You remember that video of the Siberian woman feeding 130 cats?
The comments are pretty much like that, except with trolls.
|Caminante Nocturno |
'Demeaning' is a word people use when they're just smart enough to realize that using the word 'offensive' will get them laughed at.
Caminante Nocturno is an anagram of Conmen Tour (or Rout) Cantina,
|Binro the Heretic |
Some people just want to be pretty and there's nothing wrong with that.
I think I'd like to live in a world where people can dress in whatever way they feel makes them look attractive without worrying about its social or cultural implications, and without fear of being called awful things over it.
There will come a time when you won't even be ashamed if you are fat!
WAH WAH WAH WAAAAAAAH
I liked R2D2 as a pedal bin, and what you were allowed to put in it.
Escape slavery AND keep the clothes? That's just rude.
I mean, if she escapes, that's one thing, but keeping the outfit would be theft!
I don't see anything wrong with this. Why is it we somehow went from feminism being sexy and aggressive and Jane Fonda pussycat and then somehow went to this almost Anti-Sex League puritanical nonsense? Women are beautiful, men are beautiful, let's all just be beautiful together.
I think the problem is that is has and was a big sign of women being objectified darlings while the men were bread winners. And even though there's been progress in the U.S., it doesn't help that there's a wage gap. (Note: This video is from the U.K., doesn't have anything to do with the problems in feminism in the U.S.)
Jane Fonda was not exactly considered a paragon of Feminism at the time, you know.
You're thinking of third wave Feminism in the 90s, which in retrospect bears some responsibility for laying some of the foundation for fourth wave Feminism, which is more of a marketing demographic than a coherent social movement and is frankly pretty regressive (though to its credit, it DOES seem to be a bit less myopically white-hetero-upper-middle-class-centric than the first couple of waves).
Actually, I partly take that back, because first wave (60s) Feminism didn't really have the puritanical undercurrent that you often see in second wave Feminist writing (well, what bits of it I've read over the years anyhow). I kind of think it's mostly a reflection of the general tendency of each generation to overcompensate for the shortcomings and mistakes of the previous generation.
This is all broad generalizations based on minimal research, of course.
I've just been frustrated lately at how thoroughly progressivism has been declawed and commodified since the early 90s but especially in the last 5-10 years.
Just one word is needed for this example: "objectification."
I'm not saying it explains everything, but it explains a lot. It has no operational definition and is not measurable; it's a convenient, thought-terminating pseudoanswer to more complicated questions, used to label just about anything as "bad."
I think the transition of feminism can be understood in a nutshell by looking at this:
Demands One - Four
Passed at the National WLM Conference, Skegness 1971
1. Equal Pay
2. Equal Educational and Job Opportunities
3. Free Contraception and Abortion on Demand
4. Free 24-hour Nurseries
Five and Six
Passed at the National WLM Conference, Edinburgh 1974
5. Legal and Financial Independence for All Women
6. The Right to a Self Defined Sexuality. An End to Discrimination Against Lesbians.
In 1978 at the National WLM Conference, Birmingham, the first part of this demand was split off and put as a preface to all seven demands
The Seventh Demand
Passed at the National WLM Conference, Birmingham 1978
7. Freedom for all women from intimidation by the threat or use of violence or sexual coercion regardless of marital status; and an end to the laws, assumptions and institutions which perpetuate male dominance and aggression to women.
Notice the shifts over time, and how the last one isn't concrete in any way. By the 7th demand goals that can be achieved with solidarity have been supplanted by ideology. This shift accompanied a lot of strife over what the True Feminists' views should be, particularly about sex and men, and helped shatter previous solidarity. Public discourse was increasingly dominated by trying to define righteousness rather than finding common goals across diverse views.
"Objectification," "patriarchy," and "privilege" (and now "rape culture") became a sort of pantheon of boogeymen, separate but also the same evil. They're both (barren) philosophical common ground for the various feminist schools/denominations, and an easy social-identity signal. This "liberal puritanism" basically infected anything critical studies / social justice-ish.
My take, anyway.
Now there's a story I'd like to see: a space mobster sends thieves to Leia's palace and ultimately visits her in person in order to get something from her. Turns out he's an old foe of Jabba's who heard rumors that Leia stole something from him, and although nobody knows what it is, he wants to claim it as a trophy - most or all of Jabba's other enemies got their hands on something of his after his death and he really doesn't want to be beaten in this. Turns out it's the slave girl outfit, which weirds him out and results in hilarity.
I swear to god, I played a campaign almost exactly like that in the old Star Wars tabletop RPG.
|The Mothership |
Metal bikini with loincloth is not necessarily a 'slave' outfit. It's not like 'metal bikini with loincloth' defines one as a slave the way 'firefighter uniform' defines one by that occupation. So I call bullshit on dad's whole point of reasoning; your logic is faulty, son. Little girl likes the clothes; if my daughter said that I'd say 'fine honey, what's on the next page?' and move on.
I think all ya'll idiots and the dad in the video miss the creepy "5 year old likes a metal bikini" bordering on 'Toddlers In Tiaras' creepy aspect of this.
John Holmes Motherfucker
>>I'm not saying it explains everything, but it explains a lot. It has no operational definition and is not measurable; it's a convenient, thought-terminating pseudoanswer to more complicated questions, used to label just about anything as "bad."
>>>I disagree, mostly. Here's some copypasta from something I posted recently.
>>>"In principle, I've been a feminist for 40 years, but I was pretty clueless for most of that time. OBJECTIFICATION is something I've only understood in the past few years. Lacey Green says: "In a sane world, we'd all be objects some of the time, and subjects most of the time."
>>>In other words, objectification is not automatically a bad thing. It's that women are often DEFINED as objects. Most of the time.
There absolutely is an operational definition of "objectification" in this context. I'm not going to attempt it right now, but it's not widely understood, and it's often misused.
>>>"Objectification," "patriarchy," and "privilege" (and now "rape culture") became a sort of pantheon of boogeymen, separate but also the same evil.
Unfortunately, feminists have created the language of feminism, and so it's way more effective for communicating with other feminists than with everybody else. It presumes that the discussion is over, and yes, it can be sexist, and damned unhelpful. "The Male Gaze" is pretty much the only way I have of seeing things. If you could be more specific, it might be easier for me to change. I once had a woman accuse me of "mansplaining" when I said something in defense of TV "binge-watching". Maybe it was supposed to be a joke. It wasn't funny. The truth is, we all need a lot more SPLAINING, and a lot more listening.
Some things really ARE complicated and unmeasurable, and the language we have for discussing them is still evolving, and that's just going to be a problem for a while.
|Spit Spingola |
Man, you weren't kidding about those comments. It's like this was scientifically devised to cause chaos.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|