What women (don't) want.

[eFestivals]

this is why I suggest the terminology - sometimes - gets in the way of the discussion.

not at all. It only takes referencing the definition.

Feral can't escape her take on how feminists should deal with page 3.

that's because feral is not a feminist. She's instead a woman who can't put away her hangups to actually think clearly.

Shouldn't the debate be about we all, or each individual sees page 3?

It depends tony. Are there right and wrong things, or is there only your meaningless wishy-washy?

Edited March 17, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

A lot of the time there isn't a right or wrong.

then why do you waste your breath?

[eFestivals]

I don't see how you can say she isn't a feminist.

and I guess this is one of the times there is a right and wrong tony, and you are indisputably right?

Which is pretty clever when you've said again and again that you've no idea what a feminist is.

But hey, you'll exit this thread eventually none the wiser, and won't even realise you've spent days gibbering like a baboon.

[eFestivals]

sense of irony by-pass, or what?

For you, yes it looks like it.

[feral chile]

I can't see a link to the article? Is it missing or is it my connection?

Of course he should get the support he needs, and I can see why that would be more difficult for men, lots of reasons - as I said, I can't see the detail, but we don't have to go along with unreasonable comments, do we?

oh balls, I'll see if I can track it from my history.

http://thefeministwire.com/2013/10/sites-of-violence-why-our-notions-of-sex-positive-feminism-are-in-need-of-an-overhaul/

there it is, it's not the article, it's more that I felt bad for Drew, I felt as if his pain wasn't being acknowledged, and it felt like he was getting accused of being patriarchal when he was crying out for someone to listen to his story as a survivor.

Edited March 17, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

not at all. It only takes referencing the definition.

that's because feral is not a feminist. She's instead a woman who can't put away her hangups to actually think clearly.

It depends tony. Are there right and wrong things, or is there only your meaningless wishy-washy?

If by 'hangups' you mean my experiences, of course they've influenced me. I don't see how that would do anything other than support your argument, though.

If you want to use patriarchy as a perspective, I'd say I think like a man. And maybe view the world like a man.

That doesn't make me free of male bias, obviously more likely to have totally internalised it.

Or, maybe, I've tried to develop traits that are valued, and they are traits normally associated with men.

I have an irrational hatred of pink and frills, for instance, but quite admire the leather clad rock chick aggressive female sexuality. That's pretty similar to the male equivalent.

So, because I know my own bias, I worry that feminism also has a male bias.

I know back in the '80s, you weren't considered a feminist if you wanted to stay home and look after your kids.

but if women are prescribing how other women behave, how is that promoting autonomy for women?

We're still a position where women can't afford to stay home, and I think women should have the choice. Not that it's the done thing, but a genuine choice.

A lot of feminism has been chasing what men have - men have the most power, we want power. Men have jobs, we want jobs. Men have casual sex, we want to be able to have casual sex.

We need to be creating genuine choice, and equal respect.

reading about sex positive and sex negative feminists...I find myself agreeing with both of them.

Edited March 17, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I don't think it is entirely fictional, but probably embellished for dramatic effect.

I could be completely wrong, of course.

Here's a summary by Kat Banyard that neatly wraps up a lot of my own thoughts about the beauty/porn/sex industry, and it saves me a lot of typing!

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/oct/14/kat-banyard-feminist-pornography-equality

Yes, that article makes sense to me.

I think the sticking point with Page 3, for me, is not wanting to criticise the models themselves:

Another perennial feminist dilemma is the tension between personal choice and duty to principle. Every woman who gets breast implants can't help but reinforce the message that it's perfectly normal and sensible to spend thousands of pounds being cut open and stuffed with fake breasts. I ask if she thinks feminists who do so are letting other women down.

"It doesn't work like that," she says very firmly. "Not at all. The whole point is that feminism is about tackling the cultures that led women to feel like they didn't look good enough in the first place. I don't believe anyone has the right to judge another woman for the choices she makes in a highly sexist culture. Women have to find ways to survive and get by each day, and how we do that will depend upon our circumstances. I think judging other women on that basis is the antithesis of what feminism is about. And we need to have our sights set on the structures and the industries which feed this culture, who are the ones driving it and reaping the profits from it."

But when you get to that last part, I find myself in total agreement.

Edited March 17, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Just for the record, if I've ever sounded like I'm criticising the girls, it's been unintentional

I don't think I've noticed that tony, I'm just thinking of my own reluctance to do it.

It's more to do with whether I have the right to impose my ideals on women who might not share them. especially when my ideals are supposed to be all about freeing women from being conditioned by ideology and supporting them to make their own choices.

[midnight]

I think the sticking point with Page 3, for me, is not wanting to criticise the models themselves:

Quote

But when you get to that last part, I find myself in total agreement.

Quite. She says:

"And we need to have our sights set on the structures and the industries which feed this culture, who are the ones driving it and reaping the profits from it."

And I think page 3, as an institution, is part of that industry/culture. And doing away with it is not the same as berating the models.

[midnight]

oh balls, I'll see if I can track it from my history.

http://thefeministwire.com/2013/10/sites-of-violence-why-our-notions-of-sex-positive-feminism-are-in-need-of-an-overhaul/

there it is, it's not the article, it's more that I felt bad for Drew, I felt as if his pain wasn't being acknowledged, and it felt like he was getting accused of being patriarchal when he was crying out for someone to listen to his story as a survivor.

Yes, I've found it - the insensitive ones (Lia & Xia) do get a decent response from other posters, though.

Also, Drew comes across as a bit resentful (the author of the article actually DOES acknowledge early on that this sort of thing happens to men too, she just doesn't focus on it - she writes about herself, after all). It is very difficult for men to get the right sort of help, and the problem is probably massively under-reported.

[eFestivals]

We need to be creating genuine choice, and equal respect.

That would be a great thing, but would require yourself to change as hugely as any man.

I know, I've been in the receiving end of you, remember?

[eFestivals]

But when you get to that last part, I find myself in total agreement.

so "equal respect", but with a free pass for all women.

PMSL. :lol:

[feral chile]

It sounds like you want to be all things to all women. I don't think imposing ideals on others is likely to be very productive. Some people, whether it's due to conditioning or not, positively like society the way it is, with all its sexism, racism, materialism. Simply telling them they're wrong isn't likely to get much of a positive response, I'd have thought

Feminism is an ideal, and to get results, people would have to believe and follow it. So equal pay and opportunities are easy to agree with as a suitable aim, but when you start getting into how women should best change society, it starts getting a lot more subjective.

I know when I was younger, Page 3 bothered me a lot, because I compared myself negatively to Page 3 models.

I no longer compare myself to them. Now, I question whether this is a patriarchy problem, whether young women will always feel insecure, and the insecurity will switch to something else, whether it's part of the maturation process, etc.

Now that I'm older, I feel more confident, that could be because I don't experience so much sexism, I could just have learnt to be less insecure, I might have a different status as an older woman...I don't know.

Until this discussion, I assumed that my experience was socially conditioned, and therefore women in genera felt less threatened and more confident. So I assumed that social change, not personal change, was responsible.

And if Page 3 is making women feel insecure because of their male partners, will banning it help, should we be somehow helping women to feel more confident, should we be educating men in how to build up trusting relationships with women, etc. etc.

I don't want to be all things to all women. Should feminism though? I try to live my life by refusing to allow myself to get dominated overtly, which is a lot easier than challenging social conditioning.

And there's something about Page 3 that gives me a sense that we're approaching it in the wrong way, but it's just a feeling.

It's too easy and simplistic a target, and there's just something I can't articulate, that feels that objections to it are playing to male bias.

I'll have to try to pin down what it is that makes me feel seeing Page 3 as a threat is anti feminist.

It might simply be a flat out refusal on my part to allow Page 3 to undermine my confidence, and by extension, I feel that this is the way forward.

Don't forget, I'm not a top-down thinker, I'd be looking to change the phenomenology of individuals, empowerment through perception shifts. So if someone tried to hurt me by undermining my confidence, I'd be mentally throwing that back onto them, and seeing it as their problem.

I think it's my friend's influence - she's much more confident than me, and she used to give me pep talks - 'why are you letting that silly person get to you? Why does their opinion of you matter when they're playing games/being shitty etc'.

And it's worked.

But then again, I don't want it to suddenly become the woman's problem who needs to straighten her head out, because the system works to undermine her confidence, either.

In other circumstances, I've been extremely frustrated, when the system clearly produces stress, then the individual gets help to deal with the stress, and it's never acknowledged that it's the system that needs changing, not the person having to learn to be more resilient to a stupid system.

It's so complicated

Edited March 18, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

That would be a great thing, but would require yourself to change as hugely as any man.

I know, I've been in the receiving end of you, remember?

oh quite. just like all of us, ideals are one thing, but we're imperfect human beings. I linked to an unconscious bias study earlier, and I was really shocked at my own results.

Particularly because I was a member of most of the groups I was biased against!

ps I'm still not as disrespectful as you lol

Edited March 18, 2015 by feral chile

[midnight]

Feminism is an ideal, and to get results, people would have to believe and follow it. So equal pay and opportunities are easy to agree with as a suitable aim, but when you start getting into how women should best change society, it starts getting a lot more subjective.

I know when I was younger, Page 3 bothered me a lot, because I compared myself negatively to Page 3 models.

I no longer compare myself to them. Now, I question whether this is a patriarchy problem, whether young women will always feel insecure, and the insecurity will switch to something else, whether it's part of the maturation process, etc.

Now that I'm older, I feel more confident, that could be because I don't experience so much sexism, I could just have learnt to be less insecure, I might have a different status as an older woman...I don't know.

Until this discussion, I assumed that my experience was socially conditioned, and therefore women in genera felt less threatened and more confident. So I assumed that social change, not personal change, was responsible.

And if Page 3 is making women feel insecure because of their male partners, will banning it help, should we be somehow helping women to feel more confident, should we be educating men in how to build up trusting relationships with women, etc. etc.

I don't want to be all things to all women. Should feminism though? I try to live my life by refusing to allow myself to get dominated overtly, which is a lot easier than challenging social conditioning.

And there's something about Page 3 that gives me a sense that we're approaching it in the wrong way, but it's just a feeling.

It's too easy and simplistic a target, and there's just something I can't articulate, that feels that objections to it are playing to male bias.

I'll have to try to pin down what it is that makes me feel seeing Page 3 as a threat is anti feminist.

It might simply be a flat out refusal on my part to allow Page 3 to undermine my confidence, and by extension, I feel that this is the way forward.

Don't forget, I'm not a top-down thinker, I'd be looking to change the phenomenology of individuals, empowerment through perception shifts. So if someone tried to hurt me by undermining my confidence, I'd be mentally throwing that back onto them, and seeing it as their problem.

I think it's my friend's influence - she's much more confident than me, and she used to give me pep talks - 'why are you letting that silly person get to you? Why does their opinion of you matter when they're playing games/being shitty etc'.

And it's worked.

But then again, I don't want it to suddenly become the woman's problem who needs to straighten her head out, because the system works to undermine her confidence, either.

In other circumstances, I've been extremely frustrated, when the system clearly produces stress, then the individual gets help to deal with the stress, and it's never acknowledged that it's the system that needs changing, not the person having to learn to be more resilient to a stupid system.

It's so complicated

I'd say you've answered your own question.

But it is hard to have a debate with a niggly feeling as the opponent.

I used to think of page 3 as an easy target (that is partially what makes its continuing existence so annoying), but looking at much of these 80-odd pages, it's perhaps not as easy/obvious as I thought.

[midnight]

Quote

Another perennial feminist dilemma is the tension between personal choice and duty to principle. Every woman who gets breast implants can't help but reinforce the message that it's perfectly normal and sensible to spend thousands of pounds being cut open and stuffed with fake breasts. I ask if she thinks feminists who do so are letting other women down.

"It doesn't work like that," she says very firmly. "Not at all. The whole point is that feminism is about tackling the cultures that led women to feel like they didn't look good enough in the first place. I don't believe anyone has the right to judge another woman for the choices she makes in a highly sexist culture. Women have to find ways to survive and get by each day, and how we do that will depend upon our circumstances. I think judging other women on that basis is the antithesis of what feminism is about. And we need to have our sights set on the structures and the industries which feed this culture, who are the ones driving it and reaping the profits from it."

so "equal respect", but with a free pass for all women.

PMSL. :lol:

Assuming that you are referring to this, I don't think that is what Kat Baynard is trying to say. She is looking for things that work. ("it doesn't work like that")

Simply telling women who go and have breast implants in order to look "better" that they are foolish and unprincipled is apparently not working. I remember the debate on Newsnight after the last big implant scandal broke, featuring Katie Price (obvious choice) and Paxman. It was almost painful to watch.

[eFestivals]

ps I'm still not as disrespectful as you lol

you just don't like the content, it's got naff all to do with the delivery.

One day you'll realise that the delivery matters nothing and the content is everything. As the saying goes, you can't polish a turd.

So perhaps stop trying?

[eFestivals]

I used to think of page 3 as an easy target (that is partially what makes its continuing existence so annoying), but looking at much of these 80-odd pages, it's perhaps not as easy/obvious as I thought.

it's as easy to tackle as people's willingness to tackle it.

As this thread has shown, some don't because they can't even see an issue in need of tackling.

[eFestivals]

Assuming that you are referring to this, I don't think that is what Kat Baynard is trying to say.

I was referring to that, tho I was (also) referring to who presented it rather than who wrote it.

And we both know I nailed it.

Edited March 19, 2015 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

And we both know I nailed it.

You nailed that issue like it was your bitch! You da man!

[eFestivals]

do you have that as a plaque on your wall?

do you have a question mark tattoo'd on your heart?

[feral chile]

I was referring to that, tho I was (also) referring to who presented it rather than who wrote it.

And we both know I nailed it.

Ah, so this was personal, was it?

I wondered why you weren't so keen to go into the Tit Monday thread and harangue everyone in there for falling for patriarchy.

(or at least, I presume you haven't, since I'm not particularly interested or obsessed with women taking off their coats)

I think you need to rephrase 'I nailed it' after referring to me.

Nobody nails me without my permission, and I'm not an object.

It's also nice to know you're so unbiased that you'll diss a link because of who presented it, whether it supports your argument or not.

Way to go being a feminist, neil.

Edited March 19, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

you just don't like the content, it's got naff all to do with the delivery.

One day you'll realise that the delivery matters nothing and the content is everything. As the saying goes, you can't polish a turd.

So perhaps stop trying?

it's got everything to do with delivery. You've gone after me, not my argument, and you're so blinded with prejudice you can't even see when I'm agreeing with you. You've even argued against feminism, because you've assumed an oppositional stance to mine, and not noticed when I've conceded any points.

You just have a kneejerk 'feral's wrong' thing going on now, and you've stopped actually following the discussion.

[feral chile]

I personally don't mind if Page 3 girls make a living out of their boobs, any more than I mind footballers making a living out of their feet.

I am uncomfortable about 'sportsmen' being paid to hit the hell out of each other, whether they have rules and boxing gloves or not.

That feels more exploitative to me, but the same argument's used for giving people a chance to better themselves.

THESE are the quotes that you've taken so much offence over. I've said I don't mind if Page 3 girls make a living out of their boobs. I've acknowledged already there that it's exploitative. But lucrative. (though I later realised my own snobbery for assuming people who pose for Page 3, play football, and box, don't have other options, and so was denying them their agency).

I actually think that assuming men are slave to a woman's boobs is demeaning to men (but may be true, judging by the Tit Monday thread).

These 2 quotes together, are stating that men need to change, not women, and then Page 3 will go away.

And you've harangued me over these 2 comments, all this time.

Apparently.

These have been taken directly from the General News thread, today, with no editing or altering.

ALL I've said is that exploitation happens to all of us under the thumb of the cynical sods at the top, and if men and women don't start working together (and any other group divisions you can think of) they'll always win.

Divide and conquer.

Edited March 19, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I'd say you've answered your own question.But it is hard to have a debate with a niggly feeling as the opponent.

I used to think of page 3 as an easy target (that is partially what makes its continuing existence so annoying), but looking at much of these 80-odd pages, it's perhaps not as easy/obvious as I thought.

Ah I think I've sussed out what it is.

Think of illegal drugs. They won't regulate tem because of the exploitation and harm involved. But it's not drugs that's the problem, not drugs as a commodity, but the fact that it's underground. so exploitative, and often violent, with no protection for the user.

Now - the sex industry. Yes, it's full of exploitation, I can see lots of parallels, same people involved in both, I suspect.

But is it selling sex/sexuality, or the exploitation, that's the problem?

Now, I can appreciate getting Page 3 onto the top shelf, if that would stop children being exposed to sexist attitudes. It won't end exploitation though, if pornography gets banned without society changing, any more than it's stopped drug use. It just makes the girls easier to exploit, if the demand's still there.

We feminists in the '80s tried to present a less titillating(!) version of human breasts, we were encouraged to allow children to see us wandering around naked, with the hope of getting them normalised to breasts, instead of them being some mystical rite of passage into a carry-on version of manhood.

It clearly hasn't worked though