Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Apparently, Feminism is dead!!!

kabbes said:
And when these choices re-enforce the status quo, in which women struggle to be taken seriously as a result of being viewed for their sexuality first, and the effect is that millions of other women find themselves continue to be marginalised and ignored -- that's choice, right?

This isn't about whether or not Cheryl Cole has the right to do what she does. It's purely about whether being dressed up like dolls and told that you have to dance in your knickers to make records acts to advance or retard the cause of feminism. It's about whether or not she is a strong female role model. Frankly, I think I hear generations of thoughtful feminists weeping at being told that a modern day version of Miss World is helping the feminist cause.
Click to expand...

What's your evidence?
I know there's an easy argument to be made w/r/t objectification, but objectification for whom? Sad men like sadken and milesy who like Girls Aloud, or the majority of female fans of Cheryl Cole who may not be looking at and judging the way Cole dresses as a male would? Is it in fact objectification in that case, or merely a case of assuming a character for a promo video and/or an album sleeve? Would Cole sell records on her looks/femininity/"sex appeal" alone, or does her voice and her material have something to do with her sales. Are her voice and her material in fact the greater factor in her sales?

I mean, I can think of better-looking female singers who tried the "hot bod" route and crashed spectacularly. You can't sell records on hips, tits, lips and Autotune alone!
 
cesare said:
Who's Cheryl Cole? :)
Click to expand...
I got dragged into this thread due to a cross-post from another thread, when Edie decided to use my quote as an example of something or other (without doing me the courtesy of letting me know that was what she was doing, incidentally. But I digress).

So for me, this part of the discussion is a specific defence of the point I made, which Edie has decided to disagree with. Since you have got involved in that defence, I am interested to know what your position is on it.
 
ViolentPanda said:
What's your evidence?
I know there's an easy argument to be made w/r/t objectification, but objectification for whom? Sad men like sadken and milesy who like Girls Aloud, or the majority of female fans of Cheryl Cole who may not be looking at and judging the way Cole dresses as a male would? Is it in fact objectification in that case, or merely a case of assuming a character for a promo video and/or an album sleeve? Would Cole sell records on her looks/femininity/"sex appeal" alone, or does her voice and her material have something to do with her sales. Are her voice and her material in fact the greater factor in her sales?

I mean, I can think of better-looking female singers who tried the "hot bod" route and crashed spectacularly. You can't sell records on hips, tits, lips and Autotune alone!
Click to expand...
My evidence for what? For the fact of the ongoing objectification in society?
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Problem is that we're not islands. Our choices affect the choices of others. Fay Weldon has said that on reflection the campaigns she was involved in in the 70s, which centred on women's rights to work, eventually had the unintended effect of taking away the right not to work from many working class women, who in reality wanted to find a man to marry and have kids with and didn't really want to work - work for them not signifying some great freedom but rather simply a disagreeable obligation.
Click to expand...

Choices are always circumscribed. That doesn't mean one should row back from making any purely because of possible outcomes, especially when choices fueled by the idea that "sex sells" are increasingly transparent to even the most freshman of consumers.
 
kabbes said:
My evidence for what? For the fact of the ongoing objectification in society?
Click to expand...

For whether her being "dressed up like a doll and told that you have to dance in your knickers" either advances or retards the cause of feminism, Mr. K.

BTW, feminisms, plural, and not feminism, singular. Do you hate women so much that you see them merely as a homogeneous mass? :(

:p
 
littlebabyjesus said:
So it's not quite as simple as 'if that's what you choose, it's up to you'. Our choices have consequences for the choices of others.
Click to expand...
It's what I said before: "The whole point of feminism is to struggle against a patriarchal system in whichever way that women want"
It's not up to other women to dictate the terms of women's choices, and it's not up to men either.
 
kabbes said:
I got dragged into this thread due to a cross-post from another thread, when Edie decided to use my quote as an example of something or other (without doing me the courtesy of letting me know that was what she was doing, incidentally. But I digress).

So for me, this part of the discussion is a specific defence of the point I made, which Edie has decided to disagree with. Since you have got involved in that defence, I am interested to know what your position is on it.
Click to expand...

The water buffalo.
 
cesare said:
It's not up to other women to dictate the terms of women's choices, and it's not up to men either.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. There is no absolute freedom like this. Where what you do affects others, they have a stake in, and perhaps a legitimate say over, what you do.
 
ViolentPanda said:
A young north-eastern lady with anger management issues and dubious taste in men, who dresses like a doll and dances in her knickers. ;)
Click to expand...
Is she the one that hits black cloakroom attendents? If so, I'd rather have a go at her about that behaviour than about her dress and music sense.
 
cesare said:
Is she the one that hits black cloakroom attendents? If so, I'd rather have a go at her about that behaviour than about her dress and music sense.
Click to expand...

Yep, she was the one that got done for slapping the black cloakroom attendant and hurling some racial abuse.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
I don't agree. There is no absolute freedom like this. Where what you do affects others, they have a stake in, and perhaps a legitimate say over, what you do.
Click to expand...
There is no absolute freedom for *anyone*. But I will not agree that women's rights should be (a) dictated by men; and (b) diluted by reference to "reality" which is your shorthand for where conscription and economic necessity kick in.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Problem is that we're not islands. Our choices affect the choices of others. Fay Weldon has said that on reflection the campaigns she was involved in in the 70s, which centred on women's rights to work, eventually had the unintended effect of taking away the right not to work from many working class women, who in reality wanted to find a man to marry and have kids with and didn't really want to work - work for them not signifying some great freedom but rather simply a disagreeable obligation.
Click to expand...

Her explanation is getting things mixed up. Neoliberalism - the collapse in the rate of profit - is the steam-roller that is now forcing single mothers with young kids to seek work or lose benefits etc.
It's capitalism that forces women back to work after 6 months post-partum - not an effect of feminism. These things aren't effects of the feminist movement - intended or unintended.

The fight for work has been a feminist campaign far longer than since the 1970s, it had to be fought in the early Edwardian era to allow women entry into even the limited number of professions.
Also the women who you describe will always be at the mercy of their potentially abusive male husbands, if they remain dependent on them.

Fay Weldon is - now - either an extreme liberal feminist or not a feminist at all. She fairly recently proposed sterilising all women until they reached the age of 20.
 
cesare said:
There is no absolute freedom for *anyone*. But I will not agree that women's rights should be (a) dictated by men; and (b) diluted by reference to "reality" which is your shorthand for where conscription and economic necessity kick in.
Click to expand...
Ok, 'dictated to' no, I agree.

We've both been conflating 'rights' with 'choices', which isn't helpful, I don think. I don't think the two are synonymous.
 
kabbes said:
I got dragged into this thread due to a cross-post from another thread, when Edie decided to use my quote as an example of something or other (without doing me the courtesy of letting me know that was what she was doing, incidentally. But I digress).

So for me, this part of the discussion is a specific defence of the point I made, which Edie has decided to disagree with. Since you have got involved in that defence, I am interested to know what your position is on it.
Click to expand...
My position is that your "objectification" position seems laden with judgment about the women, who you seem to be holding to a higher standard than the (for example) businesses that still hold meetings in strip joints.
 
cesare said:
My position is that your "objectification" position seems laden with judgment about the women, who you seem to be holding to a higher standard than the (for example) businesses that still hold meetings in strip joints.
Click to expand...
Why would you think that?
 
kabbes said:
I got dragged into this thread due to a cross-post from another thread, when Edie decided to use my quote as an example of something or other (without doing me the courtesy of letting me know that was what she was doing, incidentally. But I digress).

So for me, this part of the discussion is a specific defence of the point I made, which Edie has decided to disagree with. Since you have got involved in that defence, I am interested to know what your position is on it.
Click to expand...
Sorry to inconvenience you by disagreeing :p And I quoted you so you knew, just thought this thread was a more appropriate thread for it *shrugs*

So your problem with Cheryl is that she's done well by playing men at their own game?

There's power in sexuality kabbes. I think it's more than ok to use it, I resent being told otherwise. Men like to have this image of feminists of being lesbian cardigan wearers. Wonder why that is.
 
emanymton said:
Cheryl Cole
Click to expand...
Oh, her. I don't know. I don't know much about her other than the cloakroom attendant incident, that her accent was too strong for the US, the hair product advert that she's on where it's got the tiny letters at the bottom saying that she's wearing extensions, and something about her husband/partner who's a footballer (the details of that unclear to me). I've not heard that she says she's a feminist, nor that she's any more of a role model for women than Ashley Cole is for men.
 
Edie said:
Sorry to inconvenience you by disagreeing :p And I quoted you so you knew, just thought this thread was a more appropriate thread for it *shrugs*

So your problem with Cheryl is that she's done well by playing men at their own game?

There's power in sexuality kabbes. I think it's more than ok to use it, I resent being told otherwise. Men like to have this image of feminists of being lesbian cardigan wearers. Wonder why that is.
Click to expand...
And chaste! Don't forget chaste!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
We Deserve Better, apparently
Replies
4
Views
354
hitmouse
hitmouse
Bingoman
Is the Princess of Wales dead yet?
Replies
20
Views
709
moochedit
moochedit
Magnus McGinty
Apparently I no longer have an NHS dentist
Replies
24
Views
895
newme
newme
equationgirl
The Unabomber is dead
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
151
Views
7K
JHE
JHE
D
Kemi Badenoch’s time is up!
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
155
Views
5K
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
Back
Top Bottom