Faux-feminism

Is it me or is a lot of this going around lately? You know the kind I mean, like Page 3 recently(not exclusively);

Women should be told what is and is not acceptable to do with their bodies; because feminism
The female form is offensive, damaging to children and must be censored, unlike the male form; because feminism
The one industry where women reliably out earn and outrank men must be stopped; because feminism
The real issue facing women in this country, the one we should force down the media's throats, protest in parliament(that was just embarrassing), protest in public, throw our time and resources at is not FGM, sex trafficking, forced marriage, slavery, rape, domestic violence, honour killing, wage inequality or oppression. No, no, no, boobs... boobs are the real problem.

That's not feminism that's (well intentioned)misogyny in a skirt.

I expect this crap from crochety, old, puritanical men, not from self identified feminists. Most galling of all, during all of this, nobody in the media or their own movement bothered to call them on it, bothered to apply any critical thought and because of that it's working.

Don't want young women being ashamed of their bodies? Maybe, just maybe the answer isn't to tell them that; in this land that prides itself on the sacrifices it's made for freedom of expression, speech and the individual. That even in this land of freedom and tolerance, women's bodies are so damaging, so offensive and so abhorrent they need to be censored for our protection and our children's protection, topless men are fine though.

Also can we stop pretending young men don't face the same body image crap, it's actually one of the most gender equalised things in the land, both sexes are subject to the exacting demands of our modern culture's vapid vanity. I'm not saying that's a good thing about our culture, only that's it's achieved the holy grail of feminism, equality.

I'll take bra burning misandry over this BS any day.

[/rant]

I think you might be missing the point underneath the sensationalist reporting, it's not that the female form is judged to be offensive, it's the crass marketing of the female form that's deemed to cause the offense. Women are objectified far more than men are, and targeting the most common areas of this are is an important part of ensuring a more equal society.

If you want to get angry about something related to this, get angry about the misandrognist attitudes that men can't control their urges, or that we automatically fall prey to the whims of what a pretty woman says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucio

I think you might be missing the point underneath the sensationalist reporting, it's not that the female form is judged to be offensive, it's the crass marketing of the female form that's deemed to cause the offense. Women are objectified far more than men are, and targeting the most common areas of this are is an important part of ensuring a more equal society.

If you want to get angry about something related to this, get angry about the misandrognist attitudes that men can't control their urges, or that we automatically fall prey to the whims of what a pretty woman says.

---

In the totality of existence then yes women are objectified far more than men, but in 'crass marketing', one day yes, nowadays not really. Men appear topless at a far higher incidence than women in the media, surely I'm not the only one who's noticed that. It's just adding a bit of nuance around the old stereotype pecs are fine, but tits are damaging(to who exactly, is the only part of the argument that ever changes) or is all that marketing with chiselled adoni, different somehow? I really don't see the difference between Jordan getting her top off on Page 3 and Ryan Gosling getting his off on page 5.

It also relies on the argument that images of the human form are an inappropriate way to advertise to humans and the argument that being crass, a wholly subjective opinion, should be subject to censorship, rather than personal choice.

The best way to a more equal society is to attack actual inequalities within it. Not throwing a sheet over some boobs and shouting look I covered her up she's gonna happier, healthier and more equal now.

Agreed on the misandry point.

I think its largely as part of the nurturing within old-text-thumping religious zealots, as you mentioned part of the old guard. Those people will say that individuals like me are part of the dysfunctional, desensitised culture that is endemic (though I challenge you to go and look back the last 100-200 years print media where the young generation was not considered some bastardised, broken youth).

For example, if I saw a naked lady in the papers or other media, I would be taken aback yes, but only because I am surprised that they would allow that given the torrent of complaints which would inevitably follow. If the lady chose to do so, I couldn't care less. It puts me in mind of a joke by an American comedian when the right media was losing their monkey's over a music video which had "scantily clad" women in it, and said "if you are worried that your children are going to be corrupted by this, I must warn you of a more dangerous place; the beach". :P

I think it is more reflective of the religious that others can see things like this and let it pass, but they can't walk past a magazine stand without seeing 'sex' written all over it.

Lucio has a point where the expectation from men is that, if we look at naked women, we are definately going to rape someone and if we play violent video games, we are definately going to harm someone. This kind of reductive arguement I feel stems from religion, where human hands are dirty from the day they are born and man cannot consider morality for themselves.

A lot of this stuff is really down to exploitation and power, but feminists rarely talk about it in those terms as, frankly, it isn't very flattering to themselves. The sex / beauty / porn / glamour / prostitution industries have pretty bad reps for 'exploiting' women. Enforcing prudishness basically gives women a bump up in power vs men in the supply of sex, but basically requires unionisation of women in their behaviour. This ensures that none get an advantage by selling their looks or sex.

To see this in fluffier language see the Guardian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

A lot of this stuff is really down to exploitation and power, but feminists rarely talk about it in those terms as, frankly, it isn't very flattering to themselves. The sex / beauty / porn / glamour / prostitution industries have pretty bad reps for 'exploiting' women. Enforcing prudishness basically gives women a bump up in power vs men in the supply of sex, but basically requires unionisation of women in their behaviour. This ensures that none get an advantage by selling their looks or sex.

To see this in fluffier language see the Guardian

---

Can I get the 5 min of my life back. What a bunch of utter horse dung that lady is spouting.

Because men aren't able to dominate women any more? Yes, we have 0 domestic abuse and rape now, it never happens. How about some statistical evidence to back up her crank assertions?

She claims that using ladies by paying them is somehow a continuation of mans power over the women. Maybe in the same way a human has power over a ToffeeCrisp bar. Is that honestly how she views these girls, sold with no choice in it themselves. She ignores the issues of human trafficking and such, she fails to actually ask why their might be a demand (I watched one guy I used to work with turn madly to such girls because his wife cut him off sexually during/after their 2nd child).

The same way this twitter 'rape' threats and now bomb threats are apparently anti-women. No, they are little socially retarded ****s, bullying anyone, why make it a gender issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

A lot of this stuff is really down to exploitation and power, but feminists rarely talk about it in those terms as, frankly, it isn't very flattering to themselves. The sex / beauty / porn / glamour / prostitution industries have pretty bad reps for 'exploiting' women. Enforcing prudishness basically gives women a bump up in power vs men in the supply of sex, but basically requires unionisation of women in their behaviour. This ensures that none get an advantage by selling their looks or sex.

To see this in fluffier language see the Guardian

---

Industries and careers where women face widespread abuse, harassment, exploitation; All of them. That's why feminism is a thing and didn't just end with the suffragettes. Enforcing prudishness is enforcing the subjugation of women. Following that idea to it's logical conclusion would make us the Taliban. One of the reasons sex worker face so much abuse is precisely because of prudishness. If they weren't very much considered 2nd class citizens, women's bodies and what they chose to do with them weren't constantly demonised. The world would be much safer for them.

The biggest reason sex workers are vulnerable is because as a society we make them vulnerable rather than face old taboos.

Some thoughts from a former sex worker; http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/20...wer-of-choice/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/20...t-sex-slavery/
and finally the stories from 100+ former and current sex workers; http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/20...-your-stories/ Safer for work than it sounds but still very heavy going at points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

Can I get the 5 min of my life back. What a bunch of utter horse dung that lady is spouting.
...
The same way this twitter 'rape' threats and now bomb threats are apparently anti-women. No, they are little socially retarded ****s, bullying anyone, why make it a gender issue.

---

Lol, yup. It's exactly what I was talking about; "Women should be told what is and is not acceptable to do with their bodies; because feminism", in a funny hat. Of course crimes against women(and everyone else) should be ruthlessly prosecuted, but she conflates that with women's personal choices without even acknowledging a line has been crossed.

Agreed on the twitter thing, it's becoming the very definition of feeding the trolls.

Feminism is not about telling women what they can and can't do it's about giving them the freedom and protection to do anything they want do. That a woman's place and path is hers to decide and hers alone. I can't believe how utterly that basic concept seems to have evacuated the British psyche.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuckskull

Feminism is not about telling women what they can and can't do it's about giving them the freedom and protection to do anything they want do. That a woman's place and path is hers to decide and hers alone.

---

All okay in theory but there are a load of gotchas. I may respect a woman's choice of lifestyle, but they collectively seem to be going out of their way to restrict freedoms of both men and other women.

A bit like religion, feminism looks like a lot of infighting about feminism is. There is a seething mess of very confused body issues for a start. The current push for shops to cover up 'lads mags' in shops as it degrades women? Really? Or just some professional ladies making money by posing for pics? The incessant slamming of 'the media' for glamourising/sexualising women? Encouraging skinny models and so on. Maybe - but in every town I see endless hairdressers / weight-watchers clubs /nail-filing places / beauty parlours / fashion and so on, and women can't seem to get enough. And I sincerely doubt the lives / status / safety of sex workers is a concern of the majority of wives and girlfriends.

When feminists start encouraging girls/women to do what they want / be the best they can, and spend a little less time demonizing everyone else, I'll give them more of my time.

That was my point;

faux (foʊ)

adj.
artificial or imitation; fake: faux pearls.