again.

[eFestivals]

Do you think my comments are working against feminism? Or for it?

You wouldn't much like my own answer to that question.

But then again, you've already made veryu clear that you believe your own take to be beyond criticism, as that would be the divisive you say you reject.

[feral chile]

You wouldn't much like my own answer to that question.

But then again, you've already made veryu clear that you believe your own take to be beyond criticism, as that would be the divisive you say you reject.

I would actually like responses to my questions. I don't think defending my right not to take a particular line of feminism is any more divisive than the feminist theorists themselves. I didn't create the reclaiming my body brand of feminism, I just happened to live through a time when it was very relevant.

If you compare Page 3 and 50 Shades - I'd say there's a greater aspiration for women to meet a successful, powerful male, marry him and change him if he's flawed. There's less aspiration to take your clothes off and pose semi naked.

Therefore, 50 Shades rattles my cage more, because it's encouraging women to fulfil their aspirations through someone else.

it's also portraying dominance, possessiveness, and controlling behaviour as romantic.

Now I'm well aware that Page 3 can be seen in this light, but can also be seen as a sign of male immaturity, and weakness for breasts.

So, if men who like Page 3 also all happen to be domineering, controlling men (or you could convince me that Page 3 definitely promotes this behaviour in men), then I'd rethink. (Animal Farm style porn, for instance, definitely fits into this scenario).

But for now, I'm far more concerned with encouraging women to stop living their lives through their men.

Edited February 25, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

sorry.. I often do this. I reply to something, then follow it up with something that isn't connected to the (your) original post.

I was thinking of some of your other posts and your 'take' on feminism, which seems to be based on your personal experiences as a female. Which is fair enough.. obviously. But feminism has many variations, from the militant anti-men end of the spectrum, to the 'meh.. I can take it or leave it' end. As much as you seem aware of how other people see things, when it comes to your understanding, something seems to go missing.

I don't think anything you say works against feminism.

I think I'd drunk too much when I replied. It was my first night off after 5 12 hour shifts... I needed it!

PS... My sister sent me this Ted Talk by Helen Fisher, which I really enjoyed. It's about 20 minutes long. She talks about a more collaborative society (amongst many other things), which seems as positive an aim as I could come up with:

http://www.ted.com/talks/helen_fisher_tells_us_why_we_love_cheat

Well it's not so much that, my take on feminism is less extreme, I'd say, than that presented by other feminists in this thread.

That's because, apart from midnight, the feminist arguments in this thread have been taken from early versions of feminism. Most of my criticisms about feminism itself are established feminist critiques.

My opinion of feminists as I personally knew them was negative, because they were ardently anti men, and I didn't see how you could become a political lesbian.

Feminism has moved on from 'you're not a proper feminist if you don't think this'. I had hoped that feminism had moved on altogether, and women as independent beings was now an established fact.

And this is where I'm struggling. I think it's more the way the argument has been presented, (or the way I've interpreted it) though, to be fair, because I found it patronising that women were being portrayed as nt knowing their own minds because of patriarchy.

Now that I've re-interpreted it in my own head to think of it as gender biased attitudes, it's much easier for me to stomach. I'm no longer feeling the need to resist the implication that women are too passive to think for themselves, it's a reflection of cultural values.

it's a very subtle difference, but it's a necessary one for me.

Edited February 25, 2015 by feral chile

[kaosmark2]

sorry.. I often do this. I reply to something, then follow it up with something that isn't connected

I could have told you that

[feral chile]

sorry.. I often do this. I reply to something, then follow it up with something that isn't connected to the (your) original post.

I was thinking of some of your other posts and your 'take' on feminism, which seems to be based on your personal experiences as a female. Which is fair enough.. obviously. But feminism has many variations, from the militant anti-men end of the spectrum, to the 'meh.. I can take it or leave it' end. As much as you seem aware of how other people see things, when it comes to your understanding, something seems to go missing.

I don't think anything you say works against feminism.

I think I'd drunk too much when I replied. It was my first night off after 5 12 hour shifts... I needed it!

PS... My sister sent me this Ted Talk by Helen Fisher, which I really enjoyed. It's about 20 minutes long. She talks about a more collaborative society (amongst many other things), which seems as positive an aim as I could come up with:

http://www.ted.com/talks/helen_fisher_tells_us_why_we_love_cheat

Exactly. What it feels to me is that I'm a different type of anti sexist than the feminism described I this thread.

And all I've been trying to do is to point out the different types of feminism, that radical feminism isn't the only one.

[feral chile]

That's a tough one - I'd be concerned that he'd be pushed to beat the shit out of her (emotionally or physically) once they were alone again.

That's a tough one - I'd be concerned that he'd be pushed to beat the shit out of her (emotionally or physically) once they were alone again.

that was my first thought... have you made the situation (in the longer run) better or worse? All she's done is made her journey less annoying.

"You wanna abuse your wife? Not in front of me. Not on this bus".. tantamount to giving him permission to carry on when they get off the bus. Not in front of me?... sounds almost selfish.

Did you read to the end?

That was kind of her point.

[feral chile]

Just seen a FB status:

A woman feeling the stronger of the species, because she's able to get on with chores while having flu, while those with manflu retreat to the sofa.

Thoughts?

Edited February 25, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Yes, I read it to the end. She didn't seem to think there might be anything wrong with how she dealt with the situation on the bus. Unless I missed it.

'It's so easy when it's not you, to point out folks in bad relationships and marriages. It's so easy to say, "Why is he or she staying in that situation?" Yet it is a whole other ball game when it's you in those shoes. When you are the woman being yelled at on the bus'.

What she was saying was that she saw herself as a strong woman defending a weaker one.

Until she was in the same situation. And realised just how difficult it is to get out of.

That's why I don't like 50 Shades suggesting women can accept crap because they're in love, and sort out the man later.

It's far more likely that she'll end up isolated, controlled, and emotionally paralysed.

Edited February 25, 2015 by feral chile

[kaosmark2]

Feel free to point out my shortcomings. I'm aware of some of them.

If you call me a moron though, I might stick my fingers in my ears

If you're ignoring what someone's saying via text, do you stick your fingers in your eyes instead?

[feral chile]

Regarding the page 3 debate, I was looking for this article I read some time ago (not sure what took me so long, just couldn't find it), it seems to be an attempt at "reclaiming the female body" in a way that is not aiming to please men. Not sure it works, but it is at least miles from page 3, although it refers to it.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/sep/06/womens-breasts-laura-dodsworth-photography

I liked this. I think you're right, the artist was intending to portray breasts as they really are, and some of the stories in there seemed to agree.

Bits I liked:

'The Christian church has had a lot to do with women feeling negative about their bodies and ashamed of their sexuality. I think men are probably quite afraid of women's power to bring forth life and feed their babies. That's probably part of the reason women have been oppressed and made to feel ashamed'.

'I said to my husband, "Do you mind having a wife with only one breast?" He said, "Would you mind if I lost a leg?" I said, "Of course not!" "So there you go." We talked about everything, and that is why we had 52 happy years'.

I was extremely sad about the women, including the last one, who felt pressured into sex.

The opinion about Page 3:

'I think what Page 3 does is very damaging to young women. It's like: "This is the benchmark; this is what men find attractive. I don't look like this; therefore I can't be attractive to men." It affects our perception of beauty, and makes young women think they are valued for their sexuality, and not for their thoughts and actions'.

And one of the other comments:

'I used to get very venomous looks from girls in the changing rooms at school when we had PE. Some girls thought that I must have had surgery to enhance them. I was a 34GG'.

This is why I'm a bit reluctant to condemn Page 3. It's not the only distorted body image women have, you also have the stick thin model. You also have aspirations to marry successful men.

I can't articulate this very well. The last 2 things are just as damaging to equality, but breasts seem more threatening.

Do women react differently towards women being proud of their breasts, and women being proud of their trim figure? Or aspiring to lose weight? You might feel sympathetic towards a woman trying to lose weight, because she's aspiring to an unrealistic ideal, but big breasted women who flaunt them seem to be treated like some kind of traitors - collaborators with the enemy. Co conspirators in the oppression of women, in a way that slimmers are not (though I'm not sure about WAGs and the like).

Why is that?

Edited February 25, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Still, she seems to think what she did on the bus was a good thing

I didn't think she did, I agree it certainly wasn't the best move. It's a tough one though. I had a female friend being dragged out of my house by her hair once, and I asked her if she wanted to stay with me and she refused. I tried to calm the guy down, without actually antagonising him.

But it's not easy. I had to let her go with him, and I know she was terrified.

And she could easily have been me

[feral chile]

sorry.. I often do this. I reply to something, then follow it up with something that isn't connected to the (your) original post.

I was thinking of some of your other posts and your 'take' on feminism, which seems to be based on your personal experiences as a female. Which is fair enough.. obviously. But feminism has many variations, from the militant anti-men end of the spectrum, to the 'meh.. I can take it or leave it' end. As much as you seem aware of how other people see things, when it comes to your understanding, something seems to go missing.

I don't think anything you say works against feminism.

I think I'd drunk too much when I replied. It was my first night off after 5 12 hour shifts... I needed it!

PS... My sister sent me this Ted Talk by Helen Fisher, which I really enjoyed. It's about 20 minutes long. She talks about a more collaborative society (amongst many other things), which seems as positive an aim as I could come up with:

http://www.ted.com/talks/helen_fisher_tells_us_why_we_love_cheat

I watched this tony, I liked her take on things.

Edited February 25, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

But for now, I'm far more concerned with encouraging women to stop living their lives through their men.

and yet, where this kicked off, you were doing the exact opposite, and screaming that anyone who disagreed was wrong, and undermining women.

I'm certainly very confused about what your angle actually is. I can't see any consistent take or direction.

Edited February 26, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

If you call me a moron though, I might stick my fingers in my ears

and then you'll remain that moron.

In all seriousness, it's why a non-direct approach is worthless. Ultimately it's saying "I understand the issues, but you're a bit too dim to do that so I'm going to have to pretend it's all about something else for your sake. I'm clever, but you never can be as clever as me".

If anyone truly believes in equality, that should include an equality towards understanding issues - which means there's no need to shy away from directly dealing with those issues with *ALL* people. Or is it only yuou who you think is clever enough to understand what's at the heart of it?

You don't break down barriers by creating new ones.

PS: calling someone a moron is not creating a new barrier, if that's what they already are (for those who aren't getting it). Them being that moron *IS* the barrier.

Edited February 26, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

You can be direct without being pointlessly abusive.

Is it pointlessly abusive? Only you can know if you'll decide to continue to be a moron on the basis that someone called you one.

It is pointing out how your view is being received. Like it or not, that's a relevant part of any debate over differences.

You thrive on putting people down.

says the man writing those words to put me down.

Lack of self-awareness, much?

We all do it, tho when the likes of you do it you like to pretend it's something else entirely, as a statement of your self belief in your superiority.

Throw away the self-serving empty bollocks, and instead face up to the issues. If you did, you'd never actually get called a moron.

[eFestivals]

I swear we agree on 99% of what's said here,

No tony, I assure you we very definitely do not.

but you choose to dwell on the differences.

says the man who follows my posts around, to ask the most ridiculous vacuous questions of me.

It's like you don't want to be seen to agree.

I'd have to agree first.

You rarely express anything at all. Nearly all your posts are in question form, and say almost nothing. If a presumption is made from what you've said, you've got the get out of that "?" to give you the scope to take any differing troll-type view you fancy, and you invariably do.

You can't even agree with the dictionary, ffs, and have said that the use of words confuses conversations. And then wonder why you might sometimes get called a moron.

[eFestivals]

PS ... as can be seen here, I've made a non-abusive and thoughtful post about an issue raised on this page ... and tony, who doesn't put people down ( ) because he's such a superior type, addresses none of what I've said and instead launches what he doesn't do - a personal attack.

But it's just me, yeah tony? PMSL.

Edited February 26, 2015 by eFestivals