What women (don't) want.

[Uncle Liam]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

yep, India is very forwards with that sort of thing - in some areas, anyway - including women PM's with Indira Gandhi and her daughter-in-law.

I'd guess it's cultural for that part of the world, because a woman leader in Bhutto perhaps isn't what you'd think for generally-conservative Pakistan.

Family connections more than culture led Benazir Bhutto to that position.

I have a number of students from Pakistan who say that it's a dreadful place to be a woman, and these are students who come from decent backgrounds. They say they have much more rights and opportunities here in Qatar than they do back there. One student told me last week that when she goes back to Pakistan, she isn't spoken to at all,  as is her sister, she is just ignored by near enough everyone. She doesn't even get the "You are going to be a doctor" chat which the boys get, she is just expected to get married asap. 

[eFestivals]

16 hours ago, Uncle Liam said:

Family connections more than culture led Benazir Bhutto to that position.

it was family connections with Indira Gandhi too (tho from Nerhu, not Ghandi).

It's still surprising given much of the culture towards women in that part of the world. The UK likes to think of itself as a progressive, and it's not like the UK didn't have a lot of "we can't have a woman as leader" in Thatcher's time, and India beat us to it with a woman leader (I think Bhutto was just after Thatcher).

[eFestivals]

what women - don't - want ....

To find out they don't know what feminism is.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/mar/05/emma-watson-vanity-fair-cover-feminism

[feral chile]

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

what women - don't - want ....

To find out they don't know what feminism is.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/mar/05/emma-watson-vanity-fair-cover-feminism

you don't think feminism is about choice?

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, feral chile said:

you don't think feminism is about choice?

Nope, not a jot of it. 

Women got their tits out in the 80s, and that choice didn't further feminism.

[eFestivals]

PS: i guess  it could be said to be about 'choice' - but only if they're the right choices.

Choosing anything 'just because I'm a woman' isn't it tho.

 

[feral chile]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

PS: i guess  it could be said to be about 'choice' - but only if they're the right choices.

Choosing anything 'just because I'm a woman' isn't it tho.

 

And where do you draw the line? Cover boobs while men can go topless, cover ankles, faces...just in case the evil female seduces the man into sexual violence?

Asking for it, she is, having a bloody body!

[eFestivals]

33 minutes ago, feral chile said:

And where do you draw the line? Cover boobs while men can go topless, cover ankles, faces...just in case the evil female seduces the man into sexual violence?

Asking for it, she is, having a bloody body!

Way to go, pick an argument with yourself lol.

 

[feral chile]

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Way to go, pick an argument with yourself lol.

 

You're the one implying women should cover themselves up.

And assuming that tits are for the boys, not for the one to whom they're a part of.

A woman's body is hers, to do with as she sees fit.

Admittedly, in today's society, she'd have consequences, the issue is that she shouldn't have consequences, not that she shouldn't be able to do it.

Edited March 6, 2017 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, feral chile said:

You're the one implying women should cover themselves up.

that's not what I said AT ALL.

 

Quote

And assuming that tits are for the boys, not for the one to whom they're a part of.

Just out of interest, do you and other women react to men with their tops off like that?

 

Quote

A woman's body is hers, to do with as she sees fit.

It is.

And anything she might do with it might regress feminism and not progress it, just as much as it might progress it.

 

Quote

Admittedly, in today's society, she'd have consequences, the issue is that she shouldn't have consequences, not that she shouldn't be able to do it.

Why should women be consequence free?

Blokes aren't, but if you think they should be that's free licence to rape. 

I think you're more than a little confused. A selfish attitude to life doesn't get to mean that selfish person is the world's most perfect feminist.

Edited March 7, 2017 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

On 3/3/2017 at 8:49 PM, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I wasn't in on discussions about page 3, but would let it be known that I felt really uncomfortable about page 3's presence. I can't actually recall buying The Sun - it would be a bit like buying a w*nk mag to my mind. I mean, there is no point at all to showing a topless woman on page 3 if what you actually want is to read some news.  As to whether it's a blow to feminism I'd say that it was. I'd say that it was because The Sun never had photos on page 5 of blokes with their cocks out. So, the photos were used to appeal to men (mostly) who were happy to see a woman in terms of sexual attraction only. It's this perpetuated limitation of what women are that gives rise to the need for a feminist movement. In an ideal world there would be no need for such a movement.

The sun did used to have semi naked men in the paper actually, I seem to the remember. Page 5 hunk they called it, or something like that.

 

[eFestivals]

32 minutes ago, russycarps said:

The sun did used to have semi naked men in the paper actually, I seem to the remember. Page 5 hunk they called it, or something like that.

 

they did, but it wasn't a constant - and therefore it wasn't regarded as the same.

Edited March 7, 2017 by eFestivals

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

they did, but it wasn't a constant - and therefore it wasn't regarded as the same.

Plus they weren't exposing their private parts.

[russycarps]

8 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

Plus they weren't exposing their private parts.

Nor do the women in fairness, unless things have changed hugely since I furtively used to have a peek on my paper round..

.

 

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

Plus they weren't exposing their private parts.

"private parts" is merely a cultural thing, the same thing as causes women to want equality.

[bunique]

Heat magazine used to have Torso of the Week

[bunique]

I do think Emma Watson may been a bit naive to think she wouldn't meet with criticism. She can expose whatever parts of her body she likes, but when it's clearly to promote a new film she's really no different from the page 3 girls (and their employers) who are so vilified 

[eFestivals]

59 minutes ago, bunique said:

I do think Emma Watson may been a bit naive to think she wouldn't meet with criticism. She can expose whatever parts of her body she likes, but when it's clearly to promote a new film she's really no different from the page 3 girls (and their employers) who are so vilified 

Yep, that's one of very many angles on it, of which almost none of them support the idea of her being a feminist.

'Choice' is only of relevance if the choice she makes supports or promotes feminism.

[bunique]

I don't think the photo detracts or supports feminism. People's reaction to it might prompt some debate but the photo itself is neither here nor there 

[russycarps]

Sadly she's been hoisted by her own petard. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it all, her words about beyonce have come back to haunt her and this whole incident does no-one any favours, least of all the issue in hand.

Things have as usual descended into a woman-on-woman catfight and men just stand on the sidelines roaring with laughter at the self-harm women inflict upon themselves time after time when it comes to feminism.

The feminist battle wont be won by the likes of emma watson anyway.

 

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, bunique said:

I don't think the photo detracts or supports feminism. People's reaction to it might prompt some debate but the photo itself is neither here nor there 

I disagree. It helps perpetuate sexism.

Remember, she wasn't dressed up like that merely because she wanted to be, but for the purposes of getting attention for it.

[bunique]

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I disagree. It helps perpetuate sexism.

Remember, she wasn't dressed up like that merely because she wanted to be, but for the purposes of getting attention for it.

But she is entitled to do so, assuming there's no coercion at play. Feminism doesn't preclude exploiting your femininity for gain. But it does mean you can't criticise others for doing the same.

[eFestivals]

25 minutes ago, bunique said:

Feminism doesn't preclude exploiting your femininity for gain. 

Oh dear.

You've just justified the patriarchy, because what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

If women are allowed to exploit their gender for gain, then men are too ... and then feminism cannot change anything, because men exploiting is how we got here.

Edited March 7, 2017 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

4 hours ago, bunique said:

I do think Emma Watson may been a bit naive to think she wouldn't meet with criticism. She can expose whatever parts of her body she likes, but when it's clearly to promote a new film she's really no different from the page 3 girls (and their employers) who are so vilified 

Yes, I think she was naïve, I haven't read her comments in detail, but she seems to be saying she didn't see the connection. Whichever side of the feminist debate you're on, she doesn't seem to have realised she was making any kind of statement with this action.

[feral chile]

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

that's not what I said AT ALL.

 

Just out of interest, do you and other women react to men with their tops off like that?

 

It is.

And anything she might do with it might regress feminism and not progress it, just as much as it might progress it.

 

Why should women be consequence free?

Blokes aren't, but if you think they should be that's free licence to rape. 

I think you're more than a little confused. A selfish attitude to life doesn't get to mean that selfish person is the world's most perfect feminist.

 React like what? I regularly turn men into sex objects, just to be feminist/for revenge.

With me it's hair though.The difference is, men don't care, they only care if it's a man hitting on them.

I was in a club once, for my friend's 50th, and she complained that all the long hair was tied back. So I went up to the nearest young lad, explained it was her birthday, and asked if he'd let his hair down. he did, he let me run my hands through it, ostensibly to spread it out. Then he did a twirl, hair flick, and bowed to my friend.

My friend was really impressed, but I knew it was just an ego trip for him.

This was the female equivalent of 'get your tits out for the lads' for us.

But not for him.

If I'd have thought he would be uncomfortable at all, I'd never have done it. And that's the difference. That's where the problem is, not physical attraction.

Edited March 7, 2017 by feral chile