Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/l...cle6739270.ece

    I thought this was an excellent article that could lead to some interesting discussion. Its good to see some reasoned comments on the current trend of 'anti-feminism' portrayed in the media, notably by the Daily Mails current hate campaign against Harriet Harman.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Feminism is evil and needs to be wiped out.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheJudge)
    Feminism is evil and needs to be wiped out.
    Are you planning on reading the article or just being an arse?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    "feminism has never had it so bad" opening line in the article. I think the writer needs to go away and study contemporary post-feminist theory by D. Negra et al. The mass view of feminism in the mainstream media is very different from current academic trends in studying feminism. The "lay" view could be argued to be that of original first wave feminism, while in academia it has already moved onto third-wave feminism, and now as stated, over the past 2 years or so begun to discuss post-feminism

    Edit: Typo And: I guess what i was trying to say, that while I think it is interesting discuss contemporary views brought up in the article, the wrtier seems to be, for want of a better phrase, flogging a dead horse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by croissantfever)
    Are you planning on reading the article or just being an arse?
    I have read the whole thing. It appears to claim the sexualisation of women is due to the lack of feminism when in reality feminism created this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What a load of ********.

    But, as Professor Michael Sandel argued in his recent Reith Lectures, we have allowed expanding markets to define our moral limits. Certainly with lap-dancing clubs, as with 24-hour drinking and liberalised gambling laws, the question for new Labour was never whether these were desirable to us as a society, only do people want them, is there demand? If the answer is yes, they must be good. And those who oppose them must, by definition, be anti-populist fun-suckers.

    No, the question is not 'are these things desirable to us as a society,' whatever that means, but 'do agents of the government have any right whatsoever to use coercive force to stop people from engaging in voluntary, peaceful, mutually beneficial transactions which take place entirely within their own property.' When you put it like that, I think (I hope!) it's obvious what the answer is.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NW86)
    "feminism has never had it so bad" opening line in the article. I think the writer needs to go away and study contemporary post-feminist theory by D. Negra et al. The mass view of feminism in the mainstream media is very different from current academic trends in studying feminism. The "lay" view could be argued to be that of original first wave feminism, while in academia it has already moved onto third-wave feminism, and now as stated, over the past 2 years or so begun to discuss post-feminism

    Edit: Typo And: I guess what i was trying to say, that while I think it is interesting discuss contemporary views brought up in the article, the wrtier seems to be, for want of a better phrase, flogging a dead horse.
    Such beautiful and pointless jargon...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Tbh, a lot of that is feminism's fault. That came about as a result of "sexual liberation".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    What a load of ********.

    But, as Professor Michael Sandel argued in his recent Reith Lectures, we have allowed expanding markets to define our moral limits. Certainly with lap-dancing clubs, as with 24-hour drinking and liberalised gambling laws, the question for new Labour was never whether these were desirable to us as a society, only do people want them, is there demand? If the answer is yes, they must be good. And those who oppose them must, by definition, be anti-populist fun-suckers.

    No, the question is not 'are these things desirable to us as a society,' whatever that means, but 'do agents of the government have any right whatsoever to use coercive force to stop people from engaging in voluntary, peaceful, mutually beneficial transactions which take place entirely within their own property.' When you put it like that, I think (I hope!) it's obvious what the answer is.
    Yes, when these peaceful' transactions objectify, exploit and demean women, and statistically lead to higher levels of sexual abuse and violence against the women who participate in such 'transactions' and those residing in the surrounding area.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As the comments below the article point out womens mags are in many ways as much to blame as lads mags. They constantly spin out articles on diets, beauty tips, sex tips and comparing the relative looks of celebrities all encouraging the very sexualisation that the writer of the article is complaining about and offer under a veneer of feminism and liberation.
    As i pointed out in another thread much of this recent upsurge of feminism, particularrly under harriet harman's "equality" movements has been based around a warped idea of equality being equal numbers of men and women in certain jobs rather than a level playing field where men and women compete on their merits!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Yes, when these peaceful' transactions objectify, exploit and demean women, and statistically lead to higher levels of sexual abuse and violence against the women who participate in such 'transactions' and those residing in the surrounding area.
    Firstly, I have never seen any convincing evidence that you're not talking rubbish on the statistics; as far as I know, the only evidence I've seen shows that the widespread availability of pornography leads to a reduction in rapes.

    Secondly, even if it were the case (which I am sceptical about) that these transactions lead to higher levels of sexual abuse and violence against women, it does not follow that we should take action against them or that the use of coercion to ban them is justified. Presumably, killing every man on the planet would lead to lower levels of sexual abuse and violence against women; that does not mean it's the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to punish and convict the actual people who commit these crimes, rather than banning perfectly peaceful, voluntary, and consensual interactions on the mere statistical likelihood (if there is one) that they might lead to such crimes.

    Thirdly, I'm sure you'd like to speak on behalf of all women, but despite this, the fact that you don't like what they choose to do with their own bodies and their own lives does not mean that they are exploited. If a woman wants to appear in FHM or work in a strip club, and is happy with the pay she receives as a result, it is, quite frankly, none of your damn business, just like what you do with your own body is none of hers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This was quite amusing! About that strip club though, I do find them disgusting and to be honest I wouldn't want one near where I live, but if those people lived in London there are bound to be some around.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Yes, when these peaceful' transactions objectify, exploit and demean women, and statistically lead to higher levels of sexual abuse and violence against the women who participate in such 'transactions' and those residing in the surrounding area.
    Because I am older than you I will receive a higher minimum wage; this is for a number of political and social reasons. You may dislike this but that does not make the reasons any less credible. Likewise, women in pornography receive far higher wages than men, and have far more rights too. There are reasons for this too, which I do not dispute.

    Objectification has nothing to do with feminist ideology; it is a by-product of capitalist culture – supply and demand. You are objectified whenever you go to a job, and so I am. I would not complain if I received a poor wage because I was not highly trained. Why should a woman complain if she does not met the parameters of her job description? Again, the demeaning of women is wholly subjective. I would not like to work in McDonalds because that is demeaning to me. A women does not have to become a sex worker if she finds it demeaning. I would also suggest it is the accompanying lifestyle rather than the job itself which results in higher rates of sexual abuse and violence; in the same vein - most people entering prison have drug problems but that does not mean all offenders are drug addicts.

    The problem with feminism is that semi-intelligent women tell other women how they should and should not behave. If someone has been forced into the sex industry then that is a legal issue. If they have not then feminists should take their subjective, intellectually retarded bile somewhere else.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Firstly, I have never seen any convincing evidence that you're not talking rubbish on the statistics; as far as I know, the only evidence I've seen shows that the widespread availability of pornography leads to a reduction in rapes.

    Secondly, even if it were the case (which I am sceptical about) that these transactions lead to higher levels of sexual abuse and violence against women, it does not follow that we should take action against them or that the use of coercion to ban them is justified. Presumably, killing every man on the planet would lead to lower levels of sexual abuse and violence against women; that does not mean it's the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to punish and convict the actual people who commit these crimes, rather than banning perfectly peaceful, voluntary, and consensual interactions on the mere statistical likelihood (if there is one) that they might lead to such crimes.

    Thirdly, I'm sure you'd like to speak on behalf of all women, but despite this, the fact that you don't like what they choose to do with their own bodies and their own lives does not mean that they are exploited. If a woman wants to appear in FHM or work in a strip club, and is happy with the pay she receives as a result, it is, quite frankly, none of your damn business, just like what you do with your own body is none of hers.

    Lap-dancing, although often a product of an individuals choice, is ultimately harmful to society and should be treated as such. It perpetuates the perception that women exist exclusively as sex objects, thereby maintaining the inequality between men and women. It is in the interests of society to enforce at the very least, tighter regulation regarding such establishments.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Lap-dancing, although often a product of an individuals choice, is ultimately harmful to society and should be treated as such. It perpetuates the perception that women exist exclusively as sex objects, thereby maintaining the inequality between men and women. It is in the interests of society to enforce at the very least, tighter regulation regarding such establishments.
    I cannot wait until you start having sex, and discuss sexual positions with your partner.

    "Sorry, I will not do missionary because it would mean laying on my back and submitting to patriarchy."

    "Sorry, I will not do doggy because it would mean you are controlling how hard and fast you thrust, which means you are objectifying and abusing my sexuality for your own self-satisfaction."

    You are actually moronic...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    I cannot wait until you start having sex, and discuss sexual positions with your partner.

    "Sorry, I will not do missionary because it would mean laying on my back and submitting to patriarchy."

    "Sorry, I will not do doggy because it would mean you are controlling how hard and fast you thrust, which means you are objectifying and abusing my sexuality for your own self-satisfaction."

    You are actually moronic...
    That is such a disturbing comment.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    That is such a disturbing comment.
    You are a disturbing little girl with a warped sense of reality. I thought it was rather appropriate analogy for your sick ideology.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    You are a disturbing little girl with a warped sense of reality. I thought it was rather appropriate analogy for your sick ideology.
    My 'sick idealogy' being the support of women's rights and gender equality.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    My 'sick idealogy' being the support of women's rights and gender equality.
    Find me a feminist manifesto which says that lap-dancing is "harmful to society". Your suggestion that the occupation perpetuates gender inequalities is wholly undermined by the fact there are male sex-workers too.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Lap-dancing, although often a product of an individuals choice, is ultimately harmful to society and should be treated as such. It perpetuates the perception that women exist exclusively as sex objects, thereby maintaining the inequality between men and women. It is in the interests of society to enforce at the very least, tighter regulation regarding such establishments.
    What does it mean for something to be harmful to society? I can't help but think that it betrays a lazy way of thinking about things. Society is simply not the kind of thing that can be harmed or helped; if the word 'society' has any referent at all, it refers to a network of individuals and their interactions with each other. It is not some organism with interests, feelings, or opinions, because it is an aggregate of individuals who do have interests, interests which often conflict. So instead of saying that some thing is harmful to society, ask: which individuals are harmed by it, and in what way?

    And when you put it in these terms, your case evaporates. For a start, not all harms are actionable, in the sense that the mere fact that someone is harmed by an activity is not enough to justify the coercive repression of that activity by the state. For example, if I stop shopping at Tesco and start shopping at Sainsbury's, I have, in a very real sense, harmed the owners of Tesco - nevertheless, I have acted perfectly within my rights in doing so, and it would be ridiculous to advocate that the state stop me from harming them in this way. Now, coming back to the case of the perpetuating "the perception that women exist exclusively as sex objects" it is quite clear to me at least that activities which do this are not actionable. For example, if I were to stand on a soapbox and give a public lecture in an attempt to persuade people that women ought to be treated as sex objects, would anyone have any right to physically force me to stop doing so? No, they wouldn't. The fact is that no-one has any right not to be thought of in a particular way (as a sex object or whatever), for the very simple reason that the content of a person's thoughts is something which should be up to them. So the kind of harm you are claiming the sex trade perpetuates is not, in fact, the kind of harm which justifies coercion in response.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.