What women (don't) want.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, feral chile said:

the 'good choices' change.

If you care to notice, I'm mostly staying well away from giving my own ideas of what might be the good choices and bad choices. 

I'm just making reference to the fact that some choices are good and some choices are bad. It's very normal that bad choices are criticised.

Watson is basically saying "it was my choice and that makes it beyond fair criticism".

Can you not see that her saying that is something worthy of criticism in itself?

[feral chile]

50 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

If you care to notice, I'm mostly staying well away from giving my own ideas of what might be the good choices and bad choices. 

I'm just making reference to the fact that some choices are good and some choices are bad. It's very normal that bad choices are criticised.

Watson is basically saying "it was my choice and that makes it beyond fair criticism".

Can you not see that her saying that is something worthy of criticism in itself?

no, because we should be staying away from defining it as a good choice or a bad choice

 

[feral chile]

55 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

But that's stupid, totally illogical. Or the words of the extremely self-centred / utterly ego-driven.

Feminism should defend what is good for feminism, and condemn was bad for feminism.

Just because it's been her choice to do something doesn't make that choice free of any fair criticism.

Whether or not that thing should be criticised is down to whether that thing can be criticised.

Nothing should get a free pass on the basis of it having been a choice, or because it's done by a woman, or perhaps even done super-special Emma whose choices are more important than other people's.

If what's she's done is worthy of criticism, it should be criticised (or at least, not have a free-pass from criticism)

This is where she gets feminism wrong, in my book.

It's that 'getting feminism wrong' part that is making me comment, far more than any rights and wrongs towards feminism of the photo (tho I'd say it takes a self-centred view - and not a 'women together' view - to think there's much right with that photo).

we don't really agree what is good for feminism. I've been trying hard to keep my own opinions away from this, but it's pretty clear how I feel about women judging other women, and how I feel that affects feminism.

judge society, not women trapped inside it.

Should we all aim to be CEO's to further feminism by making things more equal? What if we don't want to be corporate?

if women choose to go into the caring professions, are they acting in an antifeminist way by conforming to stereotypes?

BTW I've seen way sexier photos of Emma, I don't know why this one has attracted so much attention.

 

 

[eFestivals]

34 minutes ago, feral chile said:

I don't know why this one has attracted so much attention.

the words that went around it.

 

[eFestivals]

35 minutes ago, feral chile said:

it's pretty clear how I feel about women judging other women, and how I feel that affects feminism.

I'd say a world of free passes leads to a worse place. You get to a better place by holding things to account, not by not holding things to account.

[feral chile]

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'd say a world of free passes leads to a worse place. You get to a better place by holding things to account, not by not holding things to account.

I'm not. I'm trying to get my way around wanting to criticise women for attacking other women, while doing that to the attackers

what I want to do is to call out the female haters as making a bad choice, because what they're doing is just as hypocritical as they believe Emma to be, if not more so (I think much more so, and much more damaging, with much less insight and with a total misunderstanding of what feminism stands for).

But IF I were to do that, I'd be being hypocritical, because I'd be defining their choices for them, which I feel is antifeminist, etc. etc. etc.

I believe that they are worse for feminism than Emma, but whether I have the right to judge them....I wouldn't challenge them in absolute terms, because it's not really for me to define them, or feminism. I can only try to define myself, within my cultural conditioning, as far as I can.

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by feral chile

[feral chile]

These are the words of the journalist who sparked off this row:

Julia Hartley-Brewer

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/12045740/Todays-feminists-are-so-out-of-touch-with-how-most-women-live-they-might-as-well-be-on-another-planet.html

'not saying there isn't further to go for women's equality, but I just don’t see a lot of the key feminist cause celebres as “women’s issues”. Childcare, for instance, is a parents’ issue, and rape and domestic violence aren’t crimes against women, they’re simply crimes.

And, yes, of course there are vital concerns like FGM, forced marriage and access to education for many girls and women in developing countries. But are we really pretending that a woman's lot in life in 21st century Britain is so bad?

I'd have thought that when feminists are spending their time complaining about pictures of women on banknotes and having to pay 75p a year in VAT on their tampons, then life is probably pretty good.

Frankly, after an evening debating the role of feminism in today’s Britain, I couldn’t decide whether to laugh or cry (but that's female hormones for you).

Either way, I have a funny feeling that my nine year old daughter will choose to live her life the way she wants to live it, whether the Patriarchy or the Sisterhood likes it or not'.

Edited March 10, 2017 by feral chile

[feral chile]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

If there's nothing sexual in that, i presume you think the same when you go to the shops with your tits out?

She was only showing her underboobs.

As long as I wear tunics I should be Ok

[eFestivals]

26 minutes ago, feral chile said:

She was only showing her underboobs.

yep, but at a level that's fairly-standardly regarded as 'less than the cultural norm' (without going as far as 'over-exposed').

It's deliberately suggestive, something that you and her have embraced about it.

But that does also mean the suggestiveness also gives it other baggage, whether that other baggage is wanted by her and you or not.

[feral chile]

not easy this is it? These leather clad female rockers gave me a lot of strength back in the day, and it was all an illusion

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/the-lost-girls/

[feral chile]

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/career/what-happened-when-a-man-and-woman-swapped-names-at-work/ar-AAo7dQd?li=AA2FOLs&ocid=spartanntp

interesting take on gender differences in the workplace (working with customers) with women not being taken seriously.

it's not all one way though - when training for one contact centre job I had, my male manager was listening into a call I was dealing with, and the customer was being lovely to me. when I passed him over to the manager, his attitude changed completely - he became really abusive.

apparently it's something that's known to happen - similar to female bouncers.

[feral chile]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tracey-ullman-gives-men-a-taste-of-the-worlds-ugliest-double-standard_us_58c60992e4b054a0ea6b6b53?

Men putting themselves up for criminal attacks.

If wealthy men object to a culture whereby they're at risk of getting mugged, they shouldn't put themselves up for class envy.

 

Edited March 13, 2017 by feral chile

[lost]

19 minutes ago, feral chile said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tracey-ullman-gives-men-a-taste-of-the-worlds-ugliest-double-standard_us_58c60992e4b054a0ea6b6b53?

Men putting themselves up for criminal attacks.

If wealthy men object to a culture whereby they're at risk of getting mugged, they shouldn't put themselves up for class envy.

 

Thing is I'd actually agree with that statement.

If someone was walking around some of the council estates here at 2am dressed like liberace, waving £50 notes around and singing "we're in the money" and ended up getting mugged. I wouldn't call it victim shaming to point out they are a complete idiot.

Edited March 13, 2017 by lost

[feral chile]

3 hours ago, lost said:

Thing is I'd actually agree with that statement.

If someone was walking around some of the council estates here at 2am dressed like liberace, waving £50 notes around and singing "we're in the money" and ended up getting mugged. I wouldn't call it victim shaming to point out they are a complete idiot.

What if they were big on law and order and had been caught on camera in a flash suit?

Is it acceptable to suggest that wealthy people are inciting crime by being seen with expensive things?

Can you be against theft and still like to buy nice things?

Is that hypocritical?

Is it hypocritical for women to want to look good but not want sexual abuse or to be judged solely on appearance?