babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » desexualization

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: desexualization
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 24 September 2005 10:52 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In the The oversexing of girls - a feminist failure? thread Sara Mayo said:
quote:
Part of mainstream feminism was not just about embracing our sexuality, it was also about de-sexualizing women's bodies.

I'm a little flumuxed. What does she mean by "desexualized"?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 24 September 2005 10:53 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
bump
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
ShyViolet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6611

posted 24 September 2005 11:16 PM      Profile for ShyViolet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
i would guess that she meant keeping our bodies from being seen as sexual objects by the media/society.
From: ~Love is like pi: natural, irrational, and very important~ | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
MasterDebator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8643

posted 25 September 2005 03:14 AM      Profile for MasterDebator        Edit/Delete Post
I would agree with that interpretation, that women should not be seen as pinups or objects.

I have been ridiculed several times for objecting to things like skimpy bikinis, thong type bikinis, and fetishized fashions. I have been lectured by several male babblers on how their wives/girlfriends have vociferously reassured them that they wear high heels and thong underwear by choice, ... because they're soooo comfortable. When I have objected that this doesn't sound 100% credible, I have been asked in testy terms if I am calling their wives/girlfriends/mistresses liars. It's all pretty fake.

Certainly popular culture and fashion industries do try hard, and succeed to a large degree, in forming the tastes of women as well as men, and the sexualizing of the female body in dress an grooming is an obvious part of the consumerist culture in a media dominated world. Individual choice, empowerment, and "agency", a favourite buzz word for the post modern junk theorist and fake philosopher, are just transparent window dressing, but they do succeed I am sure in honestly fooling some people. Yup, ... I'll bet some babblers have honestly been taken in by these threadbare story lines.


From: Goose Country Road, Prince George, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Raos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5702

posted 25 September 2005 03:57 AM      Profile for Raos     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Trust me, thongs can be comfortable. I think the desexualization refers to women not being used or regarded as sex objects against their will, as opposed to you forcing everybody to disregard any women's body as a thing of beauty which can be enjoyed, even if they want it to be enjoyed, and derive enjoyment of it themselves.
From: Sweet home Alaberta | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 September 2005 09:43 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder whether "desexualizing" is the term we really want.

I can tell you what older feminists were reacting against in the first place. The image that springs to my mind instantly when I think back to, say, fifties TV (my time of pop socialization) is of car commercials. I doubt there was ever a car sold anywhere in North America in the fifties/early sixties without a glamorous woman's having been draped over its hood on TV. That was the touchstone abuse, but anyone can come up with dozens of others.

In those days, men's bodies were almost always completely covered up, desexualized in public and certainly not commercialized, most often draped in grey flannel. Marlon Brando's T-shirts and James Dean's jeans were considered shocking, and remained signs of daring and rebellion until well into the sixties, whereas women's bodies in any state of dress or undress were everywhere, objectified and commercialized.

I remember realizing at some point that even I, and most girls I knew, had been subliminally trained to be more turned on by looking at a woman's body than at a man's -- I really think that was true. And yet it wasn't really beauty or eroticism that we were appreciating -- it was something more like ... allure? The allure of a whole way of life (rich?)?

Now, that balance has unquestionably shifted. But I'm not sure that even now it is possible for most North Americans to claim that our responses to the public display of bodies are innocent or uncomplicated by commerce.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fast_twitch_neurons
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10443

posted 25 September 2005 11:15 AM      Profile for fast_twitch_neurons     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A good modern example would be beach volleyball dress regulations. It definitely boosts the popularity of the woman's sports... but wouldn't requiring the men to be in tight bike shorts boost the popularity of men's volleyball? Why does the excuse only apply to half the athletes?
From: Montreal | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 25 September 2005 11:19 AM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fast_twitch_neurons:
A good modern example would be beach volleyball dress regulations. It definitely boosts the popularity of the woman's sports... but wouldn't requiring the men to be in tight bike shorts boost the popularity of men's volleyball? Why does the excuse only apply to half the athletes?

I'd call that an excellent example. Exactly the kind of thing older feminists used to point to and say 'See?' It's incredible to me that this crap continues.


From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
MasterDebator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8643

posted 25 September 2005 01:17 PM      Profile for MasterDebator        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Raos:
Trust me, thongs can be comfortable. I think the desexualization refers to women not being used or regarded as sex objects against their will, as opposed to you forcing everybody to disregard any women's body as a thing of beauty which can be enjoyed, even if they want it to be enjoyed, and derive enjoyment of it themselves.


Tell me, Raos, do you wear thongs? Do you find them comfortable? And if you're changing at the gymn or pool, do you feel comfortable knowing that other men will see you in this type of silly underwear that is really meant for women only?

A woman or a man is a thing of beauty, no question. Notice the subtle difference between my wording and your? I'll give you a hint. I said "a woman or a man", ... and you said "any women's body". The operative word is body, the object of desire, the natural creation that can be commodified and commercialized with extraordinarily profitable results.


From: Goose Country Road, Prince George, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
steffie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3826

posted 25 September 2005 01:48 PM      Profile for steffie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Obviously, one's choice of underwear is a personal choice. Why can't we all just agree on that?

Skdadl raises a great point about what I would venture to term the commodification of women's bodies. As if they were simply garnish.

De-sexualization, to me, would mean something like gender neutrality or something. Which might be a good place to start when talking about women reclaiming our sexuality.


From: What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow / Out of this stony rubbish? | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Tiger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10186

posted 25 September 2005 01:48 PM      Profile for West Coast Tiger     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MasterDebator:
The operative word is body, the object of desire, the natural creation that can be commodified and commercialized with extraordinarily profitable results.

Wow... talk about summing it up in a nutshell. Don't think I've ever heard it said better.


From: I never was and never will be a Conservative | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
MasterDebator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8643

posted 25 September 2005 02:34 PM      Profile for MasterDebator        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by steffie:
Obviously, one's choice of underwear is a personal choice. Why can't we all just agree on that?

Skdadl raises a great point about what I would venture to term the commodification of women's bodies. As if they were simply garnish.

De-sexualization, to me, would mean something like gender neutrality or something. Which might be a good place to start when talking about women reclaiming our sexuality.



Steffie, if you don't see a direct link between the fashions, including underwear, and cosmetics, and swim wear, and footwear, etc. that are promoted to women and the commodification of the female body, I really can't think of anything more to say that might make that linkage clear.

Thongs and high heels are not physically comfortable. High heels are damaging to posture and are unsafe to walk in. For anyone, anyone at all to claim they wear these items for comfort is simply not a credible statement. That the person is choosing them is obvious, tautological in fact. That they are doing so for their stated reasons, and for no other, is naive to the point of gullibility.

These women are choosing that which is fashionable for women, then denying that they are wearing something physically uncomfortable for them but visually stimulating to the male gaze because, as feminists, they don't want to be seen as promoting the commodification of women. After all, they are not promoting it, ... just meekly going along with it in order to cover their bets.


From: Goose Country Road, Prince George, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 September 2005 02:49 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
MD, I'm writing with a good deal of sympathy for your position, but don't you think you're being a little anhedonic here? And maybe also a little hard on other people's decisions about what is fun?

I gave up trying to break my ankles a long time ago, and I have never tried to punish my bum, but I would still admit to enjoying shoes and clothes that give me sensual pleasure, that maybe I sometimes think would arouse the pleased gaze of others. (Actually, to be rigorously honest with you, I probably don't do that much these days, but that's because I live in an emergency. I wouldn't expect anyone else to follow the kind of haggard example I'm setting right now.)

Finding our way to a genuine, free expression of sensuality is obviously not easy for any of us, but the seeking, however clumsy, is a healthy human thing, I think. When I see people who seem to be taking some genuine glee in dressing the way they have, I always get a bit of a kick out of their happiness -- even if I wouldn't be caught dead in that stuff m'self.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
chubbybear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10025

posted 25 September 2005 02:59 PM      Profile for chubbybear        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
don't you think you're being a little anhedonic here? And maybe also a little hard on other people's decisions about what is fun?
I went out with Ann Hedonic once.

From: nowhere | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 25 September 2005 03:00 PM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know I should let this go BUT... I am one of the ones on the other thread who said I wear a thong sometimes. MasterDebator, I am a real, live woman -- not a man talking about his wife/girlfriend as you dismissed us above. As explained before I do not wear it to be sexy and I am afraid you will just have to trust me on that.

This is important because your attitude, in my opinion, is a way of sexualizing women. You are impugning a motive to my choice of underwear, and refusing to accept my explanations otherwise. This is patronizing, in a frankly oppressive way. You are reducing my choice of underwear to a sexual decision, giving importance to the sexual response it evokes in others above the practical use it holds for me.

I agree with what you are saying about the commodification of women's bodies and the fashion industry. But to me, part of being self-directed and an informed consumer is making my own decisions about clothing. That includes underwear.

An intelligent, engaged person is able to make her own decisions about her underwear. Maybe she wants to look sexy, or is wearing the garment for another reason but is okay with looking sexy, or just plain feels like having fun with a thong, or wears it under her clothes so no one can see it. All of these are fine choices for an adult woman to make, don't you think? Or do some of those choices meet with your disapproval?

The basic point: your disregard for my explanations, your assumption that us thong-wearers are either lying or are dumb sheep to the fashion industry, is troublesome to me because it shows a complete disregard for my autonomy and independence as a woman and a consumer. I find this just as oppressive as someone telling me that I have to wear something sexy.

[ 25 September 2005: Message edited by: vmichel ]


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 September 2005 03:01 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Only once, chubbybear?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Raos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5702

posted 25 September 2005 03:20 PM      Profile for Raos     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MasterDebator:
Tell me, Raos, do you wear thongs? Do you find them comfortable? And if you're changing at the gymn or pool, do you feel comfortable knowing that other men will see you in this type of silly underwear that is really meant for women only?

A woman or a man is a thing of beauty, no question. Notice the subtle difference between my wording and your? I'll give you a hint. I said "a woman or a man", ... and you said "any women's body". The operative word is body, the object of desire, the natural creation that can be commodified and commercialized with extraordinarily profitable results.


Why yes, yes I do wear thongs. I do find them comfortable. When I'm changing in a locker room, I have no problem whatsoever about my comfort with other men seeing me wear slinky underwear that was designed for a man.

Want to know the reasonf or the difference in wording between our two comments? Because the topic was the desexualization of women, not men! I absolutely believe both men and women are beautiful. As skdadl has mentioned, though, men's bodies have not been subjected to same degree of commercialization as women's bodies have. What I'm saying, is that I don't think the answer is for you or anybody to force compliance from everybody in the opposite direction, and moralize and subjugate anybody with what they're allowed to wear. If a woman wants to wear bulky turtlenecks, boxers under her sweatpants, and gym shoes, good for her. If she wants to wear thongs and highheels, who are you or anybody else to tell her that it isn't her choice?

[ 25 September 2005: Message edited by: Raos ]


From: Sweet home Alaberta | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 September 2005 03:24 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Small question, Raos: what are "seatpants"?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 25 September 2005 03:28 PM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post
What individual women wear is up to them, with the proviso that whatever the hell they wear or don't wear, judgements will be made about their character, upbringing, taste and so on, as judgements will be made about men's clothing, albeit a bit differently.

What I find stunning in this area is the number of ways 'we', women, society, feminists, whoever, allow ourselves to be SYSTEMATICALLY treated differently from men.

Which is why the beach volleyball 'uniform' issue is so galling. Not that I give a damn about beach volleyball, but if it is a sport, and if it is to be taken seriously, then mega-obviously to me at least, the women and men should have the same rules about appropriate dress.

Individuals will do what they want. It's in the systems and organized areas of society that we have to put a stop to different rules for different genitalia.


From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Raos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5702

posted 25 September 2005 03:31 PM      Profile for Raos     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Small question, Raos: what are "seatpants"?

Oops! That was supposed to say sweatpants. I'll edit that now. Thanks, Skdadl!


From: Sweet home Alaberta | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 25 September 2005 03:45 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Edited because it was confusing.

[ 25 September 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 25 September 2005 03:55 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MasterDebator:
Thongs and high heels are not physically comfortable. High heels are damaging to posture and are unsafe to walk in. For anyone, anyone at all to claim they wear these items for comfort is simply not a credible statement. That the person is choosing them is obvious, tautological in fact. That they are doing so for their stated reasons, and for no other, is naive to the point of gullibility.

utter rubbish! i'll tell you why i decided to try a thong in the first place; just to give it a try, i really felt ill with the idea of having something stuck between my bum all the time. it's because i found a panty line drew quite a bit of attention to my behind, and i wanted to avoid that gaze. so, i tried one on, and guess what? i was amazed at just how comfortable it was. so, i bought a whole lot more. so, you still think i'm naive and gullible? who gives a fuck?

and obviously, thongs look quite sexy, and let's face it, MD, there are very few people who don't care one bit about looking good. even me, who walks around with mismatched socks and no make-up, likes to look sexy every once in a while. and if i have to wear a bikini to do that, then i will. the fact that a womyn wears a bikini is NOT an invitation for men to sexually harass them.

people should have the choice to wear whatever they want or don't want, whether it's for comfort or to look good, and they shouldn't have to be judged for that. a guy can walk around in public with boxer shorts on and with his shirt off, and he is never labelled as 'slutty'. (what's the masculine version of slutty?). a girl can wear a short skirt and a tank top, and guess what, the world thinks she must be crying out for a guy to jump in bed with her.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
steffie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3826

posted 25 September 2005 03:56 PM      Profile for steffie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I applaud everything vmichel said.

Edited to add: AND ephemeral! Nicely put!

[ 25 September 2005: Message edited by: steffie ]


From: What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow / Out of this stony rubbish? | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 September 2005 04:13 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Raos:

Oops! That was supposed to say sweatpants. I'll edit that now. Thanks, Skdadl!


Raos, I honestly didn't know, although I see now that I should have guessed that. I wasn't being sniffy -- I thought that "seatpants" was some new kind of lingo I'd missed.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 25 September 2005 04:29 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ephemeral:
a guy can walk around in public with boxer shorts on and with his shirt off, and he is never labelled as 'slutty'. (what's the masculine version of slutty?).

The word I've heard used for male 'sluttiness' is 'skeevy.' Though based on the description of attire above, 'trashy' comes to mind, as well.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 25 September 2005 04:30 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wear jeans most of the time and when I'm not wearing jeans I'm wearing those long-legged "gym" or "sports" pants the ever-growing grandson has outgrown. They're still "good", I think the damn things actually will outlive me, they're made of polywotzit, some have lining so they're warm in winter, some don't, they cut the wind incredibly and if your hose splutters and you get soaked you dry in no time. Tee shirts, I love tee shirts and have inherited some from burgeoning grandson but mostly have my own. White gym socks, the kind which come in packages, with the grayish feet. Doc Marten boots go with jeans or the gym pants but the cowdyke boots only go with jeans. Underwear is white cotton, almost always jockey or hanes womens size L. If we're invited out for supper, say, I'll wear my best jeans, best tee shirt and a long sleeved cotton shirt with some of my jewellry; believe me it is minimal and does not include rubies, diamonds or chunks of platinum!!

I'm covered. (which is probably a relief to most of the population). I've dressed like this for most of my life. I haven't worn a skirt in probably forty years. And that wasn't a "skirt" it was a kilt in Phantom Cameron (which we wore at night when we went out over the heather to slit Sassenach throats)

and if anybody doesn't like it they can kiss a particular clothed portion of my Scots anatomy.

A threat almost surely guaranteed to stifle any objections.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Raos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5702

posted 25 September 2005 04:32 PM      Profile for Raos     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, no, I'm glad you found it. I dislike having mistakes just sitting there for everyone to see, and I never thought you were being sniffly in the slightest.
From: Sweet home Alaberta | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 25 September 2005 04:46 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is fine, anne, but I like to wear pretty things - I'm usually in skirts or dresses unless I'm doing the kind of work (tinkering, gardening, heavy housework) or exercise that calls for trousers or exercise gear. Like Belva that way but more boho, less ... professional? officy? (I don't want to say corporate because that would imply that Belva's work is defending corporations, and not clients, and my work is professonal as well, in a sense, but even when conference interpreting I don't have to look exactly like a "suit"...

One of my pettest of peeves about a certain identity-feminism is the stuff about crones . It makes me utterly furious that I'm supposed to become unsexual, wise and mentorish because I'm not 16 anymore (fury!!!!)

Skirts and dresses can be VERY comfortable if they aren't too tightly tailored. And yes, I do like a bit of a décolleté...

I lost my favourite bracelet (a heavy silver Berber creation) in Amsterdam. I am very sad about that.

Anne, I understand your aversion to the male gaze, but don't you like to look sexy for a sweetheart? In your case that would be the female gaze. I suspect it is to a large extent for straight women as well - a lot of us like to look nice for our galpals.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 25 September 2005 04:53 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
I suspect it is to a large extent for straight women as well - a lot of us like to look nice for our galpals.

so true, lagatta. thank you for bringing that up. i'm straight, but i so love it when a girlfriend compliments me on what i'm wearing. and i certainly like to see what my female friends are wearing, and will compliment them often.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 25 September 2005 05:05 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The thing that confuses me about the quote that I began this thread with is that the author talks about embracing your sexuality while desexualizing at the same time. Can we ever truly ever remove the lust factor? Her reasoning seems a little contradictory.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
steffie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3826

posted 25 September 2005 06:22 PM      Profile for steffie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The "lust" factor - if I understand correctly - is the lust that others feel when they set eyes upon a woman in such-and-such attire.

As a woman who struggles with her feminism occasionally, I fiercely defend my right to look as I please without worrying about the lust it may or may not cause in on onlooker.

I refuse to be constrained by fear of agressive sexual overtures. That doesn't mean that the fear doesn't exist, only that I struggle to overcome it.


From: What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow / Out of this stony rubbish? | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 25 September 2005 07:56 PM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Which is why the beach volleyball 'uniform' issue is so galling. Not that I give a damn about beach volleyball, but if it is a sport, and if it is to be taken seriously, then mega-obviously to me at least, the women and men should have the same rules about appropriate dress.

I don't think we should stop there. Men and women should have the same rules about appropriate dress in most areas of life. The two exceptions that I would make are formal evening wear, and traditional ethnic dress. I don't see why in other areas of dress, it can't be unisex.

[edited to add]
Most of the time, having different clothing for men and women simply serves to turn women into second class citizens. Clothing that is more feminine tneds to restrict movement. I am all for the KISS principle in clothing, and much of the more feminine clothing runs counter to this principle.

[ 25 September 2005: Message edited by: Left Turn ]


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 25 September 2005 09:34 PM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fern hill:
Not that I give a damn about beach volleyball, but if it is a sport, and if it is to be taken seriously, then mega-obviously to me at least, the women and men should have the same rules about appropriate dress.


Just for the sake of accuracy, female beach volleyball players are not required to wear skimpy two-piece bathing suits. The rules allow them to wear one-piece suits. Most choose to wear the two-piece suits. Men are also required to wear beach wear. Of course men's beach-wear isn't as reveling as women's.......

But, technically, the rules are the same.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 26 September 2005 12:02 AM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've always wondered about women's tennis uniforms too. What's with the mini-skirts? Does that help women tennis players to play better? Watching the US Open this season with Kim Clijsters playing Mary Pierce, I noticed that the cameras did seem to focus alot on Clijsters' tightly-skirted rear end eahc time she received. Was this gratuitous? We didn't see Mary Pierce's butt quite so much. Is the tennis skirt mandated? Why the hell for?
From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 26 September 2005 12:11 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
I've always wondered about women's tennis uniforms too. What's with the mini-skirts? Does that help women tennis players to play better? Watching the US Open this season with Kim Clijsters playing Mary Pierce, I noticed that the cameras did seem to focus alot on Clijsters' tightly-skirted rear end eahc time she received. Was this gratuitous? We didn't see Mary Pierce's butt quite so much. Is the tennis skirt mandated? Why the hell for?

Skirts aren't mandated, and don't help women play better.

quote:
A few tennis players do currently wear shorts in tournaments. Tennis's designated sexpot, Anna Kournikova, wore shorts in last year's U.S. Open. (Click here and go to Day 4's slide show for pictures.) But most don't. This is likely because looking cute on the court (and giving a little panty flash now and then) is a way for female athletes to rally fan support, and more importantly, increase the value of their endorsement contracts. (Kournikova doesn't have to worry about increasing her stock as a sex symbol, which is why she can afford to wear shorts.) Would Venus Williams have scored a $40 million endorsement contract from Reebok—the highest ever for a female athlete—if she dressed in the baggy shorts of a WNBA or LPGA player? Unlikely. Her earning power depends mainly on winning matches, but looking stunning in a tight yellow dress helps.

From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 26 September 2005 12:25 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How Much do these players earn? Would it be possible for them to fight this sexism by going on strike?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 26 September 2005 12:51 AM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
How Much do these players earn? Would it be possible for them to fight this sexism by going on strike?

Millions.

Tennis is one of the better sports for gender equality. Three (US, Australian and the French) of the four majors pay equal money to men and women. Wimbledon is the hold out (I would suspect that Wimbledon still requires skirts too).


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 26 September 2005 01:35 AM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, it could be worse. They could be wearing thongs

Maybe these athletes take pride in their bodies and like to show them off? When I have been training hard for sports I have felt very proud of my body. Not because it was sexy, but because I had worked hard to get it strong enough to do something exceptional.

In that frame of mind I would happily show off my bum with short skirts. In my mind it wouldn't be a sexual thing, it would be a glory in my own skin kind of thing. Hard work on the glutes kind of desexualized my bum, if that makes any sense. I reveled in the utlity of my body rather than its appearance and sexuality.

But I can see how it's a whole different ballgame when you're pro, when you're on TV, when you're looking for endorsements. In that position, I bet few decisions can be made on the basis of something as whimsical as what you feel like wearing that day. I would be interested to know what pro athletes think of their sexy outfits, whether they like it or consider it a necessary evil.

quote:
Originally posted by jas:
I've always wondered about women's tennis uniforms too. What's with the mini-skirts? Does that help women tennis players to play better? Watching the US Open this season with Kim Clijsters playing Mary Pierce, I noticed that the cameras did seem to focus alot on Clijsters' tightly-skirted rear end eahc time she received. Was this gratuitous? We didn't see Mary Pierce's butt quite so much. Is the tennis skirt mandated? Why the hell for?

[ 26 September 2005: Message edited by: vmichel ]


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 26 September 2005 01:39 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I would suspect that Wimbledon still requires skirts too

No, that's specifically mentioned in the article I linked to.

quote:
It's not that they have to wear skirts in tournaments. The Wimbledon Web site's FAQ section answers the question "What is the dress code for The Championships?" with this redundant answer: "Players' dress is predominantly white ('almost entirely white')." No mention of skirts. Similarly, the Women's Tennis Association, which organizes the premier women's international tour, forbids sweat shirts, sweat pants, T-shirts, jeans, and cut-offs during matches, but doesn't mention skirts.

From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 26 September 2005 01:47 AM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course, then there's swimming. I had a friend-- male, as it happened-- in HS who considered being on the swim team but, he was just a bit chunky and there was no way in heck he was going to wear a speedo in semi-public.
From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 26 September 2005 02:13 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
These women are choosing that which is fashionable for women, then denying that they are wearing something physically uncomfortable for them but visually stimulating to the male gaze because, as feminists, they don't want to be seen as promoting the commodification of women. After all, they are not promoting it, ... just meekly going along with it in order to cover their bets.

You know, there are times when I WANT to attract the male gaze. Believe it or not. And still I'm a feminist. Hard to understand, but we humans are such paradoxical creatures.

There are times when I wear makeup, heels, and even sexy underwear. Not all the time, but on occasion. I've no bets to hedge, Sunshine, and there is NOTHING meek about me.

Women are sexual beings. Certain clothing can express that aspect of ourselves, and it can feel really good to do that. Empowering, even. I wouldn't want to be required to wear certain things, but at the same time, making it wrong to go out of your way look sexually appealing or enticing (whether to the male or female gaze, it's all the same to me, really) merely ends up heightening the illicit nature of female sexuality.

From my own, singular perspective: I'm a good-looking woman. I could wear baggy sack-cloth and still be a good-looking woman. I might as well enjoy it while I still have the form and the frame of mind to do so.

Man, I hate prudes -- and I don't care if they're feminist or traditionalist. Women in thongs aren't in denial -- those who "tsk" and "should" all over us are.

(I read a lot about "male gaze" when we took feminist film theory in film school, studied it quite extensively, in fact -- about 90% of it is utter rot.)


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 September 2005 08:32 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Similarly, the Women's Tennis Association, which organizes the premier women's international tour, forbids sweat shirts, sweat pants, T-shirts, jeans, and cut-offs during matches, but doesn't mention skirts.

Why t-shirts? Men wear t-shirts on the court, don't they? What are women supposed to wear with their shorts if they exercise the option not to wear a tennis skirt or dress on the court?

Also, thanks to all the women who stood up to the anti-sex "feminist" ho hunt. I just feel incoherent and furious when I read bullshit from women who think they can dictate to feminists what they should wear and what they should do in bed. If I wanted to live in the nineteeth century, I'd invent a frigging time machine.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Melsky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4748

posted 26 September 2005 08:55 AM      Profile for Melsky   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wear what I want because I like it. I see people who are prudes because it's "feminist" about the same as I see fundamentalist Christians or Muslims telling women how and why to cover their naughty bits. It's very silly.
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 26 September 2005 09:14 AM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by vmichel:
Well, it could be worse. They could be wearing thongs

quote:
posted by tape_342:
Of course, then there's swimming. I had a friend-- male, as it happened-- in HS who considered being on the swim team but, he was just a bit chunky and there was no way in heck he was going to wear a speedo in semi-public.

i was a swimmer till about 4 years ago. the year before i decided to stop competing is when my team was being introduced to swimwear that covered almost all of our bodies - both men and womyn. similar to a diver's outfit, we had our arms covered to the wrists and legs covered to the ankles. wearing revealing outfits in the water is not done to reveal body parts so much as because what a swimmer wears in water can affect drag, and hence speed. i'll never completely understand why we had to switch to outfits that covered our entire bodies. i preferred my bathing suit that revealed my legs and arms, and i thought we were doing fine that. tape, i'm sure your friend would have had the choice to wear one of these full-body outfits; however, he might have looked out of place for being the only one who chose that. still, in the crotch area, it's about as tight as a speedo. but wearing boxer-type swim shorts in water as a swimmer would have really hindered him. most swimmer now competing in commonwealth games, olympics, etc. wear full-length body suits.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 September 2005 10:04 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Also, thanks to all the women who stood up to the anti-sex "feminist" ho hunt.

Agreed. I thought I'd stay out of it this time, but I must admit it's a relief not to have to have the "Why are you not intelligent enough to buy your own underwear?" talk with my wife. That or the dreaded "Why are you lying to me and yourself about your underwear choices?" talk.

Both pretty much non-starters, as they appear to have been here.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 26 September 2005 10:33 AM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[QB]

Why t-shirts? Men wear t-shirts on the court, don't they?


No, they don't. The men--and women--wear collared shirts.

Again, there are tonnes of sports out there that deserve to be taken to task for gender policy. For the most part, tennis isn't one of them.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Publius
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8829

posted 26 September 2005 10:39 AM      Profile for Publius     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MasterDebator:

Thongs and high heels are not physically comfortable. High heels are damaging to posture and are unsafe to walk in. For anyone, anyone at all to claim they wear these items for comfort is simply not a credible statement.


OK. It's the same for men. I'd rather be wearing sneakers and a pair of jeans, but I'm wearing uncomfortable dress shoes and a suit and tie.


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 26 September 2005 12:22 PM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well Publius, try adding 2 or 3 inches to the heels of your dress shoes, raising the hem of your suit jacket so that we can see the contours of your bum through the fabric, make sure your shirt and jacket outline your slim waist and your ample chest/breast, and what else? Earrings? Bra? Nylons? Whatever you like. And did you shave your legs this morning?

Thanks for that tennis wear link, 'Lance. A little bit sickening.


From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 26 September 2005 12:27 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
[QB]Well Publius, try adding 2 or 3 inches to the heels of your dress shoes, raising the hem of your suit jacket so that we can see the contours of your bum through the fabric, make sure your shirt and jacket outline your slim waist and your ample chest/breast, and what else? Earrings? Bra? Nylons? Whatever you like. And did you shave your legs this morning?[QB]

Here's the funny thing -- I've worked in an office, and at no time was I chastized for wearing flats, pants or a longer, looser jacket. These are personal choices, not mandated ones. I also didn't have to wear earrings, although I tended to do so because I like them. Then again, some of my male co-workers had an earring, too. I also didn't ever wear nylons. So this is really just so much sophistry.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 September 2005 12:38 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I also didn't have to wear earrings, although I tended to do so because I like them.

Are you sure that you really liked them? Really, really sure?

This thread throws every decision you (think you) make into question!

Is having a hole in your ear comfortable, or are you just a slave to the patriarchy?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 26 September 2005 12:43 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Light earrings are comfortable. If they're not, I take them out. And the patriarchy didn't pierce my ears, my mother did. When I was two. I don't remember NOT having pierced ears.

Even if you have pierced ears, you don't HAVE to wear earrings. It's nice to have the choice.

Anyway, I don't brainwash that easily -- just ask my fundamentalist ex-husband.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 September 2005 12:51 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Anyway, I don't brainwash that easily -- just ask my fundamentalist ex-husband.

That's the problem (or, benefit!) of the "you're just brainwashed accusation. Any protests to the contrary are just proof of the brainwashing. In fact, it can even be proof that it's worse than originally assumed. "Look how brainwashed you are... you're so brainwashed that you're in all-out denial!"

Of course I'm just pointing this out. I certainly believe you, and the other adult women of babble, to be capable of knowing what you do or don't find comfortable, appealing, sexy, etc. I'm gobsmacked that that would be under challenge.

I'm pretty sure I couldn't come to the feminism forum and infantilize women the way MasterDebator and Thalia have, and get away with it. "Well ladies, it's so cute that you think you're making decisions, but let ol' Uncle Magoo set you straight on thongs...."


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 26 September 2005 01:00 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
That's the problem (or, benefit!) of the "you're just brainwashed accusation. Any protests to the contrary are just proof of the brainwashing. In fact, it can even be proof that it's worse than originally assumed. "Look how brainwashed you are... you're so brainwashed that you're in all-out denial!"

i'm so confused now.

quote:
posted by magoo:
I'm pretty sure I couldn't come to the feminism forum and infantilize women the way MasterDebator and Thalia have, and get away with it.

i don't know who thalia is. to me, it's obvious from everybodys responses that masterdebator hasn't "gotten away with" her judgemental statements. i don't think anybody, guy or grrl, should come to this forum and trash feminists, and question feminist perspectives on everything from thongs to number of women we've launched into outer space.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 26 September 2005 01:04 PM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Zoot:

Then again, some of my male co-workers had an earring, too. I also didn't ever wear nylons. So this is really just so much sophistry.

Did some of your male co-workers wear two earrings? Did they wear high heels?

And how do you know they weren't wearing nylons?


From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 26 September 2005 01:05 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmmm In the army I wore nylons, but only when we were out in the bush on exercises
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 September 2005 01:09 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
i don't know who thalia is.

Same argument, different [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=000771]thread.[/quote]

quote:
it's obvious from everybodys responses that masterdebator hasn't "gotten away with" her judgemental statements.

Agreed, and I'm glad. But what I meant was that if I insisted that women at babble weren't intelligent enough to choose underwear, or know if those underwear were comfortable, I expect I'd be gone, and the same for any other guy who was that patronizing.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Thalia
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10279

posted 26 September 2005 01:12 PM      Profile for Thalia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How can feminists expect men to understand that we're criticizing society's patterns of behavior but not pointing a big, fat Finger O' Blame directly at each one of them if feminists themselves cannot tolerate other feminists criticizing society's patterns of behavior? I have called for fire and brimstone to destroy the corporate monster that is Walmart without holding everyone who has ever shopped there (including me) in contempt, and I will continue to speak out about the patterns of gendered behavior I see around me without trying to eject card-carrying women out of feminism. Pointing out the sharp rise in young women wearing thongs in the 1990's doesn't make me a prude any more than pointing out Brazilian waxed female genitals are not something millions of Western women independently and amazingly coincidentally decided to want without corporate media's influence.

It hurts to see women more willing to call other women the same "anti-sex prude" names men have always used to cut feminists down than women willing to examine the way their environments have constructed their own conceptions of desire, attraction, and sexual behavior.

Women especially need to be willing to look deep into ourselves and think hard on how we came to believe what we do about sexual desire. What evil men have done and continue to do to us has usually been done in private, in our bedrooms, inside our very bodies; the methods of constraint have been as intimate as our clothing (burkas, heels), our adornments (wedding rings, mangalsutra) and our underwear (chastity belts, corsets). Too many women fought too long for it to be understood "the personal is political" that I must speak up when feminists try to divorce their personal selves from their political being.

I could list some ways my life as it is currently lived doesn't 100% accord with my political beliefs, but instead I'll leave it at acknowledging the growth still ahead of me as a woman doing the best she can in a male-dominated world designed around women's hypersexualized, infantilized inferiority.


From: US | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 26 September 2005 01:18 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jas:

Did some of your male co-workers wear two earrings? Did they wear high heels?

And how do you know they weren't wearing nylons?


You never can tell with civil servants, eh?

No, the men didn't wear high heels. Neither did a majority of the women, though, nor were they required -- and that's my point. Women can choose not to wear high heels in an office setting. And I did have a male co-worker who wore two earrings. I don't think it was ever commented on. Less so than on occasions when I wore a suit and tie.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 26 September 2005 01:35 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Zoot:
And I did have a male co-worker who wore two earrings. I don't think it was ever commented on. Less so than on occasions when I wore a suit and tie.

Among the young guys in my office, two earrings (or multiple earrings on both sides) seems to be much more common than one.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 26 September 2005 01:35 PM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thalia said:
quote:
the patterns of gendered behavior...

the way [women's] environments have constructed their own conceptions of desire, attraction, and sexual behavior.


Yes, this is what I was getting at.

And Zoot, you mentioned civil servants. I would guess and know also partly from personal experience that the public sector usually is going to be more equality-minded, usually has harassment policies and an ethic (on paper anyway) of fair treatment, and is expected to be more publicly accountable for any breaches of professional conduct in the workplace. Private enterprises don't necessarily have those things in place beyond what's in the labour codes, and they might more easily formally or informally require an unequal dress code based on your sex.


From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 26 September 2005 01:38 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've also worked in the private sector, jas, and was still allowed to wear pants and flats. Gimme a break, here. Unless you're working at Hooters or some such, this is just a silly argument.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 26 September 2005 01:48 PM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Zoot, I think your point is completely valid. It's great for women to take control of their sexuality and how they want to express it through dress.

I think you are a little too quick to dismiss the other point of view though: where did/do these beauty ideals come from? And from what array of fashion 'choices' are women today making theirs?


From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 26 September 2005 01:57 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that the position of people choosing to criticise the fashion industry's marketing of thongs and other twists on old themes is being misrepresented by people on this thread.
No one is saying that people who choose to wear thongs (well almost everyone) will find them uncomfortable - they may very well turn out to be very comfortable but that is not why everyone started wearing them. Strippers wore thongs for decades , no one else wore them because they weren't marketed for the mainstream. Now that they are marketed for the mainstream women in droves are wearing thongs- fine, but don't tell us that women haven't been influenced by the marketing and advertising industry - we are ALL influenced that way.
Zoot admitted that sometimes she might dress to be sexy and I don't believe anyone said that was a bad thing - I dress that way myself when I feel like it. The sexualisation of pre-pubescent girls was what prompted the whole conversation in the first place. Grown up women can decide what to don on their own and that's great but the question was about choices that 12 and 13 year olds are making and are they truly independant choices - I would argue they are about as far from independant as one can get.
And Magoo , you said you were going to give it a rest , why don't you? You brought up your wife on another thread and then screamed at temper tantrum volume when Thalia disagreed with your assesment of your wife's statements on the subject. If your going to quote people (your wife) on babble and then get all huffy when someone disagrees with you because - 'oh no someone has insulted my wife- well- just get over yourself.
If your wife wants to make statements on babble she can register and join in like everyone else, and defend her point of view like everyone else. For you to reference your wife's pov and then deny others the right to question it ,is not fair debate .

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 26 September 2005 01:58 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
I think you are a little too quick to dismiss the other point of view though: where did/do these beauty ideals come from? And from what array of fashion 'choices' are women today making theirs?

what is the significance of asking such a question? how much does it really matter? let's say some of our fashion choices were indeed dreamed up by men with very shallow interests. should we now renounce them? my best friend (who converted to thongs when she was 40) and i used to have a saying, "once you go thong, you can't go back". it's true. a regular underwear feels uncomfortable to me now cause it just seems like there is far too much unnecessary material.

a big part of feminism is about being free to make a choice, innit? some of us will choose to wear underwire, some won't. some of us will choose to wear heels and thongs in the bedroom, some won't. some of us will choose to be stay-at-home moms with 10 babies, some of us won't. some of us will attempt to rise to the top of the corporate world, some of us won't. some of us will choose to have an abortion, some won't. some of us want to look like plain janes, some of us want to show off our bodies, regardless of what shape we're in. the point is, it's all about choice, and this thread reads to me like, we shouldn't have that choice.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 September 2005 02:06 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think Magoo should give it a rest at all.

And yes, someone WAS saying that people who choose to wear thongs will find them uncomfortable. It was even more explicitly stated in that other thread - you know, the one where half the posts were bemoaning that too many young women look like sluts these days. And that's the anti-sex prudery we're talking about.

I have no problem with criticizing the fashion industry. That's not what has been happening on the feminism forum lately. What's been happening is that women who dress in thongs and other revealing clothing have been labelled as whores and sluts (or women who LOOK like whores and sluts) who are slaves to fashion and who can't think for themselves, and it's fucking offensive.

Even in this thread, MD managed to slip in a nice little shiv when she said, "I have been asked in testy terms if I am calling their wives/girlfriends/mistresses liars." So, just out of curiosity, who, in any thread recently, brought up their "mistresses"? Or is this just one more subtle little way of branding women who choose different underwear as sexually immoral sluts?

Fuck it. I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this thread or any other where supposed "feminists" are dictating morality dress codes or sexual practice codes, and here I went and posted in it and now I'm all pissed off, just like I knew I would be.

I'm starting to really hate the feminism forum, and I keep promising myself that I'm going to avoid it, or at least the threads about sex anyhow, like the plague. I should really stick to that promise.

[ 26 September 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 26 September 2005 02:07 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
Zoot, I think your point is completely valid. It's great for women to take control of their sexuality and how they want to express it through dress.

I think you are a little too quick to dismiss the other point of view though: where did/do these beauty ideals come from? And from what array of fashion 'choices' are women today making theirs?


I don't think so. What I find a little too simplistic is the "these ideals are put on us by men". Thalia specifically notes "What evil men have done and continue to do to us..." If only it were that simple.

I also have difficulty with the idea that all things about patriarchy are bad. Nothing is all bad. In many ways, women have a wider variety of choice than men do in how we choose to present ourselves. Yes, some of that has evolved out of chauvanist tradition, but at the same time, some of it has subverted the same tradition. I have, actually, given a lot of thought to this -- I'm a media artist, and I've put a lot of time into thinking/studying/reflecting on image and how it communicates, contexts and connotations and so on. What it comes down to is this: When somebody starts making rules that I must adhere to in presenting my physical self, they are colonizing me. I do not wish to be colonized. Period. Full stop. Whether it be by feminists or traditionalists is irrelevant.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 September 2005 02:09 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gee, y'know, I am gonna have to hand in my intellectual badge if we aren't going to be open to discussions about social construction. Like, I'm not sure I can think without that framework.

My difference with some previous posts is that I think the social constructing is coming from many different directions at once. It isn't enough, eg, simply to analyse the sources of our "likes" -- the judgements that get levelled on them are constructions too.

What is "infantilized" or objectified or commodified in a given culture is itself a construction, and we can change that -- not fast, maybe, but we can certainly question or defy those concepts.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 September 2005 02:12 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm all for discussions about social construction. What I'm not for is branding women as "sluts" or doing the "whore look" when they wear revealing clothing.

Again, if I want to live in a time and place where women get told they look like sluts when they show skin, I'll invent a frigging time machine and go live in the 19th century.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 26 September 2005 02:23 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
My difference with some previous posts is that I think the social constructing is coming from many different directions at once. It isn't enough, eg, simply to analyse the sources of our "likes" -- the judgements that get levelled on them are constructions too.

I agree with you, skdadl. I don't mind talking about social constructs at all. However, I find presenting women who wear high heels from time to time as victims of patriarchal social constructs a limited, black and white view. Black and white looks nice on paper, but it seldom works well in reality.

So what if high heels are the result of a patriarchal construction? Does that, of necessity, mean they are all bad?


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 26 September 2005 02:24 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I'm starting to really hate the feminism forum, and I keep promising myself that I'm going to avoid it, or at least the threads about sex anyhow, like the plague. I should really stick to that promise.

no, you shouldn't. before you know it, this forum might become exactly what we're fighting. and you should always don your thongs and high heels and underwire while you're writing to threads in this forum. it's a must.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 26 September 2005 02:34 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, the problem with high heels is the damage they cause to the feet and back. I don't mean wearing them to the odd party or event. Many older women have very damaged feet from wearing them constantly in the postwar period (my mum is one of them).

But LeftTurn, women and men aren't necessarily the same shape!

quote:
don't think we should stop there. Men and women should have the same rules about appropriate dress in most areas of life. The two exceptions that I would make are formal evening wear, and traditional ethnic dress. I don't see why in other areas of dress, it can't be unisex.

[edited to add]
Most of the time, having different clothing for men and women simply serves to turn women into second class citizens. Clothing that is more feminine tneds to restrict movement. I am all for the KISS principle in clothing, and much of the more feminine clothing runs counter to this principle.


I look utterly dreadful in men's boxy t-shirts and trousers. Much better in stuff cut for curves.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 September 2005 02:35 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If your wife wants to make statements on babble she can register and join in like everyone else, and defend her point of view like everyone else. For you to reference your wife's pov and then deny others the right to question it ,is not fair debate .

I didn't stop anyone from "questioning" Mrs. Magoo's statement, even when that "questioning" amounted to accusing her of either lying to me, or being unable to decide for herself what's comfortable and what isn't.

But once you insist, and insist again, then insist again that you know my wife better than I do, expect some resistance to that.

This isn't about "deconstructing" social construction. It's about deciding what's comfortable and what isn't (which should be self-evidently ridiculous, as a premise) and then telling anyone who doesn't agree with your subjective evaluation a liar. Or brainwashed.

How many babblers, smart strong women, have to also say they find thongs comfortable before the prigs will give it a rest? The idea that two babblers who find thongs uncomfortable could possibly try to force that on everyone else still boggles my mind. It's like me telling you that chocolate ice cream isn't as good as vanilla, and if you disagree, telling you you're either in denial, or you've been brainwashed by the media. Silly? Absurd? Offensive? Yes, yes and yes.

Deconstruct all you'd like. But for goddess' sake, don't tell intelligent women that you know better. How is that not obvious, faith??

quote:
No one is saying that people who choose to wear thongs (well almost everyone) will find them uncomfortable -

Actually, I'm sorry, but that's exactly what MasterDebator said.

quote:
I have been lectured by several male babblers on how their wives/girlfriends have vociferously reassured them that they wear high heels and thong underwear by choice, ... because they're soooo comfortable. When I have objected that this doesn't sound 100% credible, I have been asked in testy terms if I am calling their wives/girlfriends/mistresses liars.

And for the record, when you tell someone that what they're saying isn't true, then yes, you ARE calling them a liar.

quote:
Strippers wore thongs for decades , no one else wore them because they weren't marketed for the mainstream. Now that they are marketed for the mainstream women in droves are wearing thongs- fine, but don't tell us that women haven't been influenced by the marketing and advertising industry - we are ALL influenced that way.

So you're saying that women couldn't buy thongs until stores sold thongs?

Well, DUH.

That does not mean that women who said "Oh, this is new" bought one to court the male gaze, nor does it mean that women who continue to wear them secretly find them uncomfortable (but won't let on) or else tolerate the discomfort because they've been brainwashed.

There has to be room for the possibility that some women bought one, found it comfortable (I know, I know) and kept wearing them. Would you agree?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 26 September 2005 02:45 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I mostly don't care what adult women wear or don't wear but I am concerned when sexualizing fashion is aimed at kids.

I wear jeans and tees because they're comfortable. Not because they're any sort of political statement; if I want to make a political statement I can wear one of my IWW tee shirts. I was asked if I didn't sometimes want to "look sexy for a sweetheart". I've had the same monogamous sweetie for more than twenty years, you'll have to wait for her to decide to write in to get her take on my garb. It isn't the "male gaze" I object to, it's the pressure on all women to conform to someone else's dictate as to how we should look, think, feel, be, --or not-- that picks me. I DO find the bare midriff, low rise jeans, thong showing look on very overweight people to be a complete and total turn-off. And sometimes I look at someone and wonder if they are wearing the clothes or if the clothes are wearing them, but mostly I don't really care how adults choose to dress.

I would suggest that there might be a possibility that how we dress, or how we use makeup has something to do with what was or was not "acceptable" in our formative years. My mom was so old-fashioned I now cringe thinking of the standards she imposed. When my friends were experimenting with make-up (and managing, often, to look quite bizarre and silly) it was absolutely forbidden in our home. The consequence for me was by the time I had graduated and left home and would have been free to use it, I didn't know how and my fumbling attempts made me feel self conscious and sort of like I was putting on a clown mask. And when I did tough it out and get one of my friends to help me, the stuff made my face itch so uncomfortably I washed most of it off. For a while I used some "eye gunk" and the faintest trace of lipstick but even that began to seem more fuss than it was worth.

I don't really remember being turned on by someone only because of the way she dressed or how she looked. My Sweetie is absolutely the most undeniably gorgeous person on earth but that was not the primary attraction. She is also the smartest person I have ever met, and one of the most politically aware union women I know.

As for "crone"......oh, it's just to insufferably "cute", somehow. Just another tree house, with admittance restricted to only the few acceptable and chosen.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 26 September 2005 02:55 PM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Zoot:

From my own, singular perspective: I'm a good-looking woman. I could wear baggy sack-cloth and still be a good-looking woman. I might as well enjoy it while I still have the form and the frame of mind to do so.

This statement kind of jumped out at me too: is there some critical point in your life coming up where you're not going to be "good-looking" anymore? Where you're not going to be able to attract sexual attention? If so, why?


From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 26 September 2005 03:24 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
This statement kind of jumped out at me too: is there some critical point in your life coming up where you're not going to be "good-looking" anymore? Where you're not going to be able to attract sexual attention? If so, why?

obsessed with looks, are you, jas?

[ 26 September 2005: Message edited by: ephemeral ]


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Thalia
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10279

posted 26 September 2005 03:24 PM      Profile for Thalia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I haven't seen anyone get called a slut or a whore by others posting here (where, exactly, is that supposed to have happened?), but I am seeing a reflexive defensiveness I've seen many times before.

Michelle said, "What I'm not for is branding women as "sluts" or doing the "whore look" when they wear revealing clothing", but no one here has called you a slut. However, you're tapping into the truth of the larger world where you acknowledge thongs, high heels and bald pussies are well known as the social markings of prostitutes, because the truth is they are what constitute the "whore look", a term I'm glad you introduced to the discussion.

I once had a woman freak out on my because I said bald shaved pussies look like little girl genitals and that squicks me. She indignantly whined at me, "My shaved pussy looks nothing like a little girl's and if you think it does that you're fucked up!" Having once been a hairless little girl, I know what little girl genitals look like, so her saying her shaved pussy looked "nothing like" a little girls made about as much sense as a person with feathered wings objecting to being called birdlike. Fact is, little girl genitals are hairless and an adult woman who shaves all her hair off can thus logically be said to be making her genital area look like a little girls.

Michelle, you can growl at me and other women because we question the pornification of female sexuality revealing itself in the fashion choices women in the United States year 2005 are making, but don't put on the underwear popularized by ducks and shoes famously associated with ducks then complain that you don't intend to look like a duck and anyone who implies you're wearing duck-induced fashion is oppressing your freedom of choice. It doesn't mean we're calling you a duck, it means we can't figure our why you're going to such lengths to imitate ducks while simultaneously denying that the cultural promotion of ducks has anything to do with the feathers and webbed feet.

Zoot, many feminists have written shelves of books about how patriarchy affects women's presentations of themselves. I suggest reading any of them and will shamelessly promote Sheila Jeffrey's newest. Note that I didn't use the popular new verb "pimp Sheila Jeffrey's new book" or call myself a "shameless bookwhore/bookslur" as is common parlance in our pornography and prostitution-saturated culture.

Snippets from a review in the UK Guardian:

Beauty And Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices In The West, by Sheila Jeffreys

Breast implants for 18-year-olds? Hymen reconstructions? Rape-themed fashion collections? Don't tell Sheila Jeffreys these are signs of female liberation. The radical feminist talks to Julie Bindel.

"Shoes," Sheila Jeffreys says, "are almost becoming torture instruments. During a woman's daily make-up ritual, on average she will expose herself to more than 200 synthetic chemicals before she has morning coffee. Regular lipstick wearers will ingest up to four and a half kilos during their lifetime." We are talking about Jeffreys' latest book, Beauty And Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices In The West, and she is in full flow about the horrors of what she calls "the brutality of beauty".

Jeffreys, a revolutionary lesbian feminist, is pursuing her 30-odd-year mission to shift women out of their collective complacency. Beauty And Misogyny is her sixth book. Like the others, its central theme is an exploration of the use of sexuality by men to dominate women. Much of it is spent arguing that beauty practices - from make-up to breast implants - should be redefined as harmful cultural practices, rather than being seen as a liberating choice.

The history of the beauty industry is threaded through the book. Cosmetics have been used to alter appearance for thousands of years, sometimes exclusively by prostitutes and others deemed disreputable, other times as a political gesture. The suffragettes fought for the right to look and dress as they saw fit, some wearing red lipstick as a symbol of feminine defiance. After the second world war, a shortage of men meant that women tried hard to look as attractive as possible in the hope of getting a husband, and make-up became, Jeffreys argues, "a requirement that women could not escape, rather than a sign of liberation".

The idea that radical feminism was a phenomenon of the 1970s exasperates her: "The media always look for the 'new sexy feminism' that will enable them to put young women in sexy clothing on their pages who rail against man-haters and hairy-legged dykes, and say how much they love porn. This began in the 1980s, when the 'femme cult' got under way." She's referring to the likes of American writer Katie Roiphe, author of The Morning After: Sex, Fear And Feminism On Campus (1993), who argued that feminism has made victims of women and created a culture in which men are given "mixed messages" regarding sex, resulting in unfair accusations of "date rape".

It is precisely because she considers that the personal is political that she presents hope of fundamental change. She believes that, ultimately, true mutuality and equality between the sexes are possible, but they are dependent on every woman resisting the status quo and critically examining her life choices. Men, she argues, would be forced to change if women did.

In the chapter on cosmetic surgery, she looks at the growing pressure on women to conform to models of femininity derived directly from the sex industry, such as having trimmed labia and Brazilian waxed pubic hair. "Men's desire for bigger and bigger breasts, and clothes commonly associated with prostitution, has resulted from the mass consumption of pornography."

Jeffreys argues that many male fashion designers are "projecting their misogyny on to the bodies of women", and gives examples of collections featuring images based on sexual violence - Alexander McQueen's show for his masters degree was entitled Jack The Ripper, and depicted bloodied images of Victorian prostitutes. A later show in 1995, Highland Rape, featured staggering, half-naked, brutalised models. And John Galliano, in his 2003 collection for Christian Dior, Hard Core Romance, used the imagery of sadomasochism, putting his models in seven-inch heels and rubber suits "so tight they had to use copious amounts of talcum powder to fit into them".

"One notable difference in fashion shows in the past 10 years is that the models are required to show more and more of their bodies," says Jeffreys. "Some are posed to look as though they are about to engage in fellatio. Pole dancing is now a staple of some fashion events."

She likens cosmetic surgery such as labiaplasty and breast implants to female genital mutilation. She concedes the distinction that genital mutilation is carried out on children who have no choice in the matter, "but the liberal view of choice, which is that women can now 'choose' to engage in harmful, oppressive actions, does not make the practice of slicing up women's genitals to please men any less vile". As Jeffreys points out, hymen repair surgery, which is available through the public health service in the Netherlands, is sought not only by women whose cultures require them to be virgins when they marry, but also by western women whose partners wish to penetrate a tighter vagina.

Jeffreys unearthed some frightening facts - for example, a Home Office paper claiming that BSE can be transmitted through beauty products because many contain bits of dead animal. Breast implants can contain brain, fat, placenta and spleen. A link between hair dye and bladder cancer was discovered in a US study of 3,000 women who use such products regularly, and formaldehyde, found in nail polish, shampoos and hair-growth preparations, has been outlawed in Sweden and Japan, with the EU allowing its use only in small, regulated quantities.

There is much evidence that children are being targeted by the beauty industry. Kiss Products, a cosmetic retailer, has joined forces with Disney to promote lip gloss and nail polish kits through licensed animated characters. Proctor & Gamble is looking to market its Cover Girl cosmetic range to eight- to 10-year-old girls by making the use of make-up resemble game playing. "It is not only the cosmetic industry that is recruiting young customers," says Jeffreys. "It is becoming more common for young women from affluent families to be given breast implants for their 18th birthday."


From: US | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 26 September 2005 03:30 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Thalia, you are doing everyone a disservoce by combining the sexualization of young women/children and that of adults.

If its your intent to blur the lines to make your argument sound more logical and less patronizing that thats deceptive. If its not your intent then its unwise and you may wish to correct that


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 26 September 2005 03:32 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jas:

This statement kind of jumped out at me too: is there some critical point in your life coming up where you're not going to be "good-looking" anymore? Where you're not going to be able to attract sexual attention? If so, why?


I'm comfortable in the knowledge that I will always be able to attract sexual attention from the only quarter that really matters. From the blond guy's point of view, it doesn't matter what I wear, I'm still the sexiest thing on earth.

But let's face it -- there will come a point where the miniskirt (just as an example) is no longer becoming. I'm nearly 40 and I'm in very good shape. But I think that sometime between now and 80 there will come a point where it's just not going to work so well. Or my bunions will no longer tolerate a high heel. Or whatever. So I think I'll enjoy playing with these things while I can, and move on to other things when I'm past them. Aging gracefully can be sexy, too.

My point -- and I do have one -- is that we don't need to begrudge women their makeup and high heels (or thongs or whatever). They are doing no harm, and much is being made of something I consider fairly inconsequential.

That would be my opinion, so don't feel you need to give it any credence if it pains you.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 26 September 2005 03:44 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Zoot, many feminists have written shelves of books about how patriarchy affects women's presentations of themselves. I suggest reading any of them and will shamelessly promote Sheila Jeffrey's newest.

Yes, I know. I've read some. As I noted about 90% of what has been written about "male gaze", it's mostly utter rot.

The problem I have with Jeffrey et al is that their argument necessitates the casting of women in the role of victim of partriarchy. This robs women of their autonomy as much as any patriarchal counterpart's controlling hectoring.

I may not agree with cosmetic surgery or Brazilian waxing, but it's not up to me to tell other women what to do with their bodies. It's not up to Jeffrey or Pat Robertson. They may be opposite ends of the scale, but they are equally judgemental and controlling. They should all fuck off, IMO.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Thalia
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10279

posted 26 September 2005 03:46 PM      Profile for Thalia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You say that as if I'm the publisher of a wildly popular porn magazine called Barely Legal. I also didn't make the neon signs outside strip clubs announcing Girls! Girls! Girls!; I've never seen a "Women! Women! Women!" sign.

Also, I'm not the one who sent out billions of email spam advertising these lovelies that appeared in my Hotmail account:

tight little Lolitas
young & doing it for the 1st time
why get a pro, get a first timer
Tight hot teens
teenagers with little B cups
Watch These Sloppy Teen Girls Get It All Over
naughty schoolgirls
Check Out These Amateur Teen Sluts Begging
Hot Teen Lesbian Threesomes After Mom Leaves
Nasty..Asian Teens..bent Over

(Let me know if you want to see my collection of astonishingly violent penis enlargement ads featuring such doozies as "Take Your Massive Size Cock And Rip Her Apart ")

My advice to you is to stop shooting the messanger and take a serious look at the message being passed along to you. Sexism is not only about the hypersexualization of women, it is also about their infantilization. Language reveals this readily as in the famous case of it being acceptable to call adult women "girls" but not adult men "boys". A governor is an important man, but a governess takes care of children. Which sports team name commands more respect among 14-year old players, the Wildcats or the Wildkittens?

For the feminist women here I recommend this website. http://twistyfaster.typepad.com/i_blame_the_patriarchy/ Read and enjoy.

[ 26 September 2005: Message edited by: Thalia ]


From: US | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Thalia
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10279

posted 26 September 2005 03:54 PM      Profile for Thalia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Zoot, why are you posting in the feminism forum if you don't believe women are oppressed by men? Your theory that women hold back women as much as men just in different ways do is not part of any feminist philosophy I'm aware of, but the rest of what you're saying is straight up capitalism with its praise of unlimited personal consumption as the definitive marker of a persons "freedom". I'd rather have equal pay, equal respect and equal opportunities than the "freedom" to buy ten different types of sexy underwear.

[ 26 September 2005: Message edited by: Thalia ]


From: US | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 September 2005 04:52 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was just having a flashback to this thread:

quote:
To reiterate the words of the Prophet Muhammad, "women are crooked, do not try to straighten them because you will fail". This is illustrated by the behavior of Human females in the so called Liberal societies of the west. Women spend their lives figuring out ways to make themselves more attractive to men, wearing clothing that may be slutty but not very comfortable, wearing shoes that will cause them foot problems in the future, wearing make-up that causes skin problems, spending insane amounts of money on haircare and skincare products that are supposed to make them look like Cindy Crawford. Let me tell you the truth, no matter how much money you spend, you will not look like Cindy Crawford. An "unattractive" female would serve herself much better saving her money rather than spending it on trying to make herself more beautiful. There is nothing more beautiful than good health and a good mind. But, remember prostitution is the oldest profession of the female of our species, and I guess it's difficult for "pretty" women not to revert back to the oldest profession. I mean what easier way may there be for a female to make a living than to put her leg up, literally and figuratively. But trust me, females are responsible for males considering them sluts due to the image projected...

Good thing the babbler who wrote that wasn't a self-described feminist woman, or not only would we still be here arguing with him, but he might even be defended as someone who is simply adhering to a more conservative school of feminist thought, a la Dworkin or MacKinnon.

[Edited to put in the right URL. Thanks, skdadl.]

[ 26 September 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 September 2005 05:07 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, I just scrolled through that thread several times, and I can't find that quote.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 September 2005 05:12 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh damn, that's what happens when you have five threads open.

Here you go.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 September 2005 05:20 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Good thing the babbler who wrote that wasn't a self-described feminist woman, or not only would we still be here arguing with him, but he might even be defended as someone who is simply adhering to a more conservative school of feminist thought, a la Dworkin or MacKinnon.

And 3 hours after posting that, he was banned.

Also: good memory! Getting your Ginkgo Biloba or what?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 September 2005 05:24 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I sort of vaguely remembered that guy because he made a strong impression on me at the time, and I've thought about it a few times over the past week or so, but couldn't think of his name or where it was posted, or even the subject of the thread. However, I was searching through past feminism forum threads for something else entirely this afternoon and I stumbled upon it today entirely by accident.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Thalia
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10279

posted 26 September 2005 05:34 PM      Profile for Thalia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You lost me, Michelle.

This man you've quoted says women choose to dress like prostitutes because they want to and you think this is the opposite of your position that women choose to dress like prostitutes because they want to? My whole point is that men control female presentation more than women do because they have more power to determine what's acceptable for women to wear, and the ubersexualization of women (and children) in the past 10 years bears this out with the popularity of "hooker chic". That's the opposite of what this guy's saying, which is more akin to your libertarian view that leaves men and male domination completely out of the picture of what's ailing women who suffer for beauty.

You obviously have never read any Dworkin or MacKinnon, because though they are many things, the one thing they aren't in any way, shape or form is conservative. Don't these accomplished feminist women make for easy bludgeoning of other feminists, though? Did you invoke their names purely because you've read their work and personally disagreed with it or does your disdain for the woman who put the first sexual harassment laws on the books have a less direct path? If you're calling MacKinnon conservative it has to be the latter.

When you're ready to further your position with actual arguments and evidence instead of nonsensical insults about radical feminists being conservative, I'll be ready to continue this discussion with you.

[ 26 September 2005: Message edited by: Thalia ]


From: US | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 September 2005 05:45 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Trust me, Thalia, I was in no way trying to have a discussion with you, nor MasterDebator. If anything, I'm trying to sit on my hands whenever I see threads going in the direction of "you look like a pornographied slut if you wear sexy clothes that I don't like," unfortunately unsuccessfully up to this point.

I promise to try to do better in the future.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 26 September 2005 05:50 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
lol!
From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 26 September 2005 06:07 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just as an aside, I wonder how many of the posters that seem to be championing the marketing of female sexuality have male children? I would just be interested to know, as I am coming from the perspective of having 3 daughters that have all experienced the pressure to 'dress for the boys'.
I have to wonder if the parents of male children attending school in spandex that outlined their genitalia and or bum hugging pants with crop tops that allowed a 6 pack to show would react when girls lined up to taunt them as they came onto the school grounds or actually rated them on a score of 1 to 10 as to how they measured up against the media ideal. Then of course the chubby ones could be ridiculed and the girls could point out how ugly they all are. This is what I see teenage girls going through in a vain attempt to gain approval through the adoption of someone else's beauty standards .
I have absolutely not seen anywhere on this thread someone saying that women that wear clothes to be sexy are wrong or immoral or it shouldn't happen. The first thread about this had women actually denying that there was any consideration given to the 'sexiness' quotient of underwear they were worn purely for comfort- now we have people saying that ,ok so they're sexy, so what? I feel that the so what response is the honest one and good for you if you wear what you like. Whether individuals are making the right choice is
not what the debate is about IMO , it is about how much of the market and the choices we make are predetermined by salesmen, CEO's and board members of fashion corporations.
And Michelle I did not tell Magoo he should stay out of the discussion - he suggested that himself , I simply agreed with him.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 26 September 2005 06:09 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Umm your post was not 'simply agreeing with him'; it went further than that and was a mini-rant against him

quote:
And Magoo , you said you were going to give it a rest , why don't you? You brought up your wife on another thread and then screamed at temper tantrum volume when Thalia disagreed with your assesment of your wife's statements on the subject. If your going to quote people (your wife) on babble and then get all huffy when someone disagrees with you because - 'oh no someone has insulted my wife- well- just get over yourself.
If your wife wants to make statements on babble she can register and join in like everyone else, and defend her point of view like everyone else. For you to reference your wife's pov and then deny others the right to question it ,is not fair debate .

[ 26 September 2005: Message edited by: Bacchus ]


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Thalia
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10279

posted 26 September 2005 06:11 PM      Profile for Thalia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll ask again for you to show us all where anyone called you a slut. Who called you slut, Michelle, in which post?

You should really read your first MacKinnon or Dworkin book so that next time you try to invoke the malestream media's infamous Feminist Boogeywomen you can know what you're speaking about. I suggest "Life and Death" as a good Dworkin starter and "Only Words" as a short introduction to MacKinnon. I'm completely sincere when I say I'd love to discuss these groundbreaking feminist texts with you. Despising feminist authors you've never read harms your credibility, but at least you're not fool enough to try and bullshit having read books you haven't really read.


From: US | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 26 September 2005 06:20 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bacchus - I guess that is one of the disadvantages of the internet , you can't see me sitting here calmly reading the thread.
I use my real name on babble for a reason, and that reason is to prevent me from engaging in rants or insulting or cruel comments. That may have eluded me once in awhile but not this time , the response was appropriate.
Debating with people by proxie is difficult but not being allowed to disagree with people that aren't even here is ridiculous.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 September 2005 06:22 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thalia, I never said that anyone called ME a slut. I said that people were claiming that women who wear revealing clothes or thongs are dressing like sluts. And if you check that other thread where there was so much talk of women dressing like "whores" (or even one of your own posts in this thread where you describe revealing clothing as the "hooker look"), you'll see what I mean.

Secondly, I never claimed to have read Dworkin or MacKinnon, although I'm sure I was exposed to excerpts of their writings in women's studies survey courses I took in university so take your "fool" insult and shove it up your feminist ass.

Thirdly, the only reason I mentioned Dworkin or MacKinnon is because in the other thread, another poster (can't remember who now, perhaps skdadl?) mentioned that she thought MD was coming from the same feminist school of thought as Dworkin or MacKinnon and that this legitimized her point of view.

So shove it. Really. Just shove it hard. I have no desire to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion with you on any of these issues.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Thalia
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10279

posted 26 September 2005 07:03 PM      Profile for Thalia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I said that people were claiming that women who wear revealing clothes or thongs are dressing like sluts

Don't shoot the messenger. The whole world around you thinks this about women and has for centuries, so there's no need to pick a fight with me about the misogynist state of a world I didn't make.

I never claimed to have read Dworkin or MacKinnon

Then it's kinda foolish to say their politics are conservative, no?

the only reason I mentioned Dworkin or MacKinnon is because in the other thread, another poster...mentioned that she thought MD was coming from the same feminist school of thought as Dworkin or MacKinnon and that this legitimized her point of view.

Strange how it came out looking so much like that old canard* of men saying feminists are prudish manhaters indistinguishable from the anti-woman trolls they say they're working against. You keep insisting you come to your conclusions about feminism through personal agency and experience more than cultural hearsay, but you're about the millionth person to defame these two feminist authors as conservative antisex prudes without having given them a fair read.


*did y'all catch that oblique duck reference? Yay for Latin lessons!

[ 26 September 2005: Message edited by: Thalia ]


From: US | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 26 September 2005 07:59 PM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ephemeral:

obsessed with looks, are you, jas?

Eph, I don't understand...? I'm not the one who made the original comment - ? Honestly, I'm not arguing against choice, here. I'm just saying that there is another valid point of view. I'm not sure yet which I agree with more, but I certainly think the latter one is getting trashed a little too easily here. I think it's an awesome discussion though!


From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 26 September 2005 08:20 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Thalia:
Zoot, why are you posting in the feminism forum if you don't believe women are oppressed by men? Your theory that women hold back women as much as men just in different ways do is not part of any feminist philosophy I'm aware of...

Hey, it's not my fault you don't get out much...

Actually, my theory is that a patriarchal system where men and women are not equals is oppressive. While it's true that a certain type of man is more in charge of more things doesn't negate the fact that the system oppresses males and females, nor does it negate that women are part of that system and often do what they can to keep the status quo.

I'm also saying that the brand of feminism that dictates which physical image is acceptable and which isn't is every bit as oppressive as the traditional partriarchal system.

quote:
Originally posted by Thalia:
...but the rest of what you're saying is straight up capitalism with its praise of unlimited personal consumption as the definitive marker of a persons "freedom". I'd rather have equal pay, equal respect and equal opportunities than the "freedom" to buy ten different types of sexy underwear.

Whoa. Reading this, it sounds like you think I'm Maggie Thatcher. Way to read too much into things.

I'd like you to point out where I've advocated unlimited personal consumption, as I don't recall doing that. I mean, get a grip -- I occasionally wear high heels = rampant capitalist? Don't hurt yourself with those leaps of logic...

I also don't see where equal pay for equal work and the freedom to choose my own undies are mutually exclusive. Oh, and btw, how do you suppose a woman can afford to buy ten sets of sexy undies without equal pay? Just curious...

I support full equality for men or women. I don't need to defend that to you or anyone else, and I'm not going to.

And I have actually read Dworkin and MacKinnon, and I concur with Michelle that they are conservative in their take on sexual matters. Small-c conservative, but conservative all the same.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Thalia
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10279

posted 26 September 2005 09:52 PM      Profile for Thalia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And I have actually read Dworkin and MacKinnon, and I concur with Michelle that they are conservative in their take on sexual matters. Small-c conservative, but conservative all the same.

I'll start another thread where we can discuss this further. I've never met anyone familiar with their writings who could make this argument convincingly and I look forward to reading your take on it. They're such unbeleivably progressive, radical people I'm hard-pressed to think of one issue they might agree with the average rightwing conservative on. You calling them conservative means you see not only one issue they have in common with conservatives but several, and I'm flummoxed as to what those issues could possibly be.

While it's true that a certain type of man is more in charge of more things doesn't negate the fact that the system oppresses males and females, nor does it negate that women are part of that system and often do what they can to keep the status quo.

It's not just "certain men", it's all men who benefit from male dominance, and the oppression of males under patriarchy is peanuts compared to the oppression of women.

As for blaming women almost equally for the continued social dominance of men; if a manager offers a job to an immigrant for $1 an hour and the immigrant chooses to take it because it's $1 an hour or starve, can you recognize that even though both broke labor laws one is more responsible for the sitation than the other? The manager had the power to set the terms of negotiation and the immigrant lacked power to negotiate or even to refuse (starvation is not a choice), making the person in the wrong the manager with more power. I wouldn't blame the immigrant for his small part in breaking labor laws because he lacked the ability to alter the situation the manager presented.

Your way of looking at gender erases the extreme power differences between most men and women and in doing so creates a false "politically correct" version of gender relations where the common knowledge that men and women aren't treated equally gets ignored in favor of the PC fashion of the moment that women are now mostly treated as equals and feminism is moot. Which goes back to me wondering why you bother hanging in the feminism forum if you don't think women as a class are seriously oppressed by men as a class.

I'd like you to point out where I've advocated unlimited personal consumption

Okay.

There are times when I wear makeup, heels, and even sexy underwear...Women are sexual beings. Certain clothing can express that aspect of ourselves, and it can feel really good to do that. Empowering, even.

The only path to feminine sexual empowerment you talk about is empowerment through buying things. Makeup, heels, sexy underwear, sexy clothing...these are all things that promise to boost sex appeal if you just hand over the money. The concept that there are ways to boost sex appeal that don't have to do with purchasing highly gender-specific items that, like women, are primarily intended to be looked at, governs such that no other option is even presented. What advice would you give to a man wanting to boost his sexual appeal to women? Buy a shirt, shoes, underwear? That's what I'm talking about.

I also don't see where equal pay for equal work and the freedom to choose my own undies are mutually exclusive

Well, women have the one and not the other, so what does that say?


From: US | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 26 September 2005 10:46 PM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by faith:
Just as an aside, I wonder how many of the posters that seem to be championing the marketing of female sexuality have male children?

...

Whether individuals are making the right choice is
not what the debate is about IMO , it is about how much of the market and the choices we make are predetermined by salesmen, CEO's and board members of fashion corporations.


Substitute "influenced" for "predetermined," and I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I cannot agree that my choice in dress is predetermined by anyone other than myself. That is the argument that I find patronizing.

I completely agree that marketing, sexism and profits collide in my unconscious and influence my choice of underwear (for example). But as an adult woman I am able to consider this and evaluate it and decide hey, you know what, I'm wearing a thong today. Because I want to look sexy, because it's confortable, because I have a cute one -- the motive isn't the point. The point is that I am capable of making that choice myself. It has not been made for me by CEO's or anyone else. Influenced, yes, but made? No. Absolutely not.

I would also like to quibble with one point: I am not "championing the marketing of female sexuality" and I haven't read anyone else doind that either. Instead, I am championing women who negotiate "the marketing of female sexuality" and find fashion that they feel good about.

[ 26 September 2005: Message edited by: vmichel ]


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 26 September 2005 11:18 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'll start another thread where we can discuss this further. I've never met anyone familiar with their writings who could make this argument convincingly and I look forward to reading your take on it.

What makes you think that I'm interested in discussing Dworkin or MacKinnon further with you?

quote:
You calling them conservative means you see not only one issue they have in common with conservatives but several, and I'm flummoxed as to what those issues could possibly be.

I specifically said "in their take on sexual matters". That doesn't imply several, it implies ONE. The voices in your head are apparently creating a little static. Please adjust the tinfoil in your hat accordingly.

quote:
It's not just "certain men", it's all men who benefit from male dominance, and the oppression of males under patriarchy is peanuts compared to the oppression of women.

Okay, so you get to be the bigger victim. Goody for you. Here's a hero cookie.

That's a very b&w view, and I don't agree. But I can see that attempting to change your mind is going to be a fruitless waste of energy, so I'm not going to bother.

quote:
As for blaming women almost equally for the continued social dominance of men; if a manager offers a job to an immigrant for $1 an hour and the immigrant chooses to take it because it's $1 an hour or starve, can you recognize that even though both broke labor laws one is more responsible for the sitation than the other? The manager had the power to set the terms of negotiation and the immigrant lacked power to negotiate or even to refuse (starvation is not a choice), making the person in the wrong the manager with more power. I wouldn't blame the immigrant for his small part in breaking labor laws because he lacked the ability to alter the situation the manager presented.

Hold on a sec. Women are all immigrants? Not in my experience.

You are conflating issues of race and socioeconomic class into issues of gender -- while there is some relationship (think of a scale of grey instead of strictly b&w), they are not the same thing. There are plenty of upper-class, moneyed white women who are not in the least oppressed in our society or culture.

You seem really stuck on the conception of all women as victim and all men as oppressor. As a middle-class white woman with a university education, I think it's safe to say that I'm somewhat less oppressed than a male immigrant of colour with a lower level of education.

quote:
Your way of looking at gender erases the extreme power differences between most men and women and in doing so creates a false "politically correct" version of gender relations where the common knowledge that men and women aren't treated equally gets ignored in favor of the PC fashion of the moment that women are now mostly treated as equals and feminism is moot. Which goes back to me wondering why you bother hanging in the feminism forum if you don't think women as a class are seriously oppressed by men as a class.

I'm sure that when audra feels that I don't belong in the feminism forum, she'll let me know. Until then, what you wonder doesn't really interest me.

I've never said that feminism is moot (there go those pesky voices again, eh?) I think we still have room to grow in terms of equality between the sexes. Most women have equal pay for equal work, but there's still the glass ceiling, and there are still gender stereotypes that need to be struck down -- for the good of both women AND men. My thoughts have very little to do with fashion and a lot to do with my experience of the world -- I don't doubt you could say the same for anyone else on this forum.

quote:
The only path to feminine sexual empowerment you talk about is empowerment through buying things. Makeup, heels, sexy underwear, sexy clothing...these are all things that promise to boost sex appeal if you just hand over the money. The concept that there are ways to boost sex appeal that don't have to do with purchasing highly gender-specific items that, like women, are primarily intended to be looked at, governs such that no other option is even presented.

The reason that I was talking about makeup and high heels, etc, is that THAT'S THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD. I have not shared the totality of my philosophy on female empowerment because THAT'S OFF TOPIC. I could, for example, extoll the wonderful, empowering feeling of getting my roundhouse kick just about right this evening, but that wouldn't really fit in with the rest of the discussion.

I also don't think splurging on the occasional tube of lipstick is the moral equivalent of "unlimited consumerism", to borrow your phrase.

quote:
Well, women have the one and not the other, so what does that say?

I don't entirely believe that's true. Certainly not across the board. But nothing I'm going to say will convince you otherwise, so go be smug if it pleases you. I'm sure a histrionic personality such as yourself takes a great deal of pleasure in getting to be "right".

[ 26 September 2005: Message edited by: Zoot ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 27 September 2005 01:28 AM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Edited: never mind.

[ 27 September 2005: Message edited by: jas ]


From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 27 September 2005 02:06 AM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't entirely believe that's true. Certainly not across the board. But nothing I'm going to say will convince you otherwise, so go be smug if it pleases you. I'm sure a histrionic personality such as yourself takes a great deal of pleasure in getting to be "right".

-wow talk about getting your knickers in a knot!

[ 27 September 2005: Message edited by: faith ]


From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
MasterDebator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8643

posted 27 September 2005 11:58 AM      Profile for MasterDebator        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by vmichel:
MasterDebator, I am a real, live woman -- not a man talking about his wife/girlfriend as you dismissed us above. As explained before I do not wear it to be sexy and I am afraid you will just have to trust me on that.

...This is patronizing, in a frankly oppressive way. You are reducing my choice of underwear to a sexual decision, giving importance to the sexual response it evokes in others above the practical use it holds for me.

I agree with what you are saying about the commodification of women's bodies and the fashion industry.
...

The basic point: your disregard for my explanations, your assumption that us thong-wearers are either lying or are dumb sheep to the fashion industry, ...


You're very good at taking both sides of an issue.

In any other context if someone suggested that the public had been brainwashed by advertisers, no one would take offence. Why is this situation different?

As for you "thong-wearers", I didn't realize you were such a potent lobby group.


From: Goose Country Road, Prince George, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 September 2005 12:06 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In any other context if someone suggested that the public had been brainwashed by advertisers, no one would take offence. Why is this situation different?

Because nobody's been so rigid as to suggest that everyone who buys Corn Flakes does so because of marketing. No matter how one feels about Corn Flakes, you have to leave room for the possibility that somebody out there quite genuinely buys them because they like the taste.

Nobody's suggesting that marketing is all a sham. But you've taken it to that perfect "100%" place where each and every woman who wears a thong is doing so because advertisers want her to "porn it up" or some other simplification. You forgot to leave room for the possibility that someone other than you might actually find them comfortable — you obsinately refuse to believe that this could be possible — and that's what's being challenged.

Gotta admire your pluck though. Come into the feminism forum and tell a bunch of intelligent, aware women that what they think to be comfortable is not (full stop!) and that if they persist in thinking that they find it comfortable then they're really brainwashed, unenlightened, or in denial.

I can't help wondering how on earth you thought that would fly though.

quote:
As for you "thong-wearers", I didn't realize you were such a potent lobby group.

Don't think of them as "thong-wearers". Think of them as "own-decision-makers" and you'll see where the 'potent' comes from.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
MasterDebator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8643

posted 27 September 2005 12:11 PM      Profile for MasterDebator        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Raos:
Why yes, yes I do wear thongs. I do find them comfortable. When I'm changing in a locker room, I have no problem whatsoever about my comfort with other men seeing me wear slinky underwear that was designed for a man.

Want to know the reasonf or the difference in wording between our two comments? Because the topic was the desexualization of women, not men! I absolutely believe both men and women are beautiful. As skdadl has mentioned, though, men's bodies have not been subjected to same degree of commercialization as women's bodies have. What I'm saying, is that I don't think the answer is for you or anybody to force compliance from everybody in the opposite direction, and moralize and subjugate anybody with what they're allowed to wear. If a woman wants to wear bulky turtlenecks, boxers under her sweatpants, and gym shoes, good for her. If she wants to wear thongs and highheels, who are you or anybody else to tell her that it isn't her choice?


Perhaps my wording wasn't as complete as it might have been. I am really pleased to hear about your extraordinarily high personal comfort level with your thongs, but surely you're not asking me to believe that you really never worry about the reaction you're getting from others? You're trying to tell me, and the rest of us, that you wear fashionable undergarments, but don't care what people think of them? Again, this is the kind of silly bugger claim that people make when they are really pleased with the game they are playing and don't like facts intruding on things.

More importantly, I forgot to ask you what do other men say about your thongs, not just your own feelings. Do you other buddies at the gymn say "Good choice, where'd you get 'em?" Or are there snickers, ridicule, etc. How many other men at your gymn wear similar underwear? After all, if men aren't supposed to wear "speedos" any more, why is skimpy underwear suddenly manly? If you're not willing to admit that pop culture and fashion, and perceptions around it, intrude on your private life just as much as any woman's, then you're really being purposefully blind.

Thongs and high heels are NOT physically comfortable. Period. If people choose to wear them, it's not comfort they are looking for.

When someone says honestly, "I wear them for appearances, to be seductive, to be fashionable", I have no particular problem with that, though if they are wearing this kind of thing daily, to work and school, for shopping and what not, I tend to think they're a bit nuts, just as a woman who puts on makeup to do housework is plainly a bit weird.

If you want to tell me that you wear rubber rain wear for comfort, even though it makes you sweat like Hell on warm days, am I supposed to swallow that entirely on your pompous, smug say so?


From: Goose Country Road, Prince George, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 27 September 2005 12:15 PM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MasterDebator:

You're very good at taking both sides of an issue.


And you're very bad at reading for content. Point?

Magoo responded better than I could have myself, actually, so I will leave it at that.


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
MasterDebator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8643

posted 27 September 2005 12:17 PM      Profile for MasterDebator        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Don't think of them as "thong-wearers". Think of them as "own-decision-makers" and you'll see where the 'potent' comes from.

I know you're a very clever person, Magoo, and that's by your own admission.

However, if you take the time to re-read vmichel's posting you will see that she coined that phrase and I simply remarked on it.


From: Goose Country Road, Prince George, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
MasterDebator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8643

posted 27 September 2005 12:18 PM      Profile for MasterDebator        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by vmichel:

And you're very bad at reading for content. Point?

Magoo responded better than I could have myself, actually, so I will leave it at that.


What is your point?


From: Goose Country Road, Prince George, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 September 2005 12:20 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Thongs and high heels are NOT physically comfortable. Period. If people choose to wear them, it's not comfort they are looking for.

See, that's it. Right there. Automatic knock-down, drag-out fight with anyone who actually finds thongs comfortable.

Also worth noting: nobody's suggesting that stilettos are comfortable. Why do you suppose they'd agree, if implicitly, that high heels aren't about comfort, and yet so vigorously maintain that thongs are (to them)?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
MasterDebator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8643

posted 27 September 2005 12:24 PM      Profile for MasterDebator        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by vmichel:

Substitute "influenced" for "predetermined," and I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I cannot agree that my choice in dress is predetermined by anyone other than myself. That is the argument that I find patronizing.

I completely agree that marketing, sexism and profits collide in my unconscious and influence my choice of underwear (for example). But as an adult woman I am able to consider this and evaluate it and decide hey, you know what, I'm wearing a thong today. Because I want to look sexy, because it's confortable, because I have a cute one -- the motive isn't the point. The point is that I am capable of making that choice myself. It has not been made for me by CEO's or anyone else. Influenced, yes, but made? No. Absolutely not.


It's really gratifying to see you acknowledge that consumer advertising and pop culture do influence your choices. I suppose the argument is at what conceptual percentage point, 50%, 75%, 90%, that "nfluence" becomes practically indistinguishable from "control".

Personally I find your insistence that you are in control no matter what to be rather amusing, a bit of denial, really. A line of comfort to the consumer as they and their money are soon parted.

As for your phrase "cute one", is that another American expression for "nice ass"?


From: Goose Country Road, Prince George, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 27 September 2005 12:26 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MasterDebator:
Thongs and high heels are NOT physically comfortable. Period. If people choose to wear them, it's not comfort they are looking for.

fuck you.

anybody got a recipe?


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Thalia
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10279

posted 27 September 2005 12:29 PM      Profile for Thalia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What makes you think that I'm interested in discussing Dworkin or MacKinnon further with you?

We're already having it, but I think I understand why you're eager to stop debating me..

The voices in your head...

Stick to the topic, this pettiness reflects poorly on you.

As a middle-class white woman with a university education, I think it's safe to say that I'm somewhat less oppressed than a male immigrant of colour with a lower level of education.

False analogy. Compare women and men with the same education, and universally women with the same level of education as men do not fare equally as well. There's always a one-armed Nigerian AIDS orphan male who can be pointed at to say, "See, men aren't really the ruling class", but that's disingenuous and it ignores the widespread patterns of gender as it plays out on planet Earth.

The reason that I was talking about makeup and high heels, etc, is that THAT'S THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.

No, it wasn't:

Part of mainstream feminism was not just about embracing our sexuality, it was also about de-sexualizing women's bodies...What does she mean by "desexualized"?

I was hoping for a higher level of feminist debate with you, but after reading, Most women have equal pay for equal work I can see that's not going to happen.


From: US | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 27 September 2005 12:33 PM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MasterDebator:

Personally I find your insistence that you are in control no matter what to be rather amusing, a bit of denial, really. A line of comfort to the consumer as they and their money are soon parted.


I'm not insisting that I am in control no matter what.

I am, however, insisting that I know better than you whether or not something feels comfortable on me.


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 27 September 2005 12:46 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wear a thong!
Is it wrong?
It is my schlong!
But my testes are getting testy
In this tight, confining space
Do they prefer leather or classy lace?
Do you feel free or is it Brie?
Is it wrong I wear a thong?

I wear a thong
It is so cheeky
I like to be freaky
But the stares are becoming glares
From those behind me on the stairs
I would shave but its not what I crave
It's the floss that comes across
Is it wrong I wear a thong?

I wear a thong
It's such a snug fit
A qualified hit
Every squat it feels so taut
While the breeze refreshes these
I'm not quite bare so why do they care?
They're jealous of my fellas
Is it wrong I wear a thong?

Is it wrong?
Is it wrong?

I WEAR A THONG!!!

[ 27 September 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 27 September 2005 12:47 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just spoke to my 21 year old last night and showed her some of the comments around the subject of fashion choice. I asked her to have a look at it because she is in her 4th year at university and has taken many recent courses in women's studies as well as women in media courses, she has worn thongs, and being the age she is ,she is into trends in fashion to a greater extent than I am.
When I explained that some on the thread insisted that they made purely independant choices around fashion purchases she just laughed.
While she agreed that women once they try something offered for sale they may like it and continue to wear it, the initial choice is almost certainly 'sold' to us , us meaning women. Just a small amount of time watching advertising on television should tell anyone studying cultural influences that manufacturers of every product on the planet target women in their advertising and view us as consumption machines. If they're not targeting us to sell to , they're using female bodies to sell products to others.
When I do the laundry nowadays , the collection of thongs that used to be in the hamper has now turned into a collection of cropped bikini boxer shorts, which of course are worn strictly for comfort.
The conversation with my daughter , who is a lifeguard/fitness instructor in her part time employment , sees many women in thongs in the gym and at the pool- her comment- "hardly anyone looks good in a thong, they make your ass look horrible and if women are wearing them because they think they look nice, they should study a rearview mirror a little more closely.
Now if anyone wants to argue with these comments of an unregistered babbler , I will not take offense.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 27 September 2005 01:01 PM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by faith:
When I explained that some on the thread insisted that they made purely independant choices around fashion purchases she just laughed.
While she agreed that women once they try something offered for sale they may like it and continue to wear it, the initial choice is almost certainly 'sold' to us , us meaning women.

That is a good point, but I don't think we've been arguing that we make "purely independent choices." I acknowledge the influences of marketing. But likewise, I do not believe that the marketing machine completely controls or determines my choices. My objection was with the agrument that my decisions are 100% controlled by the media.

Well, my objection was also with the idea that I am a fool brainwashed into thinking thongs are comfortable, but that's another story.

Let's say the media heavily markets a garment as sexy. And let's say I'm aware of this, but I still want to wear the garment because it's sexy. Is that wrong? Is that anti-feminist? I think this might be the crux of the argument. I say go for it, wear what you want and have fun.


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 September 2005 01:01 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
When I explained that some on the thread insisted that they made purely independant choices around fashion purchases she just laughed.

quote:
When I do the laundry nowadays , the collection of thongs that used to be in the hamper has now turned into a collection of cropped bikini boxer shorts, which of course are worn strictly for comfort.

*** self-contradiction alert ***


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 27 September 2005 01:03 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
Ah! "Thesis," "antithesis," ... perhaps blessed "synthesis" ?
From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
MasterDebator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8643

posted 27 September 2005 01:16 PM      Profile for MasterDebator        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ephemeral:

fuck you.

anybody got a recipe?


Excuse me? What's your problem.


From: Goose Country Road, Prince George, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
MasterDebator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8643

posted 27 September 2005 01:20 PM      Profile for MasterDebator        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by vmichel:

I'm not insisting that I am in control no matter what.

I am, however, insisting that I know better than you whether or not something feels comfortable on me.



If a claim is patently incredible, what does one do? High heels aren't comfortable, and thongs aren't either. The thin little thread in the back runs up your crack and starts to itch. On a warm day a bit of perspiration makes it hell. If you want to say you're wearing them for the sake of fashion or appaerances, fine, but please, don't insult my intelligence by saying its for comfort.


From: Goose Country Road, Prince George, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca