to quote from Grumpy Old Men
I agree with feminists and women burning their bra's, espceically the ones with big tits...
Feminist org declines nude calendar cash
A group of Alloa women who got their kit off, in a charity-fundraising "Calendar Girls" stylee, are a little miffed that Scottish Women's Aid has declined to benefit from the proceeds. Domestic abuse victim Morag Hill and business partner Katherine Cram decided to emulate the famous Rylstone Women's Institute 2000 calendar, …
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 12:51 GMT Serum
Boo :(
Attitudes like this really irritate me - women should cover up and hide themselves away to campaign for equal rights, ashamed of the bodies we were born with? We shouldn't show ourselves off, because then we won't be appreciated for the brains that not all of us (male OR female!) are gifted with? These are the same people who try to ban pornography because it 'disrespects' women.
Surely, by saying that women should cover up (but not men, by the way!), they're trying to revoke basic human rights and, in a sense, enhancing the issue of sexism by drawing attention to a problem that, in this case, isn't even there? What happened to free choice?
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 12:51 GMT Alicia
Wait, WTF?
Women removing their clothes is a bad thing? So, we can't expose our torsos in public like men can? Not sexist at all! Maybe it's not about the lumps of fat that a large proportion of women grow (and some men, but apparently it's the lactating function that causes the moral issues here), maybe it's just that women shouldn't be allowed to display proudly any part of their body that may attract attention. Such as, say, their hair. Women should all cover their hair. They should not wear makeup, because God forbid they should be pro-active and complacent about their own sexual empowerment. In fact, it's probably best if they becaome completely asexual. Colour is used to attract, so women should only wear black. We don't want their bodies to be displayed, so a heavy fabric, with no shape to it.
Sounds familiar somehow. Help me out, feminist organisation. Where have I heard this before?
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 12:51 GMT Destroy All Monsters
Yes.. "feminists" have issues.
Especially with skin. It's ridiculous, but then again, there are all sorts of weird people with internally inconsistent goals in life.
Incidentally, lately I have heard some advocacy on" saving the women of Afghanistan". Basically by staying the course, in other words, bombing or starving them. Nice job.
-
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 12:51 GMT Juillen 1
Feminist?
So, it's ok to celebrate a woman as long as you don't actually have to physically admit to being a woman. You're not allowed to look at the body, as it differentiates men and women. They're all the same. Really. Physically. Honest.
That's just so much bull. Some women are well blessed on the brains, but short on physical attraction, some are blessed with being physically very attractive, but short on the academic front. Some have both, and they are well appreciated for both.
If there is something good about someone, it should be appreciated. Otherwise it begins to look like crass jealousy (she's better looking than me, and gets more attention, and that's so unfeminist, so we have to fight against people appreciating that aspect so I get more attention).
I wish they'd grow up, realise that we are actually biological entities and part of the animal kingdom. We have subjective appreciation of things, and always will. Deal with it.
Paris, 'cos we all appreciate her for her mind.
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 12:54 GMT Richard 125
"I'm a feminist!" "No I'm a feminist!" "I'm a feminist and so's my wife!"
Apparently being free to do what you want with your own body, even raising cash for a very worthy cause, isn't the right kind of feminism. This stinks of a "I'm more feminist than thou" attitude from SWA. I'm sure there is a less pious charity somewhere who really needs the help at the moment.
Paris, because she doesn't need a charity for an excuse.
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 12:54 GMT Bassey
Seems fair enough
I've never been convinced about all this "self empowerment" stuff. At the end of the day, they're making money by selling pictures of themselves in the buff. Most women I've met who would describe themselves as feminists have turned out to be a bunch of moaning, whingeing, men hating bores with a massive persecution complex but give this lot their due. They set themselves up to promote women for their talents, rather than their "talents" and £600 isn't enough to buy their principles. Good on them.
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 12:54 GMT Ally J
You couldn't make it up....
.... without having to endure howls of outrage from feminists for portraying them as humourless and narrow-minded.
But it's heartening to know that the charity in question is in the position of being able to turn down donations offered in good faith. Potential donors should bear that in mind.
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 13:59 GMT LuMan
What?!?
"We live in a culture where female nudity is everywhere and there is too much female nudity… and not enough celebration of women's brains. It undermines our work to achieve gender equality."
Well, I for one disagree that there's too much female nudity. We need more, if you ask me. Plus, I reckon these posing gals have got a pretty good set of brains by using their 'talents' in the best possible way.
If you want "gender equality" nip out to WH Smith and buy one of the many *insert soap opera* hunks calendars on offer. Or read Heat. Or Woman's Own.....
BTW - where can I get a copy of the calendar??
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 13:59 GMT John Savard
The Other Side to the Story
I should hope the charity in question doesn't have an issue with women removing their clothes to take baths, for example.
But for them to say that our society's focus on women for their beauty interferes with the feminist goal of having women taken seriously for their achievements doesn't seem at all strange to me. What feminists want to smash is the old order where men are the ones who do important work, and are paid well for it - and women concentrate on looking pretty to marry men who will support them. Spousal abuse is promoted by the continuing economic dependency of many women.
That their ambitions may still be unrealistic, despite the equality women have achieved, is another matter.
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 13:59 GMT Anonymous Coward
these women don't represent all feminists
I know quite a few feminists and while they do spout twaddle or actually, just approach from extremes from time to time, it doesn't negate their entire viewpoint. Organisations who spout extreme views make women ashamed to say "I'm a feminist" because when you look at it's actual defintion any right thinking non bigot is a feminist, it's just they have different subjectives in their approach. That said, people should be "masculist" or whatever too. It's just there's a fewer men's issues.
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 13:59 GMT John P
@AC 12:27
It would appear this particular group of feminists is only interested in giving women rights that THEY think they should have.
If women treasure a right that these people don't agree with, then well that just means you are not feminist enough for them, and neither is your cash!
Besides, they're probably just jealous as after years of gravity taking its toll with no bra support, you'd probably need a double page spread to get both their head and their tits in the photo.
Alright, I'm going...
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 13:59 GMT h4rm0ny
Agreeing to disagree
The funny thing here is how both sides (the women in the calendar and the charity) are in disagreement because of values that they share. The former group see their sexual attractiveness as something they are free to use - essentially wanting freedom for women to take whichever role they want despite social constraints. Whilst the charity see that attractiveness as a prison that limits women to being fixed in a certain role in society.
Is the attribute of being found sexually attractive a tool or a prison, then? Either can be true in different circumstances and different individuals. The charity people obviously are fighting against it being the constraints of being seen only as sex objects, and the calendar ladies are fighting against the constraint of being forbidden to show themselves as sex objects. Although it appears irreconcilable, the two efforts are actually complimentary in that they are engaging the same enemy on different fronts: that enemy being others constraining women into fixed roles. (Harlot or Chaste with no freedom to move around between them or hover in the middle depending on mood, circumstance and cuteness of men present). Ultimately, I hope it will settle down to the point where everything is a choice without social constraints - neither sexism nor feminism an issue, but merely individuals with varying amounts in common.
Paris, for her role as a feminist icon, of course.
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 14:27 GMT Anonymous Coward
@ Alicia
"Women removing their clothes is a bad thing? So, we can't expose our torsos in public like men can?"
Alicia, feel free to send in as many pictures of your exposed torso as you like, I wholeheartedly support your right to take your top off as much as you like
Assuming you really are Alicia and not Bob from accounts :-)
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 14:27 GMT Luther Blissett
Division of labour
Zero Tolerance says "We are inspired by a vision of the world without male violence against women and children."
It's good to have someone thinking about that. It means I can go hunt a vision of the world without male violence against men, or female violence against men and children, without worrying about redundancy or duplication of effort. But hold on, isn't this division of labour errr a trifle neolithic?
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 14:27 GMT Carmenego
I have this argument with feminists all the time
Here I was thinking that my decision to be a feminist _isn't_ about men and women being equal, it's about repression, denial, and negative attitudes to women who aren't "proper" feminists. Gah!
I'd love to be asked to pose for a calendar, not because I'm an oppressed little lady, but because I'm proud of the body I have and am probably a bit of an exhibitionist. Grrr... feminists make me want to wear lip gloss and leopard print heels.
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 14:27 GMT Qneiform
title
There are complicated and interesting issues here, and I don't propose to address them. But I do agree with the lady from Zero Tolerance: I think there should be charity calendars showcasing (in brief but brilliant essays by twelve victims) the braininess of women who have suffered domestic abuse.
-
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 15:39 GMT Anonymous Coward
Atherton20
Caution - scottie throws toys out of pram.
Please don't over do the dour humourless scot bit mate. You lot have yet to apologise for sticking us with two of your mob down here in the fetid dives of Westminster. McBliar and McBroon thats who!
Two scots that we 'feckin southerners' would like to see hung drawn quartered burnt to ashes and the little bits jumped on by big girls in pointy heels. You should be apologising to us softy southerners!
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 15:39 GMT Maty
What's the big deal?
So these people disagree with female exhibitionism. This is admittedly a minority view in a nation which would prefer to have lots, lots, more of it. But in a country that's fast running out of freedoms, let's cherish the few that we have left, and one of them should be the right not to have to take money from people with whose views you disagree.
Certainly there is a case for arguing that this group are being moralistic and priggish, but golly, some posters are reacting as though this were a new development in the feminist movement. If being so makes them happy, you don't have to agree. But you don't have to force your opinions (or your money) on them either.
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 16:08 GMT Anonymous Coward
Pecunia non olet
As a charity trustee, how would I handle the situation of someone we don't want to be associated with offering us a large sum of money? I guess I would politely explain why we think it would be bad publicity for us and invite them to make an anonymous donation. If they didn't want to do that, I could point out that we would have no option about whether to accept the money if they were to transfer it directly to our bank account rather than send a cheque.
However, if it were only a small sum of money then I might reckon the publicity obtainable by publicly refusing the donation might be worth more than the donation. I wonder if that's what's happened here.
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 19:52 GMT J 3
Er...
"Some women are well blessed on the brains, but short on physical attraction, some are blessed with being physically very attractive, but short on the academic front. Some have both, and they are well appreciated for both."
You forgot to mention the ones who've got neither... OK, I'm going.
Seriously now, re: the org refusing the money: good on them. No, I don't agree with their reasons. But it's quite rare nowadays for people to stick to their principles, specially when money is involved. If only politicians would behave the same way, we might have a a much better world. Or at least a little more decent.
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 19:52 GMT Anonymous Coward
Just sexist feminists
This story is just more sexist women who justify their unequal treatment of men and women under the banner of "feminism".
These people are an insult to the likes of the Suffragettes.
There is a simple test to find out if a woman is sexist. If they see the phrase "white power" as racist, ask if they find the phrase "girl power" sexist. Get them to justify the discrepancy.
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 19:53 GMT Watashi
Distasteful, if you think about it
Don't know whether my first comment got swallowed up by an internet black hole, or deleted by an unusual bout of though-policing by El Reg...
Anyway, I'll make my point a little differently and hope it gets through.
Abused women generally have very low self-esteem, and are highly dependent upon the opinions of the men they are with. Narcisistic and violent men look for women who see themselves as worthless, and prey on their insecurities to get what they want. So desperate is the need for approval that these women fail to leave abusive relationships until it's too late.
So, you could say that the type of behaviour these women are exhibiting - taking their clothes off to gain social apporval - is merely an expression of the insecurities that allowed them to get abused in the first place. We tend to think of 'insecure women' as those who are afraid to show their bodies, but real insecurity is when women are afraid to act as equals to men at work because they know their male bosses see them as little more than potential topless pin-ups.
So, put yourself in the way of thinking of a feminist. You see women in porn as victims of male abuse, and you see the 'empowerment' of women who take their clothes off as a social trap that keeps women out of the boardrooms of the country. You see those 'self-empowering' champions of new, naked 'feminism' as traitors who are selling themselves and their sisters out for a quick buck. This calendar isn't a success story of women who have finally learned to stand up for themselves and make their own way in life... its a tragic case of women escaping one form of female servitude to men and leaping merrily into another form of female servitude to men. And dragging the rest of the female sex down with them.
Imagine a newly freed black slave in the deep south in the early 19th century making a 'funny' calendar where he poses with blacked-up white guys. The guy takes the money he's made and tries to give it to a black civil rights campaign group. Would we be surprised if the money was turned down?
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 19:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
Ridiculous
The more you try to hide away sexual imagery in this way the more titilating you make it. If such pictures were everywhere, truly everywhere, noone would give them a second glance. Well maybe occasionally, but not like they do now. There were times just a few hundred years ago when a woman's shoulders were considered more erotic than her breasts, because they were more often covered up, so this seems to have precedents.
And as a male I'm disappointed with the sexism in culture working both ways. There is so much talk of women being sexy, and whether it's good for them to dress provocatively or not, but there is almost no way for a man to dress in such a manner. Women get various options of clothes, and men have a choice of tight trousers... or tight trousers. Frankly this is nothing short of disgraceful, and I would rather see men given the same cultural abilities to dress in an enticing manner as women than remove the ability for women to do so.
Disclaimer: I'm 25, so I could have reasonably been able to try dressing in such a manner had it been culturally possible (no point dressing like that if you're just going to be stared at for being weird, as opposed to being stared at for looking sexy - being looked at is the point).
-
Thursday 23rd July 2009 19:53 GMT ChrB
Commentards, listen up!
Some of you lot owe me a new keyboard and clothing! 1st comment made me spew coffee all over the desk...
@El Reg: perfect mixture of tech news and gossip on your site. Keep up the good work!
@me:
Steps to be taken:
- head over to cash 'n' carrion to get a new shirt
- ask Lewis about some frikkin' weaponry to fight fit of laughter
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
