What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

meanwhile:

http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2016/
 

Quote

 

Out of the 142 countries covered by the Index both this year and last year, 68 countries have increased their overall gender gap score compared to last year, while 74 have seen it decrease. It therefore has been an ambiguous year for global gender parity, with uneven progress at best.

All things held equal, with current trends, the overall global gender gap can be closed in 83 years across the 107 countries covered since the inception of the Report—just within the statistical lifetime of baby girls born today. However, the most challenging gender gaps remain in the economic sphere and in health. At the current rate of change, and given the widening economic gender gap since last year, it will not be closed for another 170 years. The economic gender gap this year has reverted back to where it stood in 2008, after a peak in 2013. On the other hand, on current trends, the education–specific gender gap could be reduced to parity within the next 10 years. The currently widest gender gap, in the political dimension, is also the one exhibiting the most progress, narrowing by 9% since 2006. On current trends, it could be closed within 82 years. The time to close the health gender gap remains undefined. Formally the smallest gap, it has oscillated in size with a general downward trend. Today, the gap is larger than it stood in 2006, in part due to specific issues in select countries, in particular China and India.

Some regions should expect to see their gender gaps narrow faster than the global rate of change. Among these are South Asia, with a projected closing of the gender gap in 46 years, Western Europe in 61 years, Latin America in 72 years and Sub-Saharan Africa, due to achieve parity in 79 years. Projections for other world regions suggest closing their gaps will take longer than 100 years, namely 129 years in the Middle East and North Africa, 146 years in East Asia and the Pacific, and 149 years in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Given the slow progress over the last decade, the gender gap in North America is expected to close in 158 years. None of these forecasts are foregone conclusions. Instead they reflect the current state of progress and serve as a call to action to policymakers and other stakeholders to accelerate gender equality.

 

but yeah, let's focus on Emma Watson, eh?

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, feral chile said:

but yeah, let's focus on Emma Watson, eh?

Emma Watson put the focus on Emma Watson.

But the problem isn't the focus anyway, it's her not knowing what the fuck she's talking about.

If feminism is about choice, my choice is rape and I'm a feminist.

[eFestivals]

meanwhile, back at the ranch, I got this press release last night.

I wonder who'll be first to spot the rather bad flaw in her not-thought-thru idea....?

HALEY BONAR ANNOUNCES NAME CHANGE ON INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

SINGER-SONGWRITER WILL NOW RELEASE AND RECORD AS "HALEY"

NEW SINGLE "CALLED YOU QUEEN" PLAYLISTED ON BBC 6 MUSIC

HALEY ON TOUR WITH FULL BAND IN MARCH / APRIL.
 

Haley Bonar has chosen International Women’s Day to announce that she will officially adopt her mother’s maiden name and will now perform under the moniker HALEY. She explains her decision in the following statement:

An Act of Peace.


I was born in the 1980’s and without question, my sisters and I were given my father’s last name- a good, Scottish name that goes back centuries, and existed in the realm of our heritage until right around the time I was born, when the surname became strikingly similar to a slang term for an erection. Humiliation and degradation by cruel people has been a part of my life since childhood because of this (and whatever else about me that didn’t fit the “mould”), which I have fought by learning to tune out the harsh criticism and the art of correcting the mispronunciation.

Over the course of my career, I have released 9 albums and then some under my paternal name, and though I have enjoyed what I consider a fair amount of success, I have come to realise that my name is often a distraction, in a negative way, from the actual work itself. Of course, this isn’t new- but so often we have to arrive at something in order to look back. The arrival comes at a time when so much about the world feels uncertain, and because of that, the pull to morph into the fullest, most true version of myself is even more absolute.

I have been working my whole life at assimilating myself in the world as a woman, constantly questioning the social constructs that create the atmosphere surrounding the meaning of what it is to be female in modern society. One of the greatest lessons that I have learned has been firmly rooted in the relationship to the women in my family- as a mother, daughter, granddaughter, sister and niece. The strong women who have given me life, friendship, guidance, and support to always be myself, no matter what, have shaped who I am at my core, and with that, given me the ability to teach my daughter the same values.

These thoughts have drawn the path toward my decision to change my surname to reflect and honor my maternal family. Let’s face it folks, we all come from a vagina! The mother’s body does all of the work from conception, incubating a human being and painfully, beautifully birthing that human out into the world. The superpowers of a woman’s body are astonishing.

My grandfather’s name- McCallum- another name borne of sturdy, Scottish blood- means “a person of peace”. I want to be at peace with myself, as do most of us on a daily basis in life. I want to progress toward what feminism truly means to me by shedding a cultural custom that need not apply anymore. This seems like a positive way to change something about my roots without losing a part of myself or my lineage in the process. I want to lay to rest the association with trauma from my past, and the continuation of needless stress from judgement, in order to move forward.

With that being said, I understand that changing my name with regards to my history and the work I have created under my old name can be confusing to fans, or people trying to find my music. So, although my legal name will be Haley McCallum, I will be performing, writing, and recording henceforth under the name HALEY.

Thank you for supporting this very personal and joyful decision! 

With Love, Haley.

 

 

[bunique]

I've never heard of her?!

[eFestivals]

55 minutes ago, bunique said:

I've never heard of her?!

well, there is that.

But I was getting at her dropping her dad's name cos of 'patriarchy' to take her mother's name ... that her mother got from her mother's dad.

It escapes nothing at all. 

[feral chile]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

well, there is that.

But I was getting at her dropping her dad's name cos of 'patriarchy' to take her mother's name ... that her mother got from her mother's dad.

It escapes nothing at all. 

Depends if that's exactly what she's trying to do.

Or, she could be choosing her own surname, and chose that one to honour her maternal family, not because she thinks she's escaped the whole property marking male succession thing.

She did say she was embarrassed by the innuendo around her old surname.

Edited March 9, 2017 by feral chile

[feral chile]

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Emma Watson put the focus on Emma Watson.

But the problem isn't the focus anyway, it's her not knowing what the fuck she's talking about.

If feminism is about choice, my choice is rape and I'm a feminist.

Well maybe when you grow a vagina and chop off your penis, you might get your (woman's) choice.

It'd be an unusual choice for a woman though.

[feral chile]

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Emma Watson put the focus on Emma Watson.

But the problem isn't the focus anyway, it's her not knowing what the fuck she's talking about.

If feminism is about choice, my choice is rape and I'm a feminist.

Emma Watson didn't focus all this bitchiness on herself. All this trivia. All her positive activism is being undermined for no good reason. It#s not her who's anti feminist, it's those who are trying to discredit her - and feminism.

[feral chile]

21 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Hmmmm,.....

If you went back thru your own words and swapped the gender of what you said and thought of yourself as man saying them about women (rather than a women saying them about men), you'll probably make your head explode.

You should try it, you might learn something useful.

you can't swap the gender without changing the entire gender culture of the analogy. if that lad had been subjected to sexual harassment since before he started his periods, and had to learn to be able to physically fight women twice his size and strength, who had penises that could penetrate him if he couldn't escape them, and who thought that if he couldn't fight them off, that meant consent, and had grown up with a constant fear of rape, with his appearance being the main thing that gave him value, but at the same time, if he was attractive, he was asking for it....

then switching gender might work.

as it was, switching gender was precisely what my motivation was, albeit in a much gentler and benign way than likely if the situation had really been reversed (abusers/abused etc), to someone who wouldn't have perceived this as a threat in anywhere near the same way as a woman would.

If i'd put my hand down his pants, like women get regularly in clubs (though not this one, to be fair), you might be closer to the mark, but even then, without the history of sexist and sexual degradation women have to field, the emotional; impact wouldn't have been the same.

Maybe you ought to consider why this seems so out of order, compared to what women endure all the time, and what's been normalised and what hasn't.

Edited March 9, 2017 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, feral chile said:

it's those who are trying to discredit her

because it's impossible for her to discredit feminism...?

[feral chile]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

because it's impossible for her to discredit feminism...?

by having boobs?

She's explained how she feels when talking about Beyoncé, despite her views being misrepresented.

The whole point is that this is her choice, she's not being exploited, she has control over it.

Presenting an image of a powerful sexual woman is not anti feminist. She's owning her sexuality. She's not letting our culture force her to be ashamed of it.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, feral chile said:

by having boobs?

She's explained how she feels when talking about Beyoncé, despite her views being misrepresented.

The whole point is that this is her choice, she's not being exploited, she has control over it.

Presenting an image of a powerful sexual woman is not anti feminist. She's owning her sexuality. She's not letting our culture force her to be ashamed of it.

Yep, that's one version.

[feral chile]

Just to be clear, my view is that feminism is there to provide equality for women. that means all women. Feminism shouldn't be about promoting feminism, or protecting only those women who agree with it. I support women's right to make free choice, whether it fits with my world view or not.

Since all choice is culturally determined, including feminist choices, all you can do is be aware of your unconscious bias and try to make an informed choice.

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Yep, that's one version.

Yes, that is one version. Why should women have to suppress their sexuality for fear of male dominance and female censure?

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, feral chile said:

equality for women

well that's the thing.

Is it about being equally as 'bad' as men, or is it about trying to be 'perfect' and to moderate men towards there too?

And what happens when the positive individual act of one has a detrimental impact on womanhood as a whole?

To make it a bit easier: much the same as Watson said might be said by a female porn star, and be no less positive on an individual basis....  but I doubt you'd view that the same way.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Yes, that is one version. Why should women have to suppress their sexuality for fear of male dominance and female censure?

because woman "in polite society" expect that from men...?

I'm not claiming the right answer, I'm pointing out the answer isn't as settled in Watson's favour as you're saying.

To be clear: I don't doubt it was a positive act for Watson individually. I do doubt that it was good for 'the sisterhood' on a global scale.

[feral chile]

25 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

because woman "in polite society" expect that from men...?

I'm not claiming the right answer, I'm pointing out the answer isn't as settled in Watson's favour as you're saying.

To be clear: I don't doubt it was a positive act for Watson individually. I do doubt that it was good for 'the sisterhood' on a global scale.

It's because the focus is on the wrong thing. it should never be about what women wear. that's only an issue because of how women are treated. Women can't win in this situation. They either avoid the male gaze, and allow men, or more precisely, culture, suppress and define their sexuality, or they seize control of it, and then come in for the sort of criticism that Emma Watson has.

The whole point is, it shouldn't matter. it doesn't matter if a man strikes a sexy pose, and is seen as a sex 'symbol', but that's because women are not sex symbols, they're sex objects.

I have less problems with sexually confident women than I do with carefully made up ones, because I feel like one is being rebellious, and the other's conforming to a stereotypes, socially acceptable femininity.

I worry that feminists fall into the trap of going along with a paternalistic fear of female sexuality, that's all tied in with paternity and property ownership and inheritance.

A sexually active woman might be a threat to this. A carefully made up woman might be looking for a husband, so that's OK then.

Edited March 9, 2017 by feral chile

[feral chile]

this is where I'm coming from:

https://mic.com/articles/114754/in-one-quote-joan-jett-proves-she-s-the-original-badass-rock-feminist#.D9uvHQEMv

Quote

Surveying her legacy. Looking back on her career, Jett says the power and sexuality dynamics that were so risqué back in the late '70s and '80s are still somehow risqué today. "It's funny how little has changed since the Runaways formed," she told Interview Magazine. "If [women in rock 'n' roll] try to be sexual or use their sexuality in a powerful way, they're judged much differently than men." 

 

[feral chile]

[feral chile]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

well that's the thing.

Is it about being equally as 'bad' as men, or is it about trying to be 'perfect' and to moderate men towards there too?

And what happens when the positive individual act of one has a detrimental impact on womanhood as a whole?

To make it a bit easier: much the same as Watson said might be said by a female porn star, and be no less positive on an individual basis....  but I doubt you'd view that the same way.

sexuality is 'bad'?

only because it's linked to the objectification and subjection of women

[feral chile]

On ‎08‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 6:31 PM, eFestivals said:

for women. Feminism is a women's movement, didn't you know?

And it's not about giving free reign to all choices any individual woman might want to make, as far as everything I've ever read about it goes.

when you make a decision, do you ensure it benefits men?

[feral chile]

On ‎08‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 7:04 PM, bunique said:

I'm actually with the menfolk on the hair thing Feral, sorry!

Hi bunique,

I'd be interested to know what you think should have happened, or how you would have felt/behaved differently.

And why hair is being viewed as sexual, or hitting on men.

it is about objectification, however.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, feral chile said:

sexuality is 'bad'?

only because it's linked to the objectification and subjection of women

and a woman putting herself up for objectification, where does that fit in?

Is that lessening the objectification or adding to the problem?

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, feral chile said:

when you make a decision, do you ensure it benefits men?

nope, but I don't claim that's what my decision is about.

Spot the difference with Watson?

It's not what she did, it's what she said.

Edited March 10, 2017 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

37 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and a woman putting herself up for objectification, where does that fit in?

Is that lessening the objectification or adding to the problem?

And who decides that it's objectification?