What women (don't) want.

[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.

you think it's selfish to have control over your own body? So if I wanted to pass a law to stop men looking, I could accuse men of being selfish for not complying, and making women uncomfortable?

It's the male gaze that's the problem. If anything should be covered up, it's that.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, feral chile said:

And that's the difference.

except of course you're being utterly sexist, by believing all men are slags.

[eFestivals]

Just now, feral chile said:

you think it's selfish to have control over your own body?

Nope.

I merely pointed out that exploiting the weaknesses of others is what caused there to be a need of feminism in the first place.

By advocating exploiting others, you're giving men the same freedom.

[feral chile]

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

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

also sexist, since it's male defined. men can show their chests without any problem, because it's men who define breasts as being a private part.

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, feral chile said:

It's the male gaze that's the problem.

Because women are special creatures incapable of lust....?

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Nope.

I merely pointed out that exploiting the weaknesses of others is what caused there to be a need of feminism in the first place.

By advocating exploiting others, you're giving men the same freedom.

exploiting who?

[feral chile]

Just now, eFestivals said:

Because women are special creates incapable of lust....?

 

not at all. see the above comment(s).

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, feral chile said:

not at all. see the above comment(s).

then you're talking tosh in saying men shouldn't possess any of the same.

 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, feral chile said:

exploiting who?

Men exploit the weaknesses of women, and that's called sexist.

What do you think the purpose of Watson posing for the media dressed like she is is about? just a nice dress she wanted to wear, or is there more to it?

[feral chile]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

then you're talking tosh in saying men shouldn't possess any of the same.

 

I'm not. I'm saying Emma Watson's entitled to express her sexuality any way she wants, as long as she's not hurting anyone else.

So how can she be held responsible for others hurting women? It would be them who had the problem. There should be nothing wrong with admiration of the female form.

Edited March 7, 2017 by feral chile

[feral chile]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Men exploit the weaknesses of women, and that's called sexist.

What do you think the purpose of Watson posing for the media dressed like she is is about? just a nice dress she wanted to wear, or is there more to it?

I don't know, I haven't read anything she's said to explain it. Not that she should have to explain herself.

I wouldn't really describe the complexity of a gender biased society as 'men exploit women'.

[feral chile]

whenever you criticise a woman for wanting to be attractive, you're blaming women for societal attitudes.

If men were treated like women for wanting to look good, who would you blame?

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, feral chile said:

I'm not. I'm saying Emma Watson's entitled to express her sexuality any way she wants, as long as she's not hurting anyone else.

I agree.

The question is...? Is she hurting anyone else?

She's certainly manipulating, manipulating men. And guess what it's called if that's gender-reversed?

Edited March 7, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, feral chile said:

There should be nothing wrong with admiration of the female form.

 

22 minutes ago, feral chile said:

It's the male gaze that's the problem.

?????

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, feral chile said:

whenever you criticise a woman for wanting to be attractive, you're blaming women for societal attitudes.

If men were treated like women for wanting to look good, who would you blame?

I've not criticised her for wanting to be attractive, I'm criticising her for doing that to (try to) manipulate men (while also being used by men, but we'll ignore that part).

And the basis for that criticism is that the whole sexism thing is driven by male manipulation of women.

Now, i know there's a take on feminism which says women should be as 'bad' as men, but it's not one I subscribe to. That just creates two sets of self-satisfying wazzocks, when my idea of perfection is no wazzocks. Perhaps yours is different.

[feral chile]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

?????

because the male gaze should be respectful and considerate. Then there would be nothing wrong with admiring the female form.

It's the contempt that's the issue.

As I said, if that lad with the long hair had been upset, I'd never have approached him, and I'd certainly never have behaved in a disrespectful or sexual way towards him.

In my younger days, that would have been because I'd be afraid to be provocative. Now I'm older, I don't feel so vulnerable, and I see the young lad as the vulnerable one. So it really is out of respect for his feelings.

[feral chile]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I've not criticised her for wanting to be attractive, I'm criticising her for doing that to (try to) manipulate men (while also being used by men, but we'll ignore that part).

And the basis for that criticism is that the whole sexism thing is driven by male manipulation of women.

Now, i know there's a take on feminism which says women should be as 'bad' as men, but it's not one I subscribe to. That just creates two sets of self-satisfying wazzocks, when my idea of perfection is no wazzocks. Perhaps yours is different.

No I don't think it's the right approach, though it's tempting, and I tended to behave like it when I was feeling particularly pissed off, usually when a male I'd trusted as a friend went into sexual mode. As a friend, a woman feels valued, as an object of desire, dispensable. it hurts when someone you care about treats you like that, and I have retaliated on poor innocent bystanders before now. Not that they would notice, or care. I've just privately dissed them as juicy pieces of meat.

But that's an angry, emotional response, I don't think it's constructive or advances the cause one iota. But it did make me feel better.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, feral chile said:

because the male gaze should be respectful and considerate. Then there would be nothing wrong with admiring the female form.

So women are permitted lust, but men aren't?

Women are allowed to define men but men aren't allowed to define women?

13 minutes ago, feral chile said:

It's the contempt that's the issue.

Hmmm. You're falling into Trump's "locker-room talk" territory with this, by saying that all men do it in a contemptuous way.

 

13 minutes ago, feral chile said:

As I said, if that lad with the long hair had been upset, I'd never have approached him, and I'd certainly never have behaved in a disrespectful or sexual way towards him.

Hmmm. You had no way of knowing how he'd react until after you approached him. 

And you're so contemptuous about it now you're telling porkies about it.

 

13 minutes ago, feral chile said:

In my younger days, that would have been because I'd be afraid to be provocative. Now I'm older, I don't feel so vulnerable, and I see the young lad as the vulnerable one. So it really is out of respect for his feelings.

I'm just sat here laughing my nuts off, imaging your rage if I'd typed something similar.

[feral chile]

Just now, eFestivals said:

So women are permitted lust, but men aren't?

Women are allowed to define men but men aren't allowed to define women?

Hmmm. You're falling into Trump's "locker-room talk" territory with this, by saying that all men do it in a contemptuous way.

 

Hmmm. You had no way of knowing how he'd react until after you approached him. 

And you're so contemptuous about it now you're telling porkies about it.

 

I'm just sat here laughing my nuts off, imaging your rage if I'd typed something similar.

I think both men and women should be able to feel attracted, and attractive, without fear or shame.

There are many men who are respectful, and many who aren't. there might be women who are disrespectful, I've done it in the past out of anger.

As for that young lad, I led up to my request slowly, he could have told me to sod off several steps along the way. It was along the lines of, 'excuse me, my friend over there is 50 today, and she really loves long hair...'

it wasn't in a hooting, gropey way.

Besides, most guys with long hair get the whole hair fetish thing.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, feral chile said:

There are many men who are respectful, and many who aren't

precisely.

So when above you (at the very least) implied they were all equally disrespectful, that's your version of "all women are slags".

Which is much the same as watson getting her tits out for the lads - all lads, everywhere, via a media campaign - while convincing herself she's doing it for herself.

I don't see these things as a step forwards.

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

precisely.

So when above you (at the very least) implied they were all equally disrespectful, that's your version of "all women are slags".

Which is much the same as watson getting her tits out for the lads - all lads, everywhere, via a media campaign - while convincing herself she's doing it for herself.

I don't see these things as a step forwards.

This reminds me of a nice guy, way back in the 80s, who thought that if a woman was earing, say, a short skirt, she was sending out a message that she was up for it, because she wanted to look sexy.

This ignores the fact that this can indeed be narcissistic, but not directed at an observer besides themselves, or might be for one particular man.

Being women, it's likely to do with roles, or an image, that we find attractive.

For example, I love Daryl off the Walking Dead, because of his bad boy, yet vulnerable, image.

Looking sexy might make her feel powerful, and she might not be able to analyse why that is. Or care, if she feels empowered by it.

[feral chile]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39177510

I agree with a few comments in here - especially
 

Quote

 

The controversy surrounding Watson's magazine shoot has brought into question what it means to be a feminist.

But equality groups and feminists say the debate should be focused on female objectification and inequality

Ms Smethers says: "The real issue about all of this is the pressure on young women to look a certain way, to be judged on their appearance so if we are going to focus on anything that's what I would be more concerned to be prioritised."

Dr Mackay questions why the debate has been reduced to a celebrity exposing her breasts rather than issues such as women's economic positions and cuts to women's services.

"A Hollywood celebrity flashing a bit of boob is really the least of my worries," she says.

 

and
 

Quote

 

Sexist News, the team behind the campaign for the Sun to stop using topless models on Page 3, said it loved that the former Harry Potter star was "exploring and championing feminism having grown up in the public eye".

It believes the row created by the photoshoot is "daft", adding: "It is not a debate that we have about men's fashion shoots, regardless of the amounts of nipple-grazing crochet they wear.

"While no woman gets to dress herself outside of our society's patriarchal bubble, this example just shows that someone like Emma Watson is going to face an even more impossible standard than many other women."

 

Quote

 

Sexist News adds: "We really need to examine why on earth this one fashion image has caused such outrage. This is not to say that images of fashion or celebrity are unproblematic, quite the contrary.

"As ever the focus is on what a woman should or shouldn't be doing and not on how our culture presents, polices and consumes women's bodies and condemns their actions.

"We need to challenge these things, not the individual women stuck in the system."

 

Interestingly, Sexist News doesn't even think she's in the wrong.

Edited March 7, 2017 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Looking sexy might make her feel powerful, and she might not be able to analyse why that is. Or care, if she feels empowered by it.

I'm not really making an argument about that part. It is what it is on a personal level.

My take on feminism, tho, isn't about the personal, it's about the group - and I see what Watson has done as regressive towards that.

I'm not trying to call her particular bad for it, either. It would have passed without comment from the world I reckon, if it wasn't for her claiming it as a feminist act.

It's naivety of her claim where it's all gone wrong for me.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Interestingly, Sexist News doesn't even think she's in the wrong.

they're commenting on the shoot, rather than her claim of it being a feminist act.

Whether it's positive for her personally for any reason isn't anything of where I'm coming from.

[feral chile]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm not really making an argument about that part. It is what it is on a personal level.

My take on feminism, tho, isn't about the personal, it's about the group - and I see what Watson has done as regressive towards that.

I'm not trying to call her particular bad for it, either. It would have passed without comment from the world I reckon, if it wasn't for her claiming it as a feminist act.

It's naivety of her claim where it's all gone wrong for me.

My take on it is that judging women on their appearance is anti feminist, whichever way that criticism is.