Feminism Catch-All (with FAQ)

Bloo Driver wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Troubling developments and shocking revelations from Texas: it turns out Wendy Davis once had different hair!

It's amazing how people who really don't like the concept of feminism are really the only ones who actually believe feminism has anything to do with someone's looks, but somehow manage to purport that it's apparently something core to the concept.

If you believe that feminism is about taking from men, and that women have no reason to want to upkeep their personal appearance other than pleasing men, then it all makes perfect sense!

Demyx wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Troubling developments and shocking revelations from Texas: it turns out Wendy Davis once had different hair!

It's amazing how people who really don't like the concept of feminism are really the only ones who actually believe feminism has anything to do with someone's looks, but somehow manage to purport that it's apparently something core to the concept.

If you believe that feminism is about taking from men, and that women have no reason to want to upkeep their personal appearance other than pleasing men, then it all makes perfect sense!

Wait what? If she were a feminist, by that logic shouldn't she be rockin' a pair of dworkins instead?

Demyx wrote:

If you believe that feminism is about taking from men, and that women have no reason to want to upkeep their personal appearance other than pleasing men, then it all makes perfect sense!

Whoah, whoah, whoah. I'm gonna slow you down right there.

You're saying feminism isn't specifically about what is and isn't happening to men? Sounds like misandrist talk to me.

We all saw Twitter's charming response to French player Marion Bartoli's Wimbledon finals win? Even the BBC commentator saw fit to comment on her looks.

Now given that, in my opinion at least, she's not exactly harsh on the eyes, one can only assume the only purpose these people think female tennis champions have is to look hot in a short skirt and moan loudly. Heaven forfend you look like a normal person when competing in the finals at one of the most prestigious sporting events in the world.

I guess you, sadly, can find moronic people on the internet representing any possible viewpoint. But damn that remark from BBC.

Had to look the BBC guy up, it seems like he has tried to excuse, but in my ears this sounds as bad:

Inverdale has since tried to defend his comments, claiming: ‘She [Bartoli] is an incredible role model for people who aren’t born with all the attributes of natural athletes.’

Role model for "ugly" athletes (tm)? Right. Apparently Natural athletes look like dolls.
One could be a role model if you won Wimbledon with one arm or something, proving you can win despite the odds if you fight hard etc. etc.. Having a hard time to see how being a 'role model' fits here.

Don't worry the Huffington Post has come to the rescue! Apparently she was pretty all along so now we can all rest easy and no offence or ridiculous double standards are in operation afterall;

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...

Maq wrote:

We all saw Twitter's charming response

Holy crap, those are horrific!

Shadout wrote:

I guess you, sadly, can find moronic people on the internet representing any possible viewpoint.

The difference being you don't have to look very hard at all to find all those responses on Twitter but comments about Andy Murray's absence of good looks are far harder to come by unless in direct comparison to his partner.

I know you weren't defending them, Shadout, so this isn't a pop at you, but I don't really buy the whole "well... internets" explanation for these things. People will say horrific things, yes, but fewer people will say them if society as a whole doesn't stand for them being said.

Maq wrote:

I know you weren't defending them, Shadout, so this isn't a pop at you, but I don't really buy the whole "well... internets" explanation for these things. People will say horrific things, yes, but fewer people will say them if society as a whole doesn't stand for them being said.

True, I just meant that I was more surprised seeing the BBC comment, than all the twitters.

It is not something I picture as out of character for tennis, especially Wimbledon. Some years ago Serena Williams and her sister came under fire for their war cry grunts when they really hit their strides in a match. Serena was censured for some of her attire, leading to a practice match in platform thigh high leather heels and a leather skirt. The Wimbledon judges have made judgment calls on the color of a woman's underwear, whether women and men can go sleeveless, skirts vs shorts.

Wimbledon is a page right out of Victorian England. It is a blue blood, country club.

Yes but this wasn't the All England club making these comments, it was arseholes on Twitter and a BBC commentator.

DanB wrote:

Don't worry the Huffington Post has come to the rescue! Apparently she was pretty all along so now we can all rest easy and no offence or ridiculous double standards are in operation afterall;

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...

Haha what on earth, HuffPo. Way to reinforce the actual problem. Douches.

The problem with framing is that the main problem is often not the negative remarks in the conversation, but that the conversation is being had in the first place - in this case, an offensively misplaced conversation about the looks of an athletic champion. It's not that HuffPo is deliberately being sexist - they just fell into the subtle framing trap that even talking about the champion's looks sets for anyone.

I don't think it's bad to talk about Bartoli's looks per se in the context of, for instance, if she volunteered for some reality dating show and had a close rival. Or a beauty contest. The problem, IMO, is that it's being noted in an athletic competition, drawing people subtly into the thinking that athletic competitions for women are only for men to enjoy women's bodies.

This problem of framing happens here in GWJ as well. It's very difficult to draw people out of a way of thinking when you're talking from a POV that questions their unstated and often unconscious assumptions. So what's to be done here to counter this sort of Twitter storm? As Seth astutely notes, saying that Bartoli actually looks great only manages to worsen the problem (or at least doesn't really seem to help).

stevenmack wrote:
Maq wrote:

We all saw Twitter's charming response

Holy crap, those are horrific!

At some point, one has to wonder if people are just doing the usual "lol look how edgy and non-pc!!!!!" routine, but now sprinkled with a bit of hope they get some attention on the inevitable Twitter Commentary On X Event Was Horrible article.

I really don't think we have to wonder that.

This kind of crap happens all the time with varying levels of badness, in contexts both public and private, and people are regularly willing to defend their positions (not even just their right to say things) when confronted. Consider the content of Fat, Ugly, or Slutty, and that those things were done both privately and publicly, with no expectation that what was being said would be made famous somehow. So there's no reason to think that this twitter response is being done for the purpose of being famous.

On the flip side—while I don't think it's "to be edgy", there is an aspect where this sort of thing is done as macho posturing.

But of course it doesn't matter why it's being said—it's wildly inappropriate no matter what.

And that's the biggest, most important thing to remember—because arguments about edginess or machoness or Internet fame or whatever in the end kind of distill down to "boys will be boys!" or "Internets will be Internets!" That idea along with the follow-on that you just sort of have to shrug your shoulders and let it pass... that's the really horrible corrosive idea that lets things get worse over time instead of better.

What men want, America delivers (Salon)

Just saw this today. It does a good job, I think, of tying various levels of behavior and belief and action together. There are so many different little angles to things, and it's easy to imagine that they're all little separate problems. But... there's this miasma across all of society, and all of those "little" problems originate in it. The same ideas and social context going from macho catcalling to PUAs to rape culture to the glass ceiling and everything in between.

Anyway, it's a pretty good article.

Hypatian wrote:

What men want, America delivers (Salon)

Just saw this today. It does a good job, I think, of tying various levels of behavior and belief and action together. There are so many different little angles to things, and it's easy to imagine that they're all little separate problems. But... there's this miasma across all of society, and all of those "little" problems originate in it. The same ideas and social context going from macho catcalling to PUAs to rape culture to the glass ceiling and everything in between.

Anyway, it's a pretty good article.

It is. This quote made me think:

In truth, this is all a symptom of a much more virulent cultural sickness — one where women exist to satisfy the whims of men, one where a woman’s worth is consistently diminished or entirely ignored.

What struck me while reading this is that female equality is a relative new concept (early 20th century-ish). Throughout the bulk of human history, women have been considered as something akin to property. We even continue to see it reflected in our current cultural traditions (e.g. the woman's parents pay for the wedding as a nod toward the dowrys of old).

I think we have a long way to go, culturally, to instill the intrinsic belief of equality. I believe articles like the above and continued discussion about what is and is not acceptable will eventually get us there (as well as older generations dying off). Women need to remain vocal about the inequitable crap they deal. Otherwise, nothing will change.

Nevin73 wrote:

Throughout the bulk of recorded history, women have been considered as something akin to property.

FTFY

Nevin73 wrote:

What struck me while reading this is that female equality is a relative new concept (early 20th century-ish). Throughout the bulk of human history, women have been considered as something akin to property. We even continue to see it reflected in our current cultural traditions (e.g. the woman's parents pay for the wedding as a nod toward the dowrys of old).

I think we have a long way to go, culturally, to instill the intrinsic belief of equality. I believe articles like the above and continued discussion about what is and is not acceptable will eventually get us there (as well as older generations dying off). Women need to remain vocal about the inequitable crap they deal. Otherwise, nothing will change.

It's more like late 18th century.

I'll agree we may have a long way to go before it quits being acceptable to refer to women as menu items married men get to look at but not order from, or having the term "pig" as a badge of honor. These are the attitudes that create the environment that fosters such inequality.

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but one thing that's getting skipped over in the Bartoli mess is the response to Lisiki (that's the gal she beat).

While she didn't win, that person got to Wimbleton. Just think about that. She's the 2nd best female tennis player in the world right now. If you think that's easy, you try it. By any sane measure she's awesome. But the only qualification anyone is interested in is how "f*ckable" she is. Even the people who phrase it without crudities aren't doing her any favors.

One thing that is hard to get across in these conversations is how "nice" comments often really aren't. This is a great example of how both cruel speech and complimentary speech can be equally degrading.

Kexx posted this is the Tropes vs Women in Gaming thread, but I thought it was even more relevant to the discussion here.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/nu2Mipb.jpg)

NSMike wrote:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/nu2Mipb.jpg)

Did he actually say that? If so, that is most excellent.

NSMike wrote:

GRM awesomeness

.
PURE....... WIN.

Dumping this here because I've just read it but haven't had time to digest it. New concepts are difficult for me.

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-c...

I welcome insights from this crowd as I turn the concept of gas lighting around in my head.

Follow up article:

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-c...

We just started watching Game of Thrones recently and I've found it interesting how much of the show is about how different women get and use power in a system stacked against them.

(Please, no one spoil me!)

I think most people are nuts.

Seth wrote:

Dumping this here because I've just read it but haven't had time to digest it. New concepts are difficult for me.

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-c...

I welcome insights from this crowd as I turn the concept of gas lighting around in my head.

I grew up in a household that did this constantly, both intentionally and not. Some of the more egregious examples include blatantly denying things that happened mere days ago.

When I graduated college, I started crying because I was sad to be leaving. My parents told me they were surprised because they hadn't seen me express an emotion like that in years. That's because after years of being told I was overreacting and my emotions were wrong, I stopped showing them around my parents at all if I could help it. I still don't.

This behavior is very real and very damaging.

Demyx wrote:

I grew up in a household that did this constantly, both intentionally and not. Some of the more egregious examples include blatantly denying things that happened mere days ago.

When I graduated college, I started crying because I was sad to be leaving. My parents told me they were surprised because they hadn't seen me express an emotion like that in years. That's because after years of being told I was overreacting and my emotions were wrong, I stopped showing them around my parents at all if I could help it. I still don't.

This behavior is very real and very damaging.

Ditto, comes in handy in court, negotiations, and poker though.

Problem is my mom really was crazy. No specific pathology, just nuts; would lie about anything and everything. That sets you back a bit.

I like to think we are getting beyond this. But on the flip side it seems to me we are now medicating away emotions in the same way previous generations were repressing it.

Seth wrote:

Dumping this here because I've just read it but haven't had time to digest it. New concepts are difficult for me.

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-c...

I welcome insights from this crowd as I turn the concept of gas lighting around in my head.

Follow up article:

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-c...

+∞

This, it is as much of a thing as the author describes. Brilliant article.

Edit: that second article reads mostly like a "but what about the menz" piece to me. Too bad.