What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

37 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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.

What she said is that her pose had nothing to do with feminism. You have seen the photo? I'm far more concerned that all the snarky comments are damaging solidarity over a non issue.

[eFestivals]

Just now, feral chile said:

And who decides that it's objectification?

any 'decision' isn't any part of it.

Either it happens and is a bad thing for women, or happens and it's a good thing for women,  or it doesn't happen and can be ignored.

Care to tell me which of those three is the current way of the world, the world that Watson's photo is going into...?

[eFestivals]

Just now, feral chile said:

What she said is that her pose had nothing to do with feminism. 

What? She said it was a positive for feminism because it was positive for her.

 

[feral chile]

And Gloria steinem quite rightly said that women should be able to walk down the street naked without fear of rape. 

We can't achieve that until the female form is normalised.

 

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, feral chile said:

And Gloria steinem quite rightly said that women should be able to walk down the street naked without fear of rape. 

We can't achieve that until the female form is normalised.

 

So firstly we have to stop the objectification.

And I can't see how a photo that puts a woman forwards as an object helps with that.

Edited March 10, 2017 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

So firstly we have to stop the objectification.

And I can't see how a photo that puts a woman forwards as an object helps with that.

Will you ban makeup and high heels too? And clothes that accentuate the figure at the expense of functionality? What about all the beauty products ?

For me, I find these far more repressive.

How do you feel about Joan Jett and her aggressive sexuality?

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Will you ban makeup and high heels too? And clothes that accentuate the figure at the expense of functionality? What about all the beauty products ?

For me, I find these far more repressive.

How do you feel about Joan Jett and her aggressive sexuality?

I'm merely pointing out that you're saying objectification is wrong, while defending Watson's decision to put herself up to be objectified.

The conflicts are yours, not mine.

Get back to me when you've worked them out.

Edited March 10, 2017 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

If a middle aged or older woman posed like Emma Watson did, that would be feminist as it showed a real woman.

Guess what, Emma Watson is a real woman.

A real woman who is criticised because she happens to fit masculine definitions of beauty.

So she should submit to social control because of this?

That's not the answer. Criticism of her is an implicit acceptance of the male definition of female sexuality and is itself part of the problem.

[feral chile]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm merely pointing out that you're saying objectification is wrong, while defending Watson's decision to put herself up to be objectified.

The conflicts are yours, not mine.

Get back to me when you've worked them out.

She hasn't put herself up for anything. This is so close to the girl in a revealing outfit asking to be raped argument that I'm getting really concerned.

If even those who support equality think that a woman not showing any nipples even, has subjected herself to being a sexual object, what does that say about how much they've internalized female objectification?

Look at her photo and tell me what you see. You clearly don't see what I see and very much vice versa.

And then look at Joan Jett and tell me what you see there.

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, feral chile said:

She hasn't put herself up for anything.

What? She dressed up to be photo'd for that photo to be spread around the world's media.

She wasn't on a private night out. 

FFS.

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, feral chile said:

This is so close to the girl in a revealing outfit asking to be raped argument that I'm getting really concerned.

the whole of the objectification thing is centred around that, FFS.

If women are being objectified and that's a bad thing, you need to tell me how what Watson did wasn't anything that furthered/continued that bad thing.

And if you can't, you either have to accept there's no such thing as objectification or Watson deliberately chose to put herself up for objectification.

[eFestivals]

36 minutes ago, feral chile said:

A real woman who is criticised because she happens to fit masculine definitions of beauty.

that's absolutely fuck all about it.

Any woman will be found to be attractive by someone. Either that or we have to accept that some women are munters who are only ugly.

Either women have beauty and that comes with other parts attached which you cannot brush off with illogic, or women have no beauty. 

Take your pick.

[feral chile]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the whole of the objectification thing is centred around that, FFS.

If women are being objectified and that's a bad thing, you need to tell me how what Watson did wasn't anything that furthered/continued that bad thing.

And if you can't, you either have to accept there's no such thing as objectification or Watson deliberately chose to put herself up for objectification.

Yes. And the whole point is that women have the right to wear what they want without being accused of putting themselves up for/asking for it.

Can't you see that trying to control women is the problem?

[eFestivals]

29 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Yes. And the whole point is that women have the right to wear what they want without being accused of putting themselves up for/asking for it.

Can't you see that trying to control women is the problem?

I thought objectification was the problem...?

 

[feral chile]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I thought objectification was the problem...?

 

yes!

what the hell do you think objectification is?

[feral chile]

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/reports/the-sexism-debate-why-women-s-looks-continue-to-overshadow-their-achievements-115364

look. Join the dots.

What are we all debating here?

Not her talent, or her opinions, but her appearance.

And who is judging her solely on her appearance?

people using the feminist agenda (I refuse to call them feminists).

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, feral chile said:

yes!

what the hell do you think objectification is?

what Watson has put herself up for.

What have you missed?

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, feral chile said:

What are we all debating here?

Not her talent, or her opinions, but her appearance.

Nope. She could look like a bag of shit and still put herself up for objectification.

It's not about her appearance, it's about the actions she's taking with the use of her appearance.

[feral chile]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

what Watson has put herself up for.

What have you missed?

no woman puts herself up for objectification. There is no way to escape it.

what have you missed?

(clue - a lifetime of second guessing every move you make, that attracts male attention and pisses off other women).

Edited March 10, 2017 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Just now, feral chile said:

no woman puts herself up for objectification. There is no way to escape it.

if there's no way to escape it, then it cannot be anything but her putting herself up for objectification.

Which is the point I'm trying to get you to understand.

What she might believe she's doing doesn't matter a fuck against that. You've said it's inescapable, therefore she's put herself up for objectification.

[feral chile]

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

if there's no way to escape it, then it cannot be anything but her putting herself up for objectification.

Which is the point I'm trying to get you to understand.

What she might believe she's doing doesn't matter a fuck against that. You've said it's inescapable, therefore she's put herself up for objectification.

society has put herself up for objectification. it's the social and economic inequality that's put her up for it. Women are subject to objectification, in extreme forms expressed as rape. Male dominance shows through in all gender inequality, its extreme expression is rape. No woman puts themselves up for it.

You need to look at the implications of what you're saying.

You can't use inequality to judge one woman any more than you can blame an individual man (who's not actually a rapist) for being part of a male dominant culture.

Edited March 10, 2017 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Just now, feral chile said:

society has put herself up for objectification. it's the social and economic inequality that's put her up for it. Women are subject to objectification, in extreme forms expressed as rape. No woman puts themselves up for it.

You need to look at the implications of what you're saying.

I'm merely repeating back at you what you've been saying, and scraping away the bollocks and illogicalities you're putting with it.

If objectification happens and cannot be avoided, then she's put herself up for objectification - whether or not that was her intention.

And if objectification is where it all goes wrong for women, how does adding to the objectification makes things better for women and so positively progress feminism?

[feral chile]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

that's absolutely fuck all about it.

Any woman will be found to be attractive by someone. Either that or we have to accept that some women are munters who are only ugly.

Either women have beauty and that comes with other parts attached which you cannot brush off with illogic, or women have no beauty. 

Take your pick.

yes and yes. There is/should be nothing wrong with attraction. it's male entitlement that's the problem. To be clear, I'm not blaming all men for this, it's our culture that's screwed.

Which feminism is trying to make sense of. But still from inside the cultural bubble that is trying to control female sexuality because it's male defined.

I'm still wondering if male sexuality is also male defined.

What do you think of the metrosexual?

[feral chile]

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/reports/the-sexism-debate-why-women-s-looks-continue-to-overshadow-their-achievements-115364

But why is it that women in the public eye, from TV presenters and sports stars to politicians, have their looks continuously scrutinised and evaluated, while their male counterparts are judged on their talents alone?

And it isn’t just celebrities. Women everywhere can testify to the fact that this happens in daily life too. Let’s face it, when it comes to looks, there is more scrutiny, more pressure and generally more criticism when you’re a woman. This has even been proven. ‘Research shows women are sexually objectified to a greater degree than men,’ explains Dr Sarah Gervais, assistant professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

This ^^^^^^

is what we're doing. Right now. Emma hasn't put herself up for objectification. We have. We are objectifying her right now.

Until feminists notice that they themselves are part of the problem, we won't get a solution.

[eFestivals]

Just now, feral chile said:

There is/should be nothing wrong with attraction. it's male entitlement that's the problem.

so what you're saying is: a man should have to ask a woman's permission to find her attractive before he's allowed to find her attractive....?

It has to be that, otherwise a man is entitled to find a woman attractive without her permission.

And if it's that, then you're advocating that women have the same greater-control over men that men currently have over women, and that's perfect feminism.

Except of course that's not perfect feminism, that's merely thre reverse of today's sexist-driven society, but with women in charge and not men.

Your whole angle here doesn't stand up to even the slightest logical scrutiny. There's versions of feminism that do, tho.