Feminism

[LexusInfernus 908]

Can feminists understand that you are what you wear? And if anybody wears something which shows off their form, man or woman, they are going to get some looks. You know that brief glance, kind of like- yeah he/she's hot! We all do it. It's the good old- he/she's got their bits in the right places. If that is objectification well good luck squashing it out of humanity.

 

Again feminists can't seem to equate freedom with responsibility and consequences. If I walked around town topless, I can guarantee you that women would be staring at my torso and arms. I can keep in good shape and work out a little bit, plus I'm reasonably handsome. The point I can choose to flaunt it or not. And I choose not to flaunt and sometimes I get mildly annoyed at the glances or the occasional stare, but other times I kind of like it.

 

Ultimately the choice resides in the individual whether or not he/she wants to show off their physique or not, but the more show you off, then the more looks and 'objectification' you are going to get. Really objectification is just sexual tension, it is a desire you cannot in good conscience act upon and personally I think a few women dress to provoke. Sort of like "you can look, but if you so much as act in the wrong way I will have the long arm of the law crush you". They flaunt it and they know damn well the men can't do a thing about it in the public space, or at work for instance.

 

I also feel that showing off ones booty, in the case of women, is a just of means of diverting men's gaze away from their face -- which I think is the most important physical feature -- and down below. A face says a million things, while a tight ass and a good rack much less so! But from what I'm getting from the viewpoint of feminism is that men are to blame if they stare in an objectifying way, and of course the woman is not to blame and it is her right to provoke. The last point about the very right I agree with, dress how you like but don't expect people not to notice.

 

But that is the point, you are not what you wear. Why would you be what you wear. You are who you are because of your personality, of your thoughts, your beliefs and your ideas. Sure, you can wear clothes that reflect some of those things up to a certain point. But it is incredibly stupid to judge someone solely on their looks. And then we are just talking about judging people, this is not even objectification yet. 

 

Objectification is when you start to dehumanize someone, and that has nothing to do with what someone wears. Hmm, lets take an example. If a women plays on her Xbox and goes to play multiplayer, how often does it happen that the moment people find out she is a girl, they start to make all kinds of comments about how they want to have sex with her. At that point, they have objectified her as a sex toy for them, not as a person who is kicking their ass at Call of Duty, but something they want to masturbate all over. And they don't even know how she looks. See, objectification and looks are not necessarily related. It has to do with how you react to women in general, regardless of how they dress. 

 

Finally, going back to what people wear. Say you walk around topless, showing off your torso. Yeah, you might get some stares and gazes. Fine. But how would you like it if random strangers then walked up to you and said they would like to have sex with you. Or then slap/grope/pinch your butt. And when you walk by a group of people, some of them start howling or whistling. Or people start asking for your number. Would you be comfortable with that? Would you be okay with that? I wouldn't. But I'd still want to freedom to walk over street topless on a warm day. And now consider that what I just told you happens to women all the time, no matter what they are wearing. Is it their responsibility to dress so they look like hideous in the hopes that people leave them alone? Or should they be able to walk over street in clothes they find either comfortable or beautiful (or both) without having to deal with the unwanted attention of random strangers? 

 

 

I was going to post this in a new topic but I think it is related to feminism in the UK and the growing PC culture. Get a load of this gem-

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2638404/Now-BBC-bans-G-word-Sports-reporter-joked-hed-beaten-judo-bout-19-year-old-GIRL-sexist-word-cut-broadcast.html

 

The BBC has decided to ban the word- girl, which is now deemed to be sexist. Honestly if you become so afraid of offending people's sensibilities you're gonna have nothing left to say! I guess we add 'girl' to the list of things which offend women (and objectify them?).

 

Feminism and PC: 1   ,  Common sense and tolerance: 0

 

 

p.s. So if people interviewed on the BBC news say girl, will they be beeped?

Well given that it was in the Daily Mail I'm willing to bet that half of the story is made up trash. Aside from that, the guy does come over as condescending. He got his ass kicked by a top athlete and he belittles her by saying it like this. In your head, try to imagine what he would  have said if he got his ass kicked by a 19 year old guy. Would he then have said he got his ass kicked by a 'boy'? Probably not. The fact that you and the daily mail all start whining about how its a loss for common sense and tolerance just shows how deeply ingrained sexism is in our culture. 

[Fatherted 129]

It's not like men are the only people who objectify. I've seen many a drunken woman grab many a young man's ass against his will.

Also, Call of Duty is effectively the Gaming Dive Bar. Avoid it at all costs.

Sexism is ingrained in our culture. So are double standards.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I thought woman implied old fashioned things more. Girls dont make babies clean cook and objectify themselves. Grownups tend to do that. If anything woman is a more offensive term like vagins instead of female. Woman implies more role and less individual. I suppose what ive been saying is i believe in an ideal which i wish to defend. But it is illogical to force people into any form or role they are unsuited for or wish not to occupy. As we progress beyond our utilitarian society of resources and scarcity we shall be able to guarantee more freedom of habit and manner as roles will cease to be of any necesity. Sow seed in dry sandy soil and dont expect lovely flowers. Humanity was sown in rock. Also i second Mooses suggestion we dress in eighteenth century garb. Much better than the chavvish sea of hoodies and trackies.

[LexusInfernus 908]

It's not like men are the only people who objectify. I've seen many a drunken woman grab many a young man's ass against his will.

And no feminist will defend that sort of behavior. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Thanks, Mark.  The present drabness might lead to the idea of being drab in the Elizabethan sense.  BTW, a hoodie is sometimes called a bunny hug in western Canada.

 

Hoodies are getting very close to a burka, eh?  Now why should anyone want to cover themselves up?  Must have a nefarious intent? 

 

We know why Islam wants a burka.  They have acculturated themselves to the idea that women should be kept in the kitchen with a broken leg.  The idea that a woman might be equal to a man or worse, better than a man is anathema to them.  This is positively medieval, when life was short, dark and ugly.

[Fatherted 129]

Hoodies IMO are just for warmth. Very rarely does anyone I know actually use the hood. Also, I'd say if we are ruling out hoodies for being like burkhas, why not rule out trousers for covering too much of the legs?

Anyway Lexus, no one here is condoning rape or sexual harassment, but you also can't expect someone to hide everything and be a robot.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Depends on the hoodie.  I've had a couple that were rather thin but waterproof, of an international rescue colour, and I wore them aboard my yacht.  Pretty much wore shorts at that time too. 

 

I think the occasion often dictates what you wear.  I also have a tux.

[Duke87 1,070]

Men's fashions these days are leaning toward dull.  How would you feel if men could wear more suitable clothing for the climate they lived in?  For people in the warm zones, how about a pair of sandals and a Greek-style chiton with or without undergarments?  For more rigorous climates perhaps something on the order of the styles of the 18th century with hose and brocaded waist coats and colourfully lined tunics?

 

For years and years I wore business suits of either banker's grey or consultant's pin stripes.  When in Rome and all that.  Maybe it is time for a paradigm shift in men's fashion.

 

The ladies seem to be able to get along wearing just about anything from two band-aids and a postage stamp to something out of a New Orleans cotillion.

 

This is a fact I do often lament. Women can dress comfortably in the summer and still be considered to look professional. Men cannot. I can get away with a short sleeve button down or polo shirt in the office some days, but not all. And I can never get away with wearing having my lower legs uncovered in the office - shorts are seen as too casual for both men and women, but women have the option of skirts/dresses that leave their lower legs uncovered, men have no such thing.

 

Whenever this subject comes up the justification for it seems to be "women look good in skirts, but no one wants to see your hairy legs" or something similar.

 

Or in other words, I am not allowed to show skin because I am not a target of sexual objectification. Sometimes this stuff cuts both ways, eh?

 

quota's aren't something feminists all agree on. Some think its necessary, others think its not. I think its necessary because it may force the issue to resolve a little sooner than waiting for it to die out naturally. The thing is that a lot of those boards are made out of the same people, who all know each other. The Old Boys network. I believe quotas can break open that network so women can move to those positions I can imagine that a lot of women today have no interest in waiting for so long that only their daughters will reap the benefits from it. Besides, women are more than capable enough. Why should a board consist only of guys. If you look around for a capable women I'm sure you will find plenty of them. 

 

Meh. Quotas just enable hiring managers to be lazy and fuss over meeting the quota (which is easy) instead of doing what's more difficult and actually being objective and fair in how they assess candidates.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Well given that it was in the Daily Mail I'm willing to bet that half of the story is made up trash. Aside from that, the guy does come over as condescending. He got his ass kicked by a top athlete and he belittles her by saying it like this. In your head, try to imagine what he would  have said if he got his ass kicked by a 19 year old guy. Would he then have said he got his ass kicked by a 'boy'? Probably not. The fact that you and the daily mail all start whining about how its a loss for common sense and tolerance just shows how deeply ingrained sexism is in our culture. 

 

 

Saying girl is a British thing. Women say it, men say it. And yeah I'm going whine because of the hypocrisy. How many times have you said 'girl' in a conversation to a women or when talking about women?

 

People can't live life walking on eggshells, we can't go about censoring certain words or common talk because a really, really small minority were offended by it. We're kind of like censuring ourselves for the sake of a few crybabies.

 

And that's why I don't like feminism in the UK, its becoming this monster where if you cut off one head, then two more ferocious heads grow. And it also goes back to a point I made in earliest posts about feminism is starting to infringe upon free speech, well here is a clear-cut example of it. Now I presume you are a feminist and I must also presume you support free speech and tolerance.

 

So which is it? Do you want to place boundaries upon free speech and eliminate sexist insults? When free speech gives you the right to insult back?

 

This is what annoys me because feminists stereotype men and they love to insult them whenever they get the chance, but if a man does it... He does not have the right. So women can insult men, but men can insult women? Is that it?

 

Please help me to understand this conundrum and cognitive dissonance for it is most puzzling!

[Meg 368]

 

And I can never get away with wearing having my lower legs uncovered in the office - shorts are seen as too casual for both men and women, but women have the option of skirts/dresses that leave their lower legs uncovered, men have no such thing.

 

 

 

Men used to have such things but stopped wearing them centuries ago.  They were called togas.   I have no idea what a modern day business toga would look like but if that's what men want to wear, they should be able to do so.

 

No, this kind of change isn't easy.  Most people here missed the upheaval that happened when women started wearing pants in the workplace and girls started wearing pants to school.     I wasn't allowed to wear pants to school until I was in 7th grade.  It was against the dress code.    and it was a radical thing when the rule was changed.

 

The idea behind feminism does include more freedoms for men but many people don't see that.    Men have made some progress.  Men's options in grooming have come a long way.  Time was that a guy wouldn't dream of using hair products.   Now they have more of a choice as to how they want to look.

 

Much of the problem has to do with the perception of masculinity and who is defining it.   Back in the 70s, we had songs lyrics like "I am woman, hear me roar, in numbers too big to ignore, and I know too much to go back and pretend."   But a decade later, we were getting books like "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche".

 

Well, why not?   A quiche is nothing but an omelet in a pie crust.  Since when do "real men" not eat omelets or have an aversion to pie crusts?  Truth is, "real men" are secure enough to eat anything they want.

 

Speaking as one who doesn't have to deal with the issue, it seems to me that many mens' perception of their masculinity is very fragile.  Why would eating a certain food, or driving a certain car, put a dent in it?  But, for some reason, it does.

 

Men are not going to get societal permission to change their dress code until they decide to fight for it.  It sounds stupid but I know how hard women had to fight to wear pants.

 

 

 

 

 

[Duke87 1,070]

Saying girl is a British thing. Women say it, men say it. And yeah I'm going whine because of the hypocrisy. How many times have you said 'girl' in a conversation to a women or when talking about women?

 

Quite frequently, although whether it is appropriate depends on the context. I wouldn't use it condescendingly, but rather more in the sense of "you go, girl!" as words of congratulations or encouragement.

 

And in general conversation, "guys and girls" is a casual alternative to the more formal "men and women", or very formal "gentlemen and ladies".

 

There was a time when the casual terms were "guys and gals" or "guys and dolls"... but "gals" has become rather passe and old fashioned as a word, and referring to a woman as a "doll" in today's world would probably in most cases considered to be quite demeaning (in stark contrast to the compliment it used to be).

 

At any rate, I wouldn't blink at the context in which the BBC program used the word. The idea that it's somehow offensive is political correctness run amok.

 

 

Men used to have such things but stopped wearing them centuries ago.  They were called togas.   I have no idea what a modern day business toga would look like but if that's what men want to wear, they should be able to do so.

 

It is an interesting disparity that it's become okay for women to wear pants but not for men to wear skirts. What you say is basically true: women had to fight to be able to wear pants, but men have for the most part expressed no desire to wear skirts. There really is no practical reason why not, though, it is purely a matter of social norms.

 

That said, I don't really mind this status quo. I have no desire to walk around in public wearing a skirt. What I would rather is that there be short pants which are made in dress pant style and considered acceptable to wear to work.

 

Much of the problem has to do with the perception of masculinity and who is defining it.   Back in the 70s, we had songs lyrics like "I am woman, hear me roar, in numbers too big to ignore, and I know too much to go back and pretend."   But a decade later, we were getting books like "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche".

 

Well, why not?   A quiche is nothing but an omelet in a pie crust.  Since when do "real men" not eat omelets or have an aversion to pie crusts?  Truth is, "real men" are secure enough to eat anything they want.

 

Speaking as one who doesn't have to deal with the issue, it seems to me that many mens' perception of their masculinity is very fragile.  Why would eating a certain food, or driving a certain car, put a dent in it?  But, for some reason, it does.

 

In large part it isn't a question of how men perceive their own masculinity so much as it is concern over how others will perceive their masculinity. For a young man, being perceived as less than a "real man" carries the risk of being made fun of and shunned by other men and of having women not want to go out with you.

A lot of masculine insecurity is simply a fear of not fitting in or being accepted by others. For most people, this wanes as they mature, develop more adult relationships, and become more self-confident. Insecurity is a trait of people who haven't found their place in life.

 

Feminine insecurity also exists, but it manifests itself in different ways. Men who are insecure exhibit outward irrational aversion to "unmanly" things and irrational drive towards "manly" things. Women who are insecure tend to exhibit the symptoms of it more privately, shutting themselves inside and being moody or some such, but the underlying cause is the same: a fear that members of the opposite sex do not find them attractive, and that members of the same sex think they're not cool.

 

 

I consider myself semi-enlightened on this matter and I tend to not concern myself if some aspect of who I am is considered "unmanly" by society's arbitrary standards. Haters are gonna hate, but they can shove it. I don't live to please everyone.

[krbe 193]

I really miss the Swedish perspective here.

[DCMetro34 576]

Some of you guys seem to be a little black and white, although I understand many of you come from different generations.  There are a lot of issues that are more harmful to one gender, but still affect the other.  This goes both ways, but usually harms the female gender more.

 

For example, dress codes.  My high school often "cracks down" on what girls and guys wear but usually more on the girls for shirts that don't cover the belly, or shorts that are too short.  This is directly harmful to female students because it's restrictive and assumes boys are too sex-crazed to just continue to act like normal human beings.

 

I work at a minor league baseball park selling concessions in the stands.  There are also in-seat servers for the box seats, many of which are females (which sort of says something stereotypical about the hiring that was done).  But anyways, we track how many times we get "lewd" comments from people of other genders (yes, it does happen to me, a male).  Usually, it's about 5 to 3, with women getting more.  Does that make it an exclusively female issue?  I'd say no.  It is going to take both genders in order to right these wrongs that are so ingrained.  It simply can't be done with only half of the population.

 

Also, on a side note, as we know many colleges are female-heavy these days.  In the top twenty people in my grade based on GPA, eighteen are girls and the other two are boys.  Most higher level classes (AP and honors) are girl-heavy. I took an AP Spanish class with twenty-two girls and four boys, and am interning in a class this year with seventeen girls and four boys. It'll be interesting to see where this takes us in a decade or so, or if barriers still remain in the professional world.

 

There is a reality where women who grew up in the 1980s are having to break the glass ceiling today, but younger females today are far outpacing their male counterparts in education for various reasons.  The women of the 1980s had to break down discrimination in the college-world and academic success world when they were in that stage of life, and now they have to break down barriers in the professional world.  Now that that 1980s generation has broken down educational barriers and women outnumber men in many high level institutions, will the same hold true when my generation moves on to the professional world because of the work and struggle of older generations who are currently in the professional world?  I can only speak on my personal experiences and I understand in the business and political realms, there is much work to be done, but things seem to be at least looking up.

 

Now, objectification and gender roles?  That's a whole different can of worms.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I think shorts are bad because like short sleeved shirts they are not terribly correct. Nowt wrong with men wearing skirts. They do it in Scotland i hear. However shorts look ridiculous like something Crusoe would wear. Girls and boys is how i refer to people informally and ladies and gentlemen formally. At my work both have to wear trousers. I tend to believe in a combo of masculinity such as fitness and hard work and effeminacies such as politeness and proper dressing etc. I think ideally chavs would be shot from society. I suppose you could say i believe in people being disciplined and correct like ladies but tough like men and well mannered and aesthetically pleasant like ladies. Laziness and such masculine traits and insecurity anf such feminine i think need ironing out. I think neither men nor ladies should have hair on their legs but humans are animals and i find shaving my face a chore so i can hardly preach from heaven.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Meh. Quotas just enable hiring managers to be lazy and fuss over meeting the quota (which is easy) instead of doing what's more difficult and actually being objective and fair in how they assess candidates.

Yeah, and in a perfect world we wouldn't need to do it because people would be able to reflect on their own biases and the problem would solve itself. We however do not live in a perfect world where people demonstrate the ability of critical self reflection on their own privilege and biases and if they are not coerced a little they will just keep on doing whatever it is they are doing. 

 

Saying girl is a British thing. Women say it, men say it. And yeah I'm going whine because of the hypocrisy. How many times have you said 'girl' in a conversation to a women or when talking about women?

 

People can't live life walking on eggshells, we can't go about censoring certain words or common talk because a really, really small minority were offended by it. We're kind of like censuring ourselves for the sake of a few crybabies.

 

And that's why I don't like feminism in the UK, its becoming this monster where if you cut off one head, then two more ferocious heads grow. And it also goes back to a point I made in earliest posts about feminism is starting to infringe upon free speech, well here is a clear-cut example of it. Now I presume you are a feminist and I must also presume you support free speech and tolerance.

 

So which is it? Do you want to place boundaries upon free speech and eliminate sexist insults? When free speech gives you the right to insult back?

 

This is what annoys me because feminists stereotype men and they love to insult them whenever they get the chance, but if a man does it... He does not have the right. So women can insult men, but men can insult women? Is that it?

 

Please help me to understand this conundrum and cognitive dissonance for it is most puzzling!

 

I never said you can't say girl because saying girl is inherently sexist (because its not inherently sexist). I'm saying that the context in which this BBC guy said it was belittling and sexist. 

 

Should it have been beeped away? Perhaps. It did nicely highlight the guys sexist bias in this case and it provides a wonderful starting point for a discussion about sexism. But should it mean that from now on everything sexist is getting beeped away? No, free speech is important and it should not be diminished. So, self censoring like that shouldn't become standard practice. 

[AkemiAzula 280]

I find it hilarious papers still censor swears considering i knew them all before leaving primary school. Also because its the idea not the word which offends.

On the girl issue think of girlfriend and boyfriend. I doubt lady friend will come back into voguery.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, Mark brought up the idea of kilts.  Some men are comfortable in clan attire if they are Scottish.  I believe there is also a kilt tradition in the Greek army, but whether this has extended to the civilian population is a question.  As for the Toga Romana, I am not sure any man these days would want to lug around all that cloth.  Generally speaking Roman men wore a tuncia under the toga because the toga was often made of unbleached wool (scratchy/itchy).

 

Somehow the tradition of skirts for women and leggings for men came out of the middle ages.  What we need is some form of sexless attire where one style suits all. 

 

I, for one, am sick of dark and muted colours.  I like some of the fancy brocades that were popular for waist coats at one time.  Maybe what we need is some sort of universal, comfortable singlet in any colour you damn please.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well, Mark brought up the idea of kilts.  Some men are comfortable in clan attire if they are Scottish.  I believe there is also a kilt tradition in the Greek army, but whether this has extended to the civilian population is a question.  As for the Toga Romana, I am not sure any man these days would want to lug around all that cloth.  Generally speaking Roman men wore a tuncia under the toga because the toga was often made of unbleached wool (scratchy/itchy).

 

Somehow the tradition of skirts for women and leggings for men came out of the middle ages.  What we need is some form of sexless attire where one style suits all. 

 

I, for one, am sick of dark and muted colours.  I like some of the fancy brocades that were popular for waist coats at one time.  Maybe what we need is some sort of universal, comfortable singlet in any colour you damn please.

Clothing are only gender specific because of gender stereotypes. Its a gender stereotype that women wear skirts while man wear pants. A guy can just as easily wear skirts, there is absolutely no physical reason why he can't do it. The only reason why guys generally don't wear skirts is because its socially unacceptable, because as a society we have decided that only women can wear skirts. But that is just an attitude and attitudes can be changed. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

 

<snip>

Clothing are only gender specific because of gender stereotypes. Its a gender stereotype that women wear skirts while man wear pants. A guy can just as easily wear skirts, there is absolutely no physical reason why he can't do it. The only reason why guys generally don't wear skirts is because its socially unacceptable, because as a society we have decided that only women can wear skirts. But that is just an attitude and attitudes can be changed. 

 

True, but don't hold your breath ...

[Zelgadis 638]

I'm going to wade in here, admittedly having read many, though not all, posts and make a few comments.

 

Point 1: Men need to check their privilege. Meg made a great post about this earlier, so I won't get too deeply into this. I am a minority, but I am a not-so-visible minority, so I get benefits from that. I don't have to look over my shoulder when I walk down a presumably safe street at night. I never have to worry about being a victim of sexual harassment. I could go on and on. The point being, if you're a white male, you do not realize the absurd number of benefits unless you stop and think very carefully about it. 

 

Point 2: Women need to check their rage. Look, I get it. I'm a gay man and I've suffered mightily at the hands of so-called Christians, extremeists, bigots, and other assorted whackos, even to the point of being legitimately afraid for my life. There is a movement going on right now that says it's misonynistic to say "not all men are like that." I can understand where people are coming from when they bristle at such a phrase. Believe me, I do. However, taking a half second to think about it reveals not only why that sentiment is stupid, but also counterproductive. First of all, the phrase is a fact. Not all men, indeed, are like that. To think otherwise is a lie. 

 

Secondly, it is, as I said, counterproductive. It was very, very tempting for me to rage against Christians and cut them all out of my life. However, not all Christians are like that. The ones who aren't are allies, and every fight needs allies. They're the ones who went back to their churches and told their fellow churchgoers to stuff their bigotry where the sun don't shine. Men telling other men to do the same can be a very powerful tool in the fight against misogyny.

 

Another example, if I thought I knew everything about Saudis from watching the news, I'd have a low opinion of them indeed. However, in the job that I do, I meet lots of Saudis and other Muslims. They are the nicest people I've ever met, hands down. They will have a beer with you and they will go to the gay pride parade, take pictures, and have fun. True, some are rabid extremeists and terrorists, but guess what? Not all Saudis are like that! In fact, most aren't. 

 

This is a fight against misogyny. Having allies is important. Pushing away potential allies for fear of thinking "not al men are like that," is a destructive impulse that needs to be curbed.

 

Not all men are like that. Not all women are like that. Not all Muslims are like that. Not all Christians are like that. Not all gay people are like that. Not all ANYBODY is like ANYTHING. (Yes, I shouted.)

 

Point 3: Clothing. This goes both ways. Women have more choice, and I envy that. However, women are also victims of a brutal and sickening fashion and beauty industry. Yes, they get more choice, but they have to suffer for it. Men are now starting to experience this. Not long ago, all my shirts were mediums. I still have old shirts that are mediums and they fit just fine. New ones? Not a chance. I can't even fit into XXL in some brands. I knew this was going to happen when I first saw an anorexic male model on a catwalk. 

 

Side note: the business suit is a concept that needs to be shot right into the sun and never spoken of again. At least... as far as being required attire. If you like wearing one, go for it, but I believe I can dress professionally without dressing in such a ludicrously impractical manner.

 

Point 4: Some women are like that. Just as it is true that not all men are like that, some women are like that. Women can be every bit as bad as men being anti-feminist and misogynistic. These are women who have drunk enough of the misogyny kool-aid that they don't know any different. They date the terrible guys and stay with them. They enforce beauty standards. They allow misogynists to do what they do with impunity.

 

Point 5: What is a feminist? Wow, what a loaded question. I do not consider myself a feminist because I believe that doing so would be an insult to those who are experiencing the results of misogyny. I consider myself an ally. To me, a feminist is the one who recognizes that both women and men stand to benefit from a truly egalitarian society. Dude wants to wear a skirt? That's a feminism issue too. Why? Because to society at large, that which is effeminate is weak. 

 

Point 6: What is a radical feminist? I ain't touching that one. I will state what makes a lousy feminist. Earlier, I discussed female enforcers, who enforce the beauty standards. Others do the same, but in the other direction. A woman who might rip a hijab off a woman and yell at her for being a tool of the patriarchy. Well, maybe she just wants to wear a flippin' hijab? Ever think about that? I believe one of the Sex in the City movies did something like this. The women in that movie, basically vapid, shallow, fashion industry tools, go to the Muslim world and proceed to make fun of how the women dress. Wait... I'm confused. Please explain to me how being a tool of a religion is different from being a tool of a corporation?

 

We have come a long way, but we have a long, long way to go. Comedians talk about the differences between men and women all the time. My experience is that the vast majority of those differences are socio-cultural. When I look deeply into the actual differences, all I can find are physical and some hormonal differences. Scientists say that men's and women's brains are wired differently. Fair enough, but socio-cultural programming does that.  When we get down to differences that can't be changed, I think we'll all find that there basically are none of significance.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Ian, you frighten me with talk about the anorexic fashion industry.  I thought that went by the board with Twiggy. 

 

I can still buy clothing that fits me, but I don't worry about size labels any more.  I am what used to be called 'portly' when I was still buying suits.  I am short, with short arms and legs, and quite pear shaped. 

 

The fallen arches of my chest don't help much.  It happens when you no longer work out with weights and fly a desk for years.

 

If skinny males are in, then I guess I am out.  Somehow I find it very difficult to give a hoot.

 

Any physician worth their diploma will tell you that too thin is as bad as too fat.  The trick is, like in SC4, to keep things balanced.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I think suits have become so standardised and lacking in uniqueness amd also as was said impractical. From an aesthetic perspective i would prefer eighteenth century suits and more decorative garments. Personally id still dress in black and be relatively austere but thats just me. Im always gunna be Vaderian. Skirts are no less practical than thin trousers so men wearing good quality skirts would fare as well as with business trousers. My job involves manual work and lifting and kneeling but we wear dress pants n shoes. There is an episode of The Worst Witch where i remember Milly looked lovely in mend clothing of that age. I have always felt the eighteenth century styles to be a good mixture of masculine and feminine qualities and would be happy to see girls and men adornd thusly. Modern suits are drab and thats coming from one who likes black predominant outfits.

Ties look stupid like a clown in a straight jacket. There used to be more variety in neckwear and personally i belief neckerchiefs would be good to return. As to hair most men i see have it so shory they might as well be bald. I always prefered to wear mine longer.

When i was at school i wanted to be a girl but i do manual work and eat meat so dont think these opinions are from a weak boy. One social norm i am more meh regarding is men not wearing makeup although ive nowt against that. Ideally i envision faces to be barren of hair and makeup. If i drew an ideal person it would be Milly in eighteenth century male attire.

So in some ways im old school. I like girls. I drink beer. I dislike popular music. But i dont see owt amiss with us wearing girl style clothing. Having said that i will not lie and say id enjoy seeing hairy legged men walking around with lipstick and jewelry but i have always envisioned ssgard as being devoid of my kind. At any rate i agree suits have become rather... Businessmen resemble a villains army of henchmen.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Let's hear it for gold and silver brocades!

[Duke87 1,070]

Not long ago, all my shirts were mediums. I still have old shirts that are mediums and they fit just fine. New ones? Not a chance. I can't even fit into XXL in some brands. I knew this was going to happen when I first saw an anorexic male model on a catwalk.

 

So I'm not the only one who's noticed this! And here I had convinced myself that I was simply becoming more self-conscious about making sure my shirts aren't too small. They're actually getting smaller, eh? It freaking figures.

 

 

In other news, I offer up this story. A high school in Utah has taken the liberty of photoshopping the yearbook photos of female students to make their attire in the picture more modest. That's... dishonest, if nothing else.

[Meg 368]

 

So I'm not the only one who's noticed this! And here I had convinced myself that I was simply becoming more self-conscious about making sure my shirts aren't too small. They're actually getting smaller, eh? It freaking figures.

 

 

In other news, I offer up this story. A high school in Utah has taken the liberty of photoshopping the yearbook photos of female students to make their attire in the picture more modest. That's... dishonest, if nothing else.

 

 

 

Women's sizes went in the other direction.   A "medium" from 30 years ago is a "petite" now.  Apparently they decided that women didn't want to buy clothes a size bigger so they inflated the sizes as the population inflated its bodies.   This was not obvious at the time.   We could say things like "oh, I still fit into a size 10".  I would have rather had the red flag that we were gaining weight.

 

As for the year book photos, it is indeed dishonest.  As well as pointless and random.  Why change some and not the others?  Why change them at all?  

 

 

[LexusInfernus 908]

Ah, more body policing. Because girls need to be ashamed of having a body in the first place. How dare they, their bodies are just temples of lust and they distract boys with them by merely existing. Seriously, this is the same kind of reasoning used by Muslims to stick women in Burcas. 

 

How about schools just stop sexualizing bodies by stopping with the whole dress codes based on 'modesty'. If you want to have a dress code, get school uniforms, otherwise, sod off. 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Great find Duke87! What a crazy prankster...

 

And now summon the modesty police! <Star Wars Imperial Armada theme plays>

[AkemiAzula 280]

While i believe in properly behaved boys and girls and while i am not averse to uniforms at Hogwarts as they are wizardish i think the yanks got it right. School uniforms are stupid. I remember how happy a transgender girl i knew back in oz was when they let her wear skirts. I dont see the point in uniforms at school. At work it helps customers find us for assistance etc but its not like youd confuse children with teachers. If anybody yeachers should be the ones wearing uniforms.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

No matter how you cut it, photoshopping these photos is out-and-out censorship.  Consider the morals of whoever made this decree.  They are probably shabby at best.

 

The only point in school uniforms is that it ends any dress competition.  I rather like the idea of a school uniform that is optional.  Picks out the egotists.

[Fatherted 129]

If a school uniform is optional no one except those forced to by their parents will wear one, which can result in bullying situations among both genders.

 

Also, what is up with that photo editing? I get a hint of the Saville, editing some and leaving others conspicuously unedited. Also, if clothing isn't breaking any laws, wear whatever the hell you want. If someone came in wearing a North Korean army uniform they should be allowed to be photographed without being censored. It is their constitutional right. Are they worried about the boys... doing unsavoury things with their yearbooks or something?