NationStates Jolt Archive

For those of you tempted to be douchebags and go on and on about feminists wanting to rename things 'people holes' and so forth...kindly fuck off. I'd like to have a legitimate discussion about feminism, thanks.

Context. I'm trying to join a roller derby league, and I've been reading some rants both for and against roller derby as an expression of feminism. Roller girls tend to dress rather scantily (http://www.gophila.com/assets/dmt/images/70.PhillyRollerGirls-lrG.jpg), and some argue that the 'personal is political!' and therefore, the choices that women make, even if it is empowering for them (ie. to dress scantily, etc) ultimately dis-empowers women as a whole by playing into gendered stereotypes perpetuated by the patriarchy.

So what do you think? I can see how this can be true, but I also resent the idea of waking up every morning going, 'hmmm, would the patriarchy approve, because if so, I can't wear that!' before getting dressed.

Anyway, let this be an open, honest discussion about feminism, how we live it, how we struggle with it, and so on.

I think feminazis are working towards the male holocaust. Oh sure sure, what do you care, you're a woman. But you know.... first they came for the Jews...

I think feminazis are working towards the male holocaust. Oh sure sure, what do you care, you're a woman. But you know.... first they came for the Jews...

*facepalm*

People holes? I don't get it.

For those of you tempted to be douchebags and go on and on about feminists wanting to rename things 'people holes' and so forth...kindly fuck off. I'd like to have a legitimate discussion about feminism, thanks.

Context. I'm trying to join a roller derby league, and I've been reading some rants both for and against roller derby as an expression of feminism. Roller girls tend to dress rather scantily (http://www.gophila.com/assets/dmt/images/70.PhillyRollerGirls-lrG.jpg), and some argue that the 'personal is political!' and therefore, the choices that women make, even if it is empowering for them (ie. to dress scantily, etc) ultimately dis-empowers women as a whole by playing into gendered stereotypes perpetuated by the patriarchy.

So what do you think? I can see how this can be true, but I also resent the idea of waking up every morning going, 'hmmm, would the patriarchy approve, because if so, I can't wear that!' before getting dressed.

Anyway, let this be an open, honest discussion about feminism, how we live it, how we struggle with it, and so on.

Not allowing the individual woman to dress exactly as she pleases, without worrying about how it affects women as a group, keeps the patriarchies standards in control. If you won't wear something due to the stereotype it evokes, then the patriarchies standards have dictated how you have dressed.

*facepalm*

Honestly, you should have expected it.

People holes? I don't get it.

I also want to know what that means.

Not allowing the individual woman to dress exactly as she pleases, without worrying about how it affects women as a group, keeps the patriarchies standards in control. If you won't wear something due to the stereotype it evokes, then the patriarchies standards have dictated how you have dressed.
Well the idea is, one of the main ways women can achieve status is by being sexually desireable, so the desire for status leads to women desiring to dress in a 'sexually appealing' way, which is not so much about what SHE wants to wear, and more about what makes her feel powerful...all of which feeds into the patriarchal standards she is supposedly sloughing off.
Honestly, you should have expected it.

I did. Still.

I did. Still.

Just sayin'.

Also, I'm confused by "people holes". I have replaced "people" with woman, girl, bitch, whore, etc, and I haven't figured out what the expression is that you're referencing..

Jesus fuck people.

Manholes.

People holes? I don't get it.

a renaming of manholes.


As for feminism, it is about doing what you want, regardless of what anyone else says, really. If you want to wear daisy dukes and a halter with no bra, wear it. If you want to wear a 1950's dress, go for it. If you want to work, work. If you want to be a housewife, do it. It's all about having the choice to do so, rather than being forced to do something because someone says so...be it men saying so, or women.

Jesus fuck people.

Manholes.

Aha!

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled thread.

<makes sexist inappropriate joke on the way out>

Yeah, I worked it out a minute or two after I posted. I was like Galloism, where my initial reaction was to try to put a female word in to find the offense.

Anyway.

Well the idea is, one of the main ways women can achieve status is by being sexually desireable, so the desire for status leads to women desiring to dress in a 'sexually appealing' way, which is not so much about what SHE wants to wear, and more about what makes her feel powerful...all of which feeds into the patriarchal standards she is supposedly sloughing off.

Isn't there something to be said for the inherent empowerment of co-opting a sexist stereotype and redefining it for themselves?

There's nothing saying that they don't actually enjoy dressing scantily. Some people, men and women, genuinely enjoy wearing next to nothing (or even nothing), and the powerful feeling accompanying it may just be an added benefit to doing something they'd enjoy alone in the privacy of their home.

It's possible, right?

Well the idea is, one of the main ways women can achieve status is by being sexually desireable, so the desire for status leads to women desiring to dress in a 'sexually appealing' way, which is not so much about what SHE wants to wear, and more about what makes her feel powerful...all of which feeds into the patriarchal standards she is supposedly sloughing off.


{snip}

If what she wants is to feel powerful, and dressing in a sexy manner is the easiest way to do so, whose place is it to tell her it is wrong? Feminists? The patriarchy? No, it is HER choice. Some women become "ballbreaking feminists" for the same reason. Ultimately, I think any ones (male or female) sense of power or status should be based on their own standards, and their own accomplishments.

a renaming of manholes.


As for feminism, it is about doing what you want, regardless of what anyone else says, really. If you want to wear daisy dukes and a halter with no bra, wear it. If you want to wear a 1950's dress, go for it. If you want to work, work. If you want to be a housewife, do it. It's all about having the choice to do so, rather than being forced to do something because someone says so...be it men saying so, or women.

This is how I approach my own feminism.

I`m not really sure what some of these women want...they feel that, (sticking with my initial example), roller derby will never be taken seriously if women play it in fishnets, miniskirts and tight tops...jesus is it not okay that this is part of the draw for me? I like that it has sass! I like that it's bratty, and violent....since when is bratty and violent ok with teh patriarchy?

I dunno, when I dress scantily and look sexy, women notice, which isn't generally encouraged by the traditional patriarchal society. Looking sexually attractive DOES make me feel powerful, but for me it is in a sort of "what a rocking woman I am!" powerful. And while it is nice to be desired by others, I dress nice so that when I catch a glimpse of myself in the mirror I think "Holy Shit that is one fucking sexy woman."

Maybe if I were dressing scantily because I was working at Hooters it would be a different story. But I am a large-chested woman. A scoop neck shirt on me looks scanty and scandalous, even though on a woman with a 32-B bra size it would be relatively modest. It is just as dis-empowering, I think, to wear turtlekneck just so my cleavage isn't out so I can be "taken seriously" or "look respectable" as it would be to dress like a hooker to get what I want.

Other response:
Ew, who is letting women talk?!

a renaming of manholes.


As for feminism, it is about doing what you want, regardless of what anyone else says, really. If you want to wear daisy dukes and a halter with no bra, wear it. If you want to wear a 1950's dress, go for it. If you want to work, work. If you want to be a housewife, do it. It's all about having the choice to do so, rather than being forced to do something because someone says so...be it men saying so, or women.

This.

Yeah, I worked it out a minute or two after I posted. I was like Galloism, where my initial reaction was to try to put a female word in to find the offense.

Anyway.



Isn't there something to be said for the inherent empowerment of co-opting a sexist stereotype and redefining it for themselves?

There's nothing saying that they don't actually enjoy dressing scantily. Some people, men and women, genuinely enjoy wearing next to nothing (or even nothing), and the powerful feeling accompanying it may just be an added benefit to doing something they'd enjoy alone in the privacy of their home.

It's possible, right?
I certainly think it is...if it weren't, we'd all have to dress 'conservatively' which is also determined by social standards.

I don't think it's a horrible thing for any person, male or female, to not only NOT mind people 'objectifying' their bodies, but to actually enjoy it, and encourage it. I do mind if anyone feels pressured into dressing scantily, for the enjoyment of others. I do believe this pressure exists, and I believe it's incredibly powerful.

So I can understand the idea that even if you are a woman who recognises social pressure to dress scantily, and you have evaluated that pressure, reject it, and dress scantily anyway for your own reasons...that by example, to other people who aren't privy to your internal thought processes, you could in fact simply be conforming to that pressure. Yet we all get misunderstood constantly. Is that enough of a reason to reject what you want? Are you playing into a stereotype even if you've evaluated it, and is that harmful?

Well what exact feminist movement are we discussing?
Equal opportunity ? Equal rights and education? All those hell yeah.

Some of the ideas discussed here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism maybe not so much. (except the anarchist feminist they cool).

as for your Sexy clothes topic.
I will use an interview in the 1990's with Nichelle Nichols who played Lt.. Uhuru in star trek the original series. When asked about the short skirts they had her wear and if it was male oppression her reply was that getting to wear the short skirts was part of the feminist movement at the time. (didn't have the interview in link so just provided a summary).

To me it seems like a generational gap. The 2nd wave feminist of the 1960's fought so they could wear those outfits on TV. Now the 3rd wave of feminism is saying wearing those sorts of clothes is the problem. I find it disturbing that modern feminist are willing to target freedoms earlier feminist fought for.

This is how I approach my own feminism.

I`m not really sure what some of these women want...they feel that, (sticking with my initial example), roller derby will never be taken seriously if women play it in fishnets, miniskirts and tight tops...jesus is it not okay that this is part of the draw for me? I like that it has sass! I like that it's bratty, and violent....since when is bratty and violent ok with teh patriarchy?

The women (and men) that claim that fishnets prevent a sport from being taken seriously are the very people standing in the way of equality. Will some clothes always be "slutty"? Probably. Just as some clothes will always be "guido" or "goth" or "emo" or "hippy" or any number of subculture groups. So long as these subcultures exist, they will have dress tied in. What becomes more important is "is it bad to be slutty?" or "is it bad to be emo?". Yes...fishnets might always be slutty. Then again, "slutty" might shift to be catholic school girl uniform. Or black frocks. The issue isn't the current style or preference, but "Do I discount this person strictly because of how they present themselves". The very issue is highlighted by the fact that I can't think of a male equivalent of "slut" or "whore".

The women (and men) that claim that fishnets prevent a sport from being taken seriously are the very people standing in the way of equality. Will some clothes always be "slutty"? Probably. Just as some clothes will always be "guido" or "goth" or "emo" or "hippy" or any number of subculture groups. So long as these subcultures exist, they will have dress tied in. What becomes more important is "is it bad to be slutty?" or "is it bad to be emo?". Yes...fishnets might always be slutty. Then again, "slutty" might shift to be catholic school girl uniform. Or black frocks. The issue isn't the current style or preference, but "Do I discount this person strictly because of how they present themselves". The very issue is highlighted by the fact that I can't think of a male equivalent of "slut" or "whore".

A quote from a blog (http://secondinnocence.blogspot.com/2007/08/my-how-skirts-will-fly.html) about another blog (http://meanfeminism.blogspot.com/2006/11/rant-against-roller-derby.html) that was slamming roller derby :D

The attire. In looking back at the responses to the Vicky Vengeance post, there were actual roller derby girls pointing out how the attire they choose to wear is comfortable. I suppose that may be true. To each their own, but I fail to see how fishnet stockings and skirts that are barely able to qualify as skirts promote anything other than sexism.

Now I don't get that bolded bit. It's stated as though it's self-evident, but huh? Fishnets and barely there skirts can only promote sexism...is an axiom? Really?

So...showing off too much of your body...inherently promotes sexism.

Men, put your fucking shirts back on!

This is how I approach my own feminism.

I`m not really sure what some of these women want...they feel that, (sticking with my initial example), roller derby will never be taken seriously if women play it in fishnets, miniskirts and tight tops...jesus is it not okay that this is part of the draw for me? I like that it has sass! I like that it's bratty, and violent....since when is bratty and violent ok with teh patriarchy?

It seems to me that the roller derby women couldn't possibly care less whether roller derby gets taken seriously. I know it's not your actual position I'm arguing against, but not-giving-a-shit seems to be entirely the point of the clothing. They're expressing just how much they don't care what is convention or what is appropriate.

I certainly think it is...if it weren't, we'd all have to dress 'conservatively' which is also determined by social standards.

I don't think it's a horrible thing for any person, male or female, to not only NOT mind people 'objectifying' their bodies, but to actually enjoy it, and encourage it. I do mind if anyone feels pressured into dressing scantily, for the enjoyment of others. I do believe this pressure exists, and I believe it's incredibly powerful.

I completely agree, but I don't think that's the case here. They're not dressing scantily in a way that can be considered conventional by society, so I doubt societal pressures play a large role in their decision to dress like they do. Perhaps if they dressed more traditionally "sexy", then the argument might exist that they're doing it because they feel pressured to, but it seems to me they're doing it not because they think they should and more because they want to.

A quote from a blog (http://secondinnocence.blogspot.com/2007/08/my-how-skirts-will-fly.html) about another blog (http://meanfeminism.blogspot.com/2006/11/rant-against-roller-derby.html) that was slamming roller derby :D



Now I don't get that bolded bit. It's stated as though it's self-evident, but huh? Fishnets and barely there skirts can only promote sexism...is an axiom? Really?

So...showing off too much of your body...inherently promotes sexism.

Men, put your fucking shirts back on!
It's the same thing I don't get...if you have tits, rock them if you so choose. If you lack tits, rock your lack if you so choose. Feminism was always about breaking the rules, not creating new ones.


*totally burns bra*

*makes note to later apologise to mom for burnt bra*

It seems to me that the roller derby women couldn't possibly care less whether roller derby gets taken seriously. I know it's not your actual position I'm arguing against, but not-giving-a-shit seems to be entirely the point of the clothing. They're expressing just how much they don't care what is convention or what is appropriate.

Ironically, in rejecting convention, they create a new convention, as is so often the case.

It seems to me that the roller derby women couldn't possibly care less whether roller derby gets taken seriously. I know it's not your actual position I'm arguing against, but not-giving-a-shit seems to be entirely the point of the clothing. They're expressing just how much they don't care what is convention or what is appropriate.

Which is sooo what I love about it.

I would be much less interested in the sport if the participants all wore team uniforms. I like that even in this team setting, the individuality of the women is clear, and obvious, and personalities are encouraged to shine out.

And as a woman who likes to look at women's...assets...I certainly don't want women to stop flaunting their sexuality.

I think this is a good question though, from this (http://secondinnocence.blogspot.com/2008/05/tale-of-two-roller-derbies.html) blog post.

...how responsible are we for trying to manage our images? Should we ever modify our dress or style if we realize that the look we've chosen is being misinterpreted, or are other people's misconceptions their own problems?

Why worry about what roller derbies represent? If it's fun for you, do it.

The only people in a debate about feminism that irritate me more than the chauvinists are the feminists.

I think people should do what they want, within a context that is appropriate to the role--not the person filling it. If it is appropriate for a man to wear a suit and tie to the office, it's not appropriate for a woman to wear a halter dress. It's also not appropriate for a man to wear a halter dress. It seems common sensical to me.

But then again, I detest the existence of most skirt suits. If I want to wear a suit, I'll wear a suit. I won't wear a "look! it's just like a suit, only for girls!" suit.

<makes sexist inappropriate joke on the way out>

If it's a sexually inappropriate joke, wouldn't it be 'made on the way in'? <rimshot>

I enjoy watching roller derby myself, although quite possibly for all the 'wrong' reasons. I'm ok with chicks wearing fishnets and little skirts because that's kind of hot, but mostly because, as a general rule, I can't be persuaded to give a damn what anybody else wears(although I reserve the right to comment on particulary outlandish choices). Hell, I barely pay attention to what I'm wearing(something that has been commented on by my current inamorata). That, and those roller derby chicks are double-tough. They'll stomp a mud-hole in your ass and walk it dry, you step into that ring.

since when is bratty and violent ok with teh patriarchy?

Speaking as a member of the patriarchy, I don't like bratty(it's immature)but I'm ok with violent. I like a chick will stand up and try and kick some ass.

Why worry about what roller derbies represent? If it's fun for you, do it.I'm not worried, I'm interested in the feminist arguments which are not specific to the roller derby :P

It's the same thing I don't get...
It’s not hard to get. A sport requiring women to dress in highly sexualised fashion does nothing to challenge society’s prevailing emphasis on women as passive objects of sexual desire. It doesn’t broaden self-awareness and raise a feminist consciousness by criticising the view that women depend on male dominance and thus must play to their sexual attractiveness for advancement.

From an individualist perspective, it would be hard to argue against the choice of a woman to portray herself as an object of sexual desire or to willingly accept a life of deadening domesticity, both patriarchal paradigms. After all, on the one hand feminists’ goals are very simple, seeking equal rights, equal status and the freedom to decide their own careers and life patterns. But from a broader, collective perspective, of trying to tear down stereotypical or discriminatory mass-media representations, activities like mud wrestling do little to further the feminist movement.

I have no problem with feminism, so long as its not taken extreme. Feminism arose basically to battle one extreme, that is male domination of every day life, but I have seen some instances where its been the women who have done the extreme, and I don't believe that is right either. *grumbles about being in a women studies class as the only male* :p

Feminism should be about a woman enjoying all the rights she has, so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else. A man should be the same way, and so should the negro, the jew, or the (insert racial/religious/minority group here). Society is only beneficial is there is an achieved homeostasis between all, or at least most of the groups present. Not one person should have an advantage over another.

But yeah, if you want to wear a skimpy outfit out, then fine. You should be able to. However, if you are in an private establishment that has rules which state otherwise, then of course you should follow them. Anyways, more power to you Sin.

If it's a sexually inappropriate joke, wouldn't it be 'made on the way in'? <rimshot>

I enjoy watching roller derby myself, although quite possibly for all the 'wrong' reasons. I'm ok with chicks wearing fishnets and little skirts because that's kind of hot, but mostly because, as a general rule, I can't be persuaded to give a damn what anybody else wears(although I reserve the right to comment on particulary outlandish choices). Hell, I barely pay attention to what I'm wearing(something that has been commented on by my current inamorata). That, and those roller derby chicks are double-tough. They'll stomp a mud-hole in your ass and walk it dry, you step into that ring.



Speaking as a member of the patriarchy, I don't like bratty(it's immature)but I'm ok with violent. I like a chick will stand up and try and kick some ass.

Fuck you, I LIKE bratty! Also uppity. Bratty is not immature, it's irreverent!

I like roller derby for all the wrong reasons too I guess. I hate team sports, so the fact that these chicks all look like the ones who used to sit it out during gym class because they were too stoned to participate, or whatever, appeals to me. Also, bitches in the team sports back then used to cry and threaten to get you charged when you elbowed them in the face. I loved the fans...I have no doubt there are stupid douchebag fans out there too, but fuck them.

Anyway, back on track. It is going to piss me off to have someone tell me what I ought to do/wear/say/believe/eat/fuck/etc, regardless of whether that person is a homophobic dickheaded racist asshole or someone with whom I generally agree with politically/socially/what-have-you. To be honest, the latter will piss me off more than the former, because you expect that kind of shitheadedness from people who don't agree with you. Getting it in the back, so to speak, from feminists, is something that always pisses me off. Racist homophobic jerkwads don't ask me to explain myself, they just assume. Certain feminists act like I need to justify my choices to them.

Thankfully, those tend to be a minority, and I don't hang out with them much once I realise what they are.

It’s not hard to get. A sport requiring women to dress in highly sexualised fashion does nothing to challenge society’s prevailing emphasis on women as passive objects of sexual desire. It doesn’t broaden self-awareness and raise a feminist consciousness by criticising the view that women depend on male dominance and thus must play to their sexual attractiveness for advancement.

From an individualist perspective, it would be hard to argue against the choice of a woman to portray herself as an object of sexual desire or to willingly accept a life of deadening domesticity, both patriarchal paradigms. After all, on the one hand feminists’ goals are very simple, seeking equal rights, equal status and the freedom to decide their own careers and life patterns. But from a broader, collective perspective, of trying to tear down stereotypical or discriminatory mass-media representations, activities like mud wrestling do little to further the feminist movement.

Roller derby is a mostly women-owned and operated grassroots sport. Full of misfits and women of all body types and ages. The way they dress is one thing...but the way they play is another, and frankly, it's the way they play that makes it a spectacular event.

There is no 'requirement' to dress sexually. And I can't believe you just brought up mud-wrestling. *facepalm*

I'm going to have to wear a suit for the bulk of my working days. The idea of being able to get into some lime-green fishnets, silver short shorts and a boy-beater, all in order to get rough and tumble with other women, gives me great hope. Being able to break out of the extremely conservative legal environment I'll be working in...an environment that arguably rigidly enforces male gender stereotypes by requiring even women to adhere to them in order to advance...to me is the epitome of empowerment.

I think this is a good question though, from this (http://secondinnocence.blogspot.com/2008/05/tale-of-two-roller-derbies.html) blog post.

Oh that is a tough question, because I can answer either way. Yes, it is important for a person to take into consideration how they appear to society. For example, if I want to appear as a well respected businessman, I wouldn't dress in greasy, torn jeans and a wife beater. So yes, in one aspect, the individual (not just women) should always be mindful of the look they possible could be giving off. That is not to say, however, that society isn't at fault too. For example, if I am an above par businessman, then why should I have to conform to be like the rest? Shouldn't my record do the speaking and not the look I sport? I think its important that people have a symbolistic mindset. We attribute different qualities to different shapes and patterns, and so does our society. In the case I gave, society has made the responsible businessman to appear well groomed and tailored. Its a symbol that resonates with us. I guess you can say that some of the biases that we have then are human nature, and thus pretty hard to change. Apply that the issue of how a woman dresses, and maybe you can see the same thing?

It’s not hard to get. A sport requiring women to dress in highly sexualised fashion does nothing to challenge society’s prevailing emphasis on women as passive objects of sexual desire.
If I'm wearing something totally hot while kicking ass, I don't think it adds emphasis to me as a 'passive object' of sexual desire. I may be objectifying my body in some way, but I don't think it is at all passive.

It doesn’t broaden self-awareness and raise a feminist consciousness by criticising the view that women depend on male dominance and thus must play to their sexual attractiveness for advancement.
Except, I don't get how wearing miniskirts and fishnets "play their sexual attractiveness for advancement" or supports and sort of "dependency upon male dominance" in an all female sport,

From an individualist perspective, it would be hard to argue against the choice of a woman to portray herself as an object of sexual desire or to willingly accept a life of deadening domesticity, both patriarchal paradigms.
Bias Much?

To answer your question, no I don't think that you have to justify what the hell it is you want to wear (Er, social/situational norms not withstanding. Nakedness is usually not the appropriate dress code for a funeral) to anyone on if it stikes a good blow for women's rights or gives into male expectations, or not.

In the end, it's all about how it makes YOU feel and if it is YOUR choice. I HATE having to wear a shirt and tie to work every single day. I have to, it's expected, but I don't like it. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy dressing up a bit and taking my wife out sometimes. Dressing up then is, of course, expected, but in that case I (and my wife) enjoys it and it's my own choice.

I fail to see why it should be any different for women and what they want to wear.

It’s not hard to get. A sport requiring women to dress in highly sexualised fashion does nothing to challenge society’s prevailing emphasis on women as passive objects of sexual desire. It doesn’t broaden self-awareness and raise a feminist consciousness by criticising the view that women depend on male dominance and thus must play to their sexual attractiveness for advancement.
So much as I can tell, roller derby does not require this highly sexualize fashion. More over, it does everything to challenge societys perception of the "wilting flower" female...roller derby girls are hardly passive. I see no connection to participation in a sport and self awareness. Women may choose to "play into" male dominance via means of sexual attractiveness, but that isn't quite what wins in roller derby. Ass kicking, however, does win.
From an individualist perspective, it would be hard to argue against the choice of a woman to portray herself as an object of sexual desire or to willingly accept a life of deadening domesticity, both patriarchal paradigms. After all, on the one hand feminists’ goals are very simple, seeking equal rights, equal status and the freedom to decide their own careers and life patterns. But from a broader, collective perspective, of trying to tear down stereotypical or discriminatory mass-media representations, activities like mud wrestling do little to further the feminist movement.
How so? A woman choosing to mud wrestle. A woman choosing to wear a white t-shirt and no bra, and pouring water down her chest. A woman choosing to wear a suit and tie and become a CEO. A woman choosing to do any hundred things. It is exactly what the feminist movement fights for. Unless you think a housewife works against the feminist movement.

Oh that is a tough question, because I can answer either way. Yes, it is important for a person to take into consideration how they appear to society. For example, if I want to appear as a well respected businessman, I wouldn't dress in greasy, torn jeans and a wife beater. So yes, in one aspect, the individual (not just women) should always be mindful of the look they possible could be giving off. That is not to say, however, that society isn't at fault too. For example, if I am an above par businessman, then why should I have to conform to be like the rest? Shouldn't my record do the speaking and not the look I sport? I think its important that people have a symbolistic mindset. We attribute different qualities to different shapes and patterns, and so does our society. In the case I gave, society has made the responsible businessman to appear well groomed and tailored. Its a symbol that resonates with us. I guess you can say that some of the biases that we have then are human nature, and thus pretty hard to change. Apply that the issue of how a woman dresses, and maybe you can see the same thing?

Except in your example, the way you dress as a business person isn't necessarily going to be taken as reflecting on ALL business persons, while the argument being made is that individual women dressing a certain way does in fact reflect on all women.

Sure, say you buck the stereotypes as a business person, you're young, hip, got dreads, wear jeans...people might not like it, but if you're successful, you're successful. As an individual. You're not going to be accused of somehow smearing the image of business persons in general, I believe.

The idea, however, that a woman who dresses 'scantily' is somehow harming other women...this is the issue at stake.

On one hand, you have the obvious example of all these anorexic hollywood stars and the enormous impact they have on the self-image of impressionable young people, male and female. So clearly, the power, the possibility is there.

Nonetheless, how do you react to that? If dressing sluttily supposedly harms other women, then what are you to do? Dress conservatively? Is that the only option? Do the opposite? And is it your job, as an individual, to think constantly about how your people (in this case women) are portrayed through your actions?

As a sidenote, it's an issue I've faced as a teacher, a mother, and an aboriginal woman. In all cases, I've decided, it's too fucking annoying to worry about other people that much. I do what I can for those I love and for the causes I believe in, and in return, I feel I've earned the right to be an oddball.

I'm not worried, I'm interested in the feminist arguments which are not specific to the roller derby :P

The irritating thing about feminist arguments is that they'll be made on just about anything. When I attended UTA, there was a seminar on feminist critiques of cinema and I expected some serious stuff. And it turned out to be a dissection of Carnosaur. A B-film that was cashing in on the Jurassic Park craze at the time. When you're digging out feminist arguments from a B-film of all things, then there's a problem.

Why worry about what feminists think?

The idea, however, that a woman who dresses 'scantily' is somehow harming other women...

Well no, but she is enticing, and thus encouraging young men to be inclined to take her by force.











okay, I'll shut up now. :p:wink:

Nonetheless, how do you react to that? If dressing sluttily supposedly harms other women, then what are you to do? Dress conservatively? Is that the only option? Do the opposite? And is it your job, as an individual, to think constantly about how your people (in this case women) are portrayed through your actions?

As a sidenote, it's an issue I've faced as a teacher, a mother, and an aboriginal woman. In all cases, I've decided, it's too fucking annoying to worry about other people that much. I do what I can for those I love and for the causes I believe in, and in return, I feel I've earned the right to be an oddball.
Are you a Hollywood starlet? Are you a politician? No? Then I would have to say that how you dress really doesn't reflect on every other woman on the planet.

The irritating thing about feminist arguments is that they'll be made on just about anything. When I attended UTA, there was a seminar on feminist critiques of cinema and I expected some serious stuff. And it turned out to be a dissection of Carnosaur. A B-film that was cashing in on the Jurassic Park craze at the time. When you're digging out feminist arguments from a B-film of all things, then there's a problem.

Why worry about what feminists think?

Because I am one?

And even if some of my compatriots are nut jobs, I'm somewhat interested in whether or not they can support some of these arguments. You see, I think that there is something to be said about the way that we, as women, portray ourselves, and how that plays into our individual empowerment, as well as our advancement in terms of gender equity. I do believe that a great deal of shit gets internalised, for men and women, and the idea that we go around freely making choices without that impacting our decisions is foolish. I think that we really do have to make conscious choices, based on personal analysis. I'm not sure everyone does that.

Do some academics choose incredibly inane things to go on about? Welcome to academia! Nonetheless, there are some fantastic arguments out there, and I personally like to encounter arguments that bother and annoy me (as long as they make me think). Sometimes I can look at what I'm doing and very easily dismiss the criticisms. Sometimes I can't...and when I can't, it's usually because I haven't actually thought about it that much.

That's not the case here, but the point of the thread is not just about how women dress, etc...it's about any sort of issue related to feminism.

Fuck you, I LIKE bratty! Also uppity. Bratty is not immature, it's irreverent!

'Irreverent' I'm ok with. When I hear 'bratty', though, I tend to equate it with 'spoiled princess' which sets my teeth on edge.

I hate team sports, so the fact that these chicks all look like the ones who used to sit it out during gym class because they were too stoned to participate, or whatever, appeals to me.

I'm not big on team sports either, outside of football(which is what God plays in the fall). You pretty much nailed the roller derby chicks with that description, though. It's spot on now that it's brought to mind.

When I attended UTA, there was a seminar on feminist critiques of cinema and I expected some serious stuff. And it turned out to be a dissection of Carnosaur.

That's less a 'feminist' thing and more indicative of university classes in general. It's been my experience that any time you run into an '_____ist critique of fill-in-pop-culture-phenomenon-here' it's going to be 95% intellectual circle jerk.

Why worry about what feminists think?
Some people who consider themselves feminist worry because they wish to apply to themselves a standard that challenges and doesn’t tacitly endorse the patriarchal status quo. Since we are all products of patriarchy, it’s easy for even the most feminist of us to slip into sexist stereotypes and discriminatory perceptions. Feminism is all about critiquing society and thus also ourselves, I don’t think it’s something that just comes naturally. The question that Neesika raised shows that sometimes there aren’t clear cut answers, which requires introspection.

Except in your example, the way you dress as a business person isn't necessarily going to be taken as reflecting on ALL business persons, while the argument being made is that individual women dressing a certain way does in fact reflect on all women.

Sure, say you buck the stereotypes as a business person, you're young, hip, got dreads, wear jeans...people might not like it, but if you're successful, you're successful. As an individual. You're not going to be accused of somehow smearing the image of business persons in general, I believe.

The idea, however, that a woman who dresses 'scantily' is somehow harming other women...this is the issue at stake.

On one hand, you have the obvious example of all these anorexic hollywood stars and the enormous impact they have on the self-image of impressionable young people, male and female. So clearly, the power, the possibility is there.

Nonetheless, how do you react to that? If dressing sluttily supposedly harms other women, then what are you to do? Dress conservatively? Is that the only option? Do the opposite? And is it your job, as an individual, to think constantly about how your people (in this case women) are portrayed through your actions?

As a sidenote, it's an issue I've faced as a teacher, a mother, and an aboriginal woman. In all cases, I've decided, it's too fucking annoying to worry about other people that much. I do what I can for those I love and for the causes I believe in, and in return, I feel I've earned the right to be an oddball.

I don't think it is so much how you dress as how you carry yourself. I can turn just as many heads in a conservative suit as I can in a sundress as I can in jeans and a t-shirt as I can in a cocktail dress. I don't think the issue is so much dressing any particular way, as the concept that there is only one particular way to dress if you want something (if you want to be famous and sexy, you must be thin and look like [movie star name here], etc). So long as I walk with my head held high, I don't think I do anything to hurt the feminist movement. If I wear an outfit with pride and confidence, I am helping feminists.

That said, while I generally don't give a crap what people think about my fashion choices, I do have a certain way I want to be perceived and thought of, especially in certain situations (potential employers, professors, people I want to date, etc). And I want my outfit to HELP them see me as the person I think I am and as the person I want to be seen as. Not because my clothes define me, but because if I am not presenting myself in a certain way, than I will have to work that much harder to get what I want. Is it silly and shallow that people will make presumptions about me simply by what I'm wearing or how I look? Absolutely. But they will, so I may as well try to get that to work to my own advantage.

Because I am one?

And even if some of my compatriots are nut jobs, I'm somewhat interested in whether or not they can support some of these arguments. You see, I think that there is something to be said about the way that we, as women, portray ourselves, and how that plays into our individual empowerment, as well as our advancement in terms of gender equity. I do believe that a great deal of shit gets internalised, for men and women, and the idea that we go around freely making choices without that impacting our decisions is foolish. I think that we really do have to make conscious choices, based on personal analysis. I'm not sure everyone does that.

Do some academics choose incredibly inane things to go on about? Welcome to academia! Nonetheless, there are some fantastic arguements out there, and I personally like to encounter arguments that bother and annoy me, as well as making me think. Sometimes I can look at what I'm doing and very easily dismiss the criticisms. Sometimes I can't...and when I can't, it's usually because I haven't actually thought about it that much.

That's not the case here, but the point of the thread is not just about how women dress, etc...it's about any sort of issue related to feminism.

What is this against Skirts?
No one ever takes me less seriously or thinks I make men look bad when I wear a kilt to Class. They just tell me not to pick anything up off the ground.

Are you a Hollywood starlet? Are you a politician? No? Then I would have to say that how you dress really doesn't reflect on every other woman on the planet.

Ah, but what message am I sending my daughters? Their friends? My relations? My community? Passersby?

Of course, I'm more worried about that first one, and I think I do a good job of being clear with my kids why I do what I do, etc...the likelihood of confusion on their part will hopefully be very low. That likelihood of course increases the further someone is away from you, and the more gaps they have to fill in with their own imaginations.

If even every 1 out of 10 women in Canada suddenly, tomorrow, put on a burkha...what do you think that would mean to the women not wearing it?

No, what I do doesn't necessarily reflect on every other woman on the planet, but as a conglomeration of actions, individual choices do have enormous impact, especially when factors like peer influence, imitation and so forth are included.

I like the fact that I can dress butch, or I can dress femme, or I can just not care how I dress. To me, that's the ideal, and to me that feels like reality. However, it took me a while to be comfortable with my choices because there was enormous pressure to choose differently. So how many people go with the flow, and how many people make conscious decisions...and ultimately...does it matter? I'm not really sure.

I don't think it's a horrible thing for any person, male or female, to not only NOT mind people 'objectifying' their bodies, but to actually enjoy it, and encourage it. I do mind if anyone feels pressured into dressing scantily, for the enjoyment of others. I do believe this pressure exists, and I believe it's incredibly powerful.

So I can understand the idea that even if you are a woman who recognises social pressure to dress scantily, and you have evaluated that pressure, reject it, and dress scantily anyway for your own reasons...that by example, to other people who aren't privy to your internal thought processes, you could in fact simply be conforming to that pressure. Yet we all get misunderstood constantly. Is that enough of a reason to reject what you want? Are you playing into a stereotype even if you've evaluated it, and is that harmful?

This is a tricky one. In the end, it's entirely about what, peer pressure and sensitivity to other's opinions?

If we go on the extreme end of things, where the ultra-feminists categorically reject any form of sexuality in dress and manner because it "plays into the patriarchal stereotype", that's just caving into a different sort of peer pressure which might I remind you, rubs shoulders with another archetype of the "conservative patriarchal values". Ironic really.

Empowerment, or let's just go with equality, should never, ever, be about caving into the demands of a society that says "You must be limited in this fashion which another group isn't because that group has a stereotype of yours and you mustn't play into it" no matter who they claim to support.

The "playing into their stereotype because of your dress" argument is at best, a red herring that only detracts from any real empowerment issue. In fact, I suspect arch-conservatives who have the traditionalist view of women are quietly nodding as the feminists play that angle, and not because they think women should be empowered.

Empowerment is about choice, and being able to make that choice without being forced into it by social demands.

If anyone questions you, tell them it's your choice and yours alone, and it's no business of theirs whether you wear a suit, dress, halter top or dress up as a giant taco.

Some people who consider themselves feminist worry because they wish to apply to themselves a standard that challenges and doesn’t tacitly endorse the patriarchal status quo. Since we are all products of patriarchy, it’s easy for even the most feminist of us to slip into sexist stereotypes and discriminatory perceptions. Feminism is all about critiquing society and thus also ourselves, I don’t think it’s something that just comes naturally. The question that Neesika raised shows that sometimes there aren’t clear cut answers, which requires introspection.

Indeedy!

I struggled a LOT with issues surrounding BDSM, for example, because I didn't want to help perpetuate the stereotype that women are by nature submissive, and men dominant, even though in terms of my own sexuality (keep it clear, sexuality and personality are not one and the same) I need the sub/Dom dynamic.

I think it's important for people to struggle with these issues, because it seems like the only way we can really get to the heart of our intentions and needs. Grappling with the ugly spectre of unconscious influence is unpleasant, and I certainly don't have all the answers. For sure some of the things I like, some of the ways I dress...those are absolutely influenced by gender stereotypes and so forth. BDSM would be as hot for me, if some of it weren't 'taboo', for me, because of my feminism. Once I realised that, I relaxed a little...it wasn't that I was playing into unconscious gender roles, it was more that they turned me on because for me, the idea of being forced into them is abhorrent. Feedback loop to ecstasy!

Anyway. Sort of having it figured out in one area doesn't mean I have it figured out in all areas. Some things you don't think about until they come up.

Some people who consider themselves feminist worry because they wish to apply to themselves a standard that challenges and doesn’t tacitly endorse the patriarchal status quo. Since we are all products of patriarchy, it’s easy for even the most feminist of us to slip into sexist stereotypes and discriminatory perceptions. Feminism is all about critiquing society and thus also ourselves, I don’t think it’s something that just comes naturally. The question that Neesika raised shows that sometimes there aren’t clear cut answers, which requires introspection.

Worrying about "not endorsing the patriarchal stereotype" is limiting oneself, the way worrying about "not being seen as too white" is.

Ah, but what message am I sending my daughters? Their friends? My relations? My community? Passersby?

Of course, I'm more worried about that first one, and I think I do a good job of being clear with my kids why I do what I do, etc...the likelihood of confusion on their part will hopefully be very low. That likelihood of course increases the further someone is away from you, and the more gaps they have to fill in with their own imaginations.
Here's the deal though, to your daughters and friends, they know you so the reasoning behind your dress choice as well as your other actions will speak more clearly. For passers-by, yes, they do not know you, but how much influence do you really have? They may think "Wow, what a slut" they may think "Wow, what a woman!" They may just think "God, aren't you cold in that?" but I do not see a long lasting responce to it. It will be forgotten because they will be influnced by the people closer to them more than you.

If even every 1 out of 10 women in Canada suddenly, tomorrow, put on a burkha...what do you think that would mean to the women not wearing it?
Why did they put it on in the first place? I mean, you Canadians are wacky, it might just be take your burkha to work day, at which case said women will probably feel silly for forgeting such an important Canadian event (And I am gonna be slapped here, ain't I?).

No, what I do doesn't necessarily reflect on every other woman on the planet, but as a conglomeration of actions, individual choices do have enormous impact, especially when factors like peer influence, imitation and so forth are included.
Indeed, but the issue isn't you as a whole unless the whole female population of Canada decides to dress as a roller durby queen (And now that song is going to be stuck in my head all night long), but you as an individual. Your choices will effect those who know you personally and as long as THEY see your choice is just that, a choice, that will be providing the best model and effect. They, in turn will effect others and so on.

I mean, honestly, Sin, you might be respected and/or feared here on NSG, but unless you've been hiding something from us, I doubt you're THAT well known in Canada to where teen girls who don't know you are taking their fashion tips from you.

I like the fact that I can dress butch, or I can dress femme, or I can just not care how I dress. To me, that's the ideal, and to me that feels like reality. However, it took me a while to be comfortable with my choices because there was enormous pressure to choose differently. So how many people go with the flow, and how many people make conscious decisions...and ultimately...does it matter? I'm not really sure.
The problem is, you can't choose for them and you can't really effect them unless you know them personally, so worrying about them will do them no good and just make you a basket case.

Feminism should be about a woman enjoying all the rights she has, so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else. ....

Well, actually not quite.
Freedom is about a person enjoying all rights he or she has, so long as this doesn't infringe anyone else's rights.
Feminism is the response to sex discrimination in a traditionally male-dominated social environment.

Generally speaking, feminism is needed until equality will be reached. There are idiots who describe themselves as feminists, though, and these people are really causing more damage to the equality cause than centuries of male-domination have.

Roller derby is a mostly women-owned and operated grassroots sport. Full of misfits and women of all body types and ages. The way they dress is one thing...but the way they play is another, and frankly, it's the way they play that makes it a spectacular event.

There is no 'requirement' to dress sexually. And I can't believe you just brought up mud-wrestling. *facepalm*
Okay I’m going to come clean with you and confess I’d never heard about this activity before your thread and didn’t properly understand what it involved. And after all you did invite us to discuss issues not exclusive to your sport. I guess I just assumed and jumped to the more conceptually problematic conclusion, because I think it’s the most interesting one.

...an environment that arguably rigidly enforces male gender stereotypes by requiring even women to adhere to them in order to advance...
A wonderful family law lecturer I once had described some of her experiences in reading for the Bar when she told us about the helpful feedback she gave to instructors at the end of her course. Adjectives she used included sexist, male chauvinist and “borderline misogynistic”.

If I'm wearing something totally hot while kicking ass, I don't think it adds emphasis to me as a 'passive object' of sexual desire. I may be objectifying my body in some way, but I don't think it is at all passive.
Okay this is the question I wanted to answer but that Neesika didn’t ask.

One feminist interpretation might be that patriarchy is willing to tolerate your “kicking ass” only so long as you don’t rock the boat too much. The overriding status quo of male dominance needs to be maintained in some way. In other words, society might accept women “kicking ass”, but only so long as they’re dressed-up objects of sexual desire.

In making sure you secure patriarchy’s approval in this way, you aren’t being truly active. Being desired is the passive element and seeking it the reactionary one.

Except, I don't get how wearing miniskirts and fishnets "play their sexual attractiveness for advancement" or supports and sort of "dependency upon male dominance" in an all female sport
Well as to the all-female qualifier, one feminist answer would be to look more widely at its context. Are there male spectators? Is male approval sought by some other analogy to justify its existence?

Bias Much?
I don’t think you can say that characterising the traditional homemaker and childrearing role as a part of the patriarchal status quo is biased. It’s really foundational feminism. The inferior economic status of housewives following relationship breakdown for example is empirical fact.

Unless you think a housewife works against the feminist movement.
Does the housewife work against the feminist movement? No, of course not; men create patriarchy and men work against the feminist movement.

If we could ignore the patriarchal context the housewife finds herself in we could say with certainty that a woman’s choice of a domestic homemaker role is no more concerning than any other. After all, in such an ideal world women would receive the same opportunities as men in education, work and politics.

But in reality there are a very real set of prevailing notions that tend to confine women to their traditional roles as domestic homemakers. You can’t ignore these pressures. Can we really say that the housewife truly chose her role, or is her dependent social status more accurately a product of society’s biased, stereotypical or discriminatory perceptions?

There are idiots who describe themselves as feminists, though, and these people are really causing more damage to the equality cause than centuries of male-domination have.
I don’t know who these idiots you are talking about are. But another view is that there are others whose softly softly, lipstick feminist approach is also dangerous and damaging.

Worrying about "not endorsing the patriarchal stereotype" is limiting oneself, the way worrying about "not being seen as too white" is.
Feminism has always been more of a communitarian ideology than a liberal individualist one. It aims to fundamentally change society, not just provide on-the-books opportunities.

I struggled a LOT with issues surrounding BDSM, for example, because I didn't want to help perpetuate the stereotype that women are by nature submissive, and men dominant, even though in terms of my own sexuality (keep it clear, sexuality and personality are not one and the same) I need the sub/Dom dynamic.


But then in many ways the sub/Dom dynamic is seperate to gender. Oh sure, gender may play a role in the style of the dynamic, but there are still a lot of female doms and male subs, or those who will switch depending on person/circumstance.

Personally I think generally we can often get too wrapped up in the politics and implications of our sexuality as opposed to what we actually enjoy. It can sometimes seem that sometimes women feel they have to beat themselves up about enjoying their sexuality - be it BDSM or wearing 'sexy' clothing, which in itself is sexist and oppressing.

Feminism has always been more of a communitarian ideology than a liberal individualist one. It aims to fundamentally change society, not just provide on-the-books opportunities.

But women are not a single entity and surely by trying to lump all women together as a single community is fundamentally undermining a search for equality. It results in things becoming 'women's issues', as opposed to people issues which affect 50% of the population. Once we start presenting an image of women as a single community or block, then it becomes easy to just label women as all the same. Certainly there can be issues/discimination that affect women as a whole (pay differences for example) that do need a united front on, but most of the time we may be better served emphasising individuality, the fact that woman is just one of many attributes that someone possesses rather than a central defining feature. That's when true equality will come about.

There's never been a single woman who conformed to the Platonic Form Of Feminist. All women (and all men), feminist or not, cave to the patriarchy to at least some degree. This isn't because we're bad or stupid or weak or anything, but rather because it's physically impossible to NOT cave to some degree, and it's absolutely exhausting to even try. You'd have time for nothing else in your life.

The key, IMO, is to do exactly what you're doing: examine your choices critically.

That's what feminism is really about. Getting rid of ASSUMPTIONS in favor of being thoughtful and analytical. Refusing to accept roles or behaviors as "how it is," and instead examining if that's really how it is, and if that's really how it should be.

There are feminists who conform to all the patriarchal expectations of appearance, and there are feminists who don't. The one group isn't necessarily any more thoughtful or feminist than the other. I'm a feminist who does almost nothing to conform to femininity, but that's simply because I don't WANT to; I'm not sacrificing anything or making some statement by being a "masculine" type of person, because that's just how my personality leans. I'm not a better feminist for having this type of personality. A woman who chooses to be very feminine but who has taken the time to THINK about what "femininity" is and why it's labeled that way and what the fuck that all means for women...well, she's every inch as feminist as me, no matter how much lipstick or how many miniskirts she has put on.

Also, remember: no matter what you do, patriarchy will find a way to spin it as proof of everything they've always said about women. If you play Roller Derby, it's proof that you (like all women) like being objectified, or maybe that you are innately slutty and need to be controlled, or maybe that girls can't play sports unless they're silly stupid sports like Roller Derby must be because it's a sport girls play. And if you don't Derby, it will be because you (like all women) aren't naturally aggressive, or can't do physical things, or are innately modest the way all good women are, or whatever the fuck else.

Sexism is assumptions. That's how it works. So never assume, and you'll be on the right track. :D

No, what I do doesn't necessarily reflect on every other woman on the planet, but as a conglomeration of actions, individual choices do have enormous impact, especially when factors like peer influence, imitation and so forth are included.
It’s not only a matter of whether one’s actions contribute to societal change, though. I think that, with any ideology, people who strongly believe in its goals or social criticisms will often want to make sure that their actions harmonise as much as possible with their values. Not necessarily to further the movement, but to validate one’s own belief in it.

Certainly there can be issues/discimination that affect women as a whole (pay differences for example) that do need a united front on, but most of the time we may be better served emphasising individuality, the fact that woman is just one of many attributes that someone possesses rather than a central defining feature. That's when true equality will come about.
If we emphasised individuality over social reality, wouldn’t that be analogous to pretending patriarchy doesn’t exist? That power imbalances and the economic disadvantages faced by women are not a result of male dominance in society?

Feminism has never focused only on women or mandated some kind of uniformity. But can we pretend that women’s inequalities are precisely the same as any other? If that was the case, glass ceilings would not exist in a workforce with laws that do not discriminate between genders.

I also want to know what that means.

Then think of 'manholes'

a renaming of manholes.


As for feminism, it is about doing what you want, regardless of what anyone else says, really. If you want to wear daisy dukes and a halter with no bra, wear it. If you want to wear a 1950's dress, go for it. If you want to work, work. If you want to be a housewife, do it. It's all about having the choice to do so, rather than being forced to do something because someone says so...be it men saying so, or women.

That's about the gist of it really. Think only what you want to do or wear, and then do so or not for your own reasons. Leave everything aside, if you want to join this team, then wear the skimpy cloths or not, your choice really.

I certainly think it is...if it weren't, we'd all have to dress 'conservatively' which is also determined by social standards.

I don't think it's a horrible thing for any person, male or female, to not only NOT mind people 'objectifying' their bodies, but to actually enjoy it, and encourage it. I do mind if anyone feels pressured into dressing scantily, for the enjoyment of others. I do believe this pressure exists, and I believe it's incredibly powerful.

So I can understand the idea that even if you are a woman who recognises social pressure to dress scantily, and you have evaluated that pressure, reject it, and dress scantily anyway for your own reasons...that by example, to other people who aren't privy to your internal thought processes, you could in fact simply be conforming to that pressure. Yet we all get misunderstood constantly. Is that enough of a reason to reject what you want? Are you playing into a stereotype even if you've evaluated it, and is that harmful?

Playing into a steroetype. I don't really see that as an issue. Only a fool belives a steroetype as truth, and I guess there are some fools out there, but by that, how much exactly is the opinion of a fool worth, how much 'value'or 'merit' would you put on such?

Myself I can gladly ignore them, their opinions are as foolish as those who hold them.

Everything Bottle said.

Yeah. I mean very yes. I'm not sure how much I can add to that, it seems fairly spot on to me.

If we emphasised individuality over social reality, wouldn’t that be analogous to pretending patriarchy doesn’t exist? That power imbalances and the economic disadvantages faced by women are not a result of male dominance in society?


Individuality is part of social reality - the fact that we are all different and that being a women or being a man is only part of who we are. The fact is there are differences in average between men and women, women are better at some things, men others but more importantly there is FAR more variation within the sexes than between them. Once people start grasping this point it undermines the aruguments that "all women are x", because clearly they are not. Also once you emphasise other attributes, such as ability, qualification etc, the inequalities in place become even more absurd and less sustainable.

It's not about not recognising the impact of patriarchy, it's a way of combating it that moves beyond an "us v them" feel into something which ultimately more constructive for society.

For those of you tempted to be douchebags and go on and on about feminists wanting to rename things 'people holes' and so forth...kindly fuck off. I'd like to have a legitimate discussion about feminism, thanks.

Context. I'm trying to join a roller derby league, and I've been reading some rants both for and against roller derby as an expression of feminism. Roller girls tend to dress rather scantily (http://www.gophila.com/assets/dmt/images/70.PhillyRollerGirls-lrG.jpg), and some argue that the 'personal is political!' and therefore, the choices that women make, even if it is empowering for them (ie. to dress scantily, etc) ultimately dis-empowers women as a whole by playing into gendered stereotypes perpetuated by the patriarchy.

So what do you think? I can see how this can be true, but I also resent the idea of waking up every morning going, 'hmmm, would the patriarchy approve, because if so, I can't wear that!' before getting dressed.

Anyway, let this be an open, honest discussion about feminism, how we live it, how we struggle with it, and so on.

I've heard that argument before, although only in the UK and in the US.
I think it's total bollocks. Women can dress any which way they want, and they should. How is going from "you have to cover up" dictated by men to "you have to cover up" dictated by females and improvement or even remotely liberating?

A quote from a blog (http://secondinnocence.blogspot.com/2007/08/my-how-skirts-will-fly.html) about another blog (http://meanfeminism.blogspot.com/2006/11/rant-against-roller-derby.html) that was slamming roller derby :D



Now I don't get that bolded bit. It's stated as though it's self-evident, but huh? Fishnets and barely there skirts can only promote sexism...is an axiom? Really?

So...showing off too much of your body...inherently promotes sexism.

Men, put your fucking shirts back on!

The main problem is that we need, all of us, to stop labeling people for how they dress. If a woman uses a short skirt is because she wants to and because it suits her, not because she's a slut and wants to be objectified.

The main problem is that we need, all of us, to stop labeling people for how they dress. If a woman uses a short skirt is because she wants to and because it suits her, not because she's a slut and wants to be objectified.

Not going to happen. And I wonder if it even should? We all use labels, there is nowt inherently wrong in their usage.

If you see a bloke walk down the road all in leather, long hair, tats and piecrings, well you can assume that the label 'rocker' can be applied to him. Even if his apperance gives you false clues to the type of man he is, what does it matter if you think him a rocker when he isnt?

Not going to happen. And I wonder if it even should? We all use labels, there is nowt inherently wrong in their usage.

If you see a bloke walk down the road all in leather, long hair, tats and piecrings, well you can assume that the label 'rocker' can be applied to him. Even if his apperance gives you false clues to the type of man he is, what does it matter if you think him a rocker when he isnt?

So, if you see a woman walk down the street in a mini-skirt, you will immediately label her a slut? Because if you do, you're just a sexist pig. There's nothing wrong with clothing. Labels are wrong, no matter how you look at them. I have friends with tattoos, piercings and long hair who are better people than me. I have friends who dress in skimpy outfits and are doctors.

So, if you see a woman walk down the street in a mini-skirt, you will immediately label her a slut? Because if you do, you're just a sexist pig. There's nothing wrong with clothing. Labels are wrong, no matter how you look at them. I have friends with tattoos, piercings and long hair who are better people than me. I have friends who dress in skimpy outfits and are doctors.

But we do use labels, and will always use labels. It's a convenient short-hand we have to classify people, labelling them based on their social group, their appearance, their hobbies, their nationality etc... in itself it's not necessarily a bad thing. It only becomes an issue when the labels contain unrelated elements that override other factors.

For example, if I saw someone dresses, as Peepelonia suggested, in black leather with peircings and chains, I could happily label him a rocker and take from this he would probably enjoy rock music and heavy metal, and that's fine. However, if I also took from this that he was therefore highly aggressive and probably a member of a biker gang, that wouldn't be ok, because it's expanding the label too far and using it to divine central characterstics of their personality.

So, if you see a woman walk down the street in a mini-skirt, you will immediately label her a slut? Because if you do, you're just a sexist pig. There's nothing wrong with clothing. Labels are wrong, no matter how you look at them. I have friends with tattoos, piercings and long hair who are better people than me. I have friends who dress in skimpy outfits and are doctors.

What? No no no no no Nana, I may well think 'Cor that's nice' of she is my type, but think she is a slut, naaa I don't do that.

What I'm saying though, is even if I did how does that harm the woman herself?

As to such behaviur being sexist, of course it is not, it's stupid but hardly sexist.

As to labels being wrong, how the hell do you communicate with them then? What do you mean when you use the label 'wrong'?

So, if you see a woman walk down the street in a mini-skirt, you will immediately label her a slut? Because if you do, you're just a sexist pig. There's nothing wrong with clothing. Labels are wrong, no matter how you look at them. I have friends with tattoos, piercings and long hair who are better people than me. I have friends who dress in skimpy outfits and are doctors.

So if one were to see a woman in a suit and label her as a business woman, is that sexist too? Really, I think your English is good enough that you can be expected to use the word 'sexist' properly.

Here's the deal though, to your daughters and friends, they know you so the reasoning behind your dress choice as well as your other actions will speak more clearly. For passers-by, yes, they do not know you, but how much influence do you really have? They may think "Wow, what a slut" they may think "Wow, what a woman!" They may just think "God, aren't you cold in that?" but I do not see a long lasting responce to it. It will be forgotten because they will be influnced by the people closer to them more than you.


Why did they put it on in the first place? I mean, you Canadians are wacky, it might just be take your burkha to work day, at which case said women will probably feel silly for forgeting such an important Canadian event (And I am gonna be slapped here, ain't I?).


Indeed, but the issue isn't you as a whole unless the whole female population of Canada decides to dress as a roller durby queen (And now that song is going to be stuck in my head all night long), but you as an individual. Your choices will effect those who know you personally and as long as THEY see your choice is just that, a choice, that will be providing the best model and effect. They, in turn will effect others and so on.

I mean, honestly, Sin, you might be respected and/or feared here on NSG, but unless you've been hiding something from us, I doubt you're THAT well known in Canada to where teen girls who don't know you are taking their fashion tips from you.


The problem is, you can't choose for them and you can't really effect them unless you know them personally, so worrying about them will do them no good and just make you a basket case.
Hehehehe, I'm not actually worried that my fashion choices are going to have mass influence...I'm considering the argument... but I do think you missed my point. The argument is not about one person having the kind of star power to really impact the way other people dress or behave...it is about how we, as a whole, making the same choices supposedly influenced by the patriarchy, end up reinforcing social norms for one another, so that it becomes very difficult to resist especially because when you look at it on a shallow level, it seems like a bunch of individual decisions, nothing more.

So if I, as a feminist, don't think that women should feel pressured into wearing outfits that commodify them, and please the almighty patriarchy, then by dressing this way, what sort of signal am I sending? Nothing about it is clear, nothing shouts, "hey! I've thought about all this, and I've rejected the norms, and now I'm dressing this way because I like it damnit!" To outside eyes, it only appears as if I'm conforming to a norm.

Which, by the way is all hypothetical, since I don't dress in whatever manner I'm describing...no one would look at me and go omg she's such a normative person :D

Anyway, once again, I don't accept this argument myself, not in the sense of letting it mould my behaviours, but I DO feel that it has some legitimacy, and I'm not sure how to get around it other than not giving a shit.

Would somebody please define "the patriarchy" for me? I am seeing that term tossed around a lot and I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

Hehehehe, I'm not actually worried that my fashion choices are going to have mass influence...I'm considering the argument... but I do think you missed my point. The argument is not about one person having the kind of star power to really impact the way other people dress or behave...it is about how we, as a whole, making the same choices supposedly influenced by the patriarchy, end up reinforcing social norms for one another, so that it becomes very difficult to resist especially because when you look at it on a shallow level, it seems like a bunch of individual decisions, nothing more.

So if I, as a feminist, don't think that women should feel pressured into wearing outfits that commodify them, and please the almighty patriarchy, then by dressing this way, what sort of signal am I sending? Nothing about it is clear, nothing shouts, "hey! I've thought about all this, and I've rejected the norms, and now I'm dressing this way because I like it damnit!" To outside eyes, it only appears as if I'm conforming to a norm.

Which, by the way is all hypothetical, since I don't dress in whatever manner I'm describing...no one would look at me and go omg she's such a normative person :D

Anyway, once again, I don't accept this argument myself, not in the sense of letting it mould my behaviours, but I DO feel that it has some legitimacy, and I'm not sure how to get around it other than not giving a shit.

Sociaty is rather like a teenager. You and I and everybody else do not have either the indivdual nor the collective power to enact much change. Socaity will change, grow and adapt as it will.

Would somebody please define "the patriarchy" for me? I am seeing that term tossed around a lot and I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

I think it braodly means, in this context, that it is a mans world.

I don't understand why some feminists have an issue about other women choosing to show off their bodies if they choose to.

Isn't it all about empowering them to give them the choice of what they want to do and what they want to wear amongst other things? Not wearing what they are told to by their husbands/brothers/other males.

Why should they now be told to wear by other women? How exactly does that make them more empowered? It is the feminists that demand that which is that sort of feminism I have no respect for.

So if one were to see a woman in a suit and label her as a business woman, is that sexist too? Really, I think your English is good enough that you can be expected to use the word 'sexist' properly.

Lets see, sexism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism): a term coined in the mid-20th century, refers to the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to or less valuable than the other. It can also refer to hatred of, or prejudice towards, either sex as a whole (see misogyny and misandry), or the application of stereotypes of masculinity in relation to men, or of femininity in relation to women.

Now, to the mini-skirt example I used. What's the immediate thought a man or a woman has when they see a girl wear a mini-skirt? I'll tell you. It's usually, she's a slut. I've heard this in more than one occasion, from my mother, from my grandmother, from my father. To immediately label someone a 'slut' or a 'businesswoman' on account of their clothes is, like the definition state, applying a stereotype. It's a prejudice. So spare me. I knew very well what I was posting and I knew very well the term I was applying.

Lets see, sexism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism): a term coined in the mid-20th century, refers to the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to or less valuable than the other. It can also refer to hatred of, or prejudice towards, either sex as a whole (see misogyny and misandry), or the application of stereotypes of masculinity in relation to men, or of femininity in relation to women.

Now, to the mini-skirt example I used. What's the immediate thought a man or a woman has when they see a girl wear a mini-skirt? I'll tell you. It's usually, she's a slut. I've heard this in more than one occasion, from my mother, from my grandmother, from my father. To immediately label someone a 'slut' or a 'businesswoman' on account of their clothes is, like the definition state, applying a stereotype. It's a prejudice. So spare me. I knew very well what I was posting and I knew very well the term I was applying.

Lets switch it to men.
If I wear a mini Kilt am I slut ?

I don't understand why some feminists have an issue about other women choosing to show off their bodies if they choose to.

Isn't it all about empowering them to give them the choice of what they want to do and what they want to wear amongst other things? Not wearing what they are told to by their husbands/brothers/other males.

Why should they now be told to wear by other women? How exactly does that make them more empowered? It is the feminists that demand that which is that sort of feminism I have no respect for.


I think it's about an area of feminalism that I have always never really understood. Woman and represnting them as objects of sexual desire.

Lets switch it to men.
If I wear a mini Kilt am I slut ?

No, you'd just be the same man-whore you've always been as long as I've known you.

Lets see, sexism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism): a term coined in the mid-20th century, refers to the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to or less valuable than the other. It can also refer to hatred of, or prejudice towards, either sex as a whole (see misogyny and misandry), or the application of stereotypes of masculinity in relation to men, or of femininity in relation to women.

Now, to the mini-skirt example I used. What's the immediate thought a man or a woman has when they see a girl wear a mini-skirt? I'll tell you. It's usually, she's a slut. I've heard this in more than one occasion, from my mother, from my grandmother, from my father. To immediately label someone a 'slut' or a 'businesswoman' on account of their clothes is, like the definition state, applying a stereotype. It's a prejudice. So spare me. I knew very well what I was posting and I knew very well the term I was applying.

Stereotyping someone based on their clothes isn't sexist. Doing it based on their sex is. Consider instead, if a woman dressed like she just came from a bierhalle in Bavaria, carrying two big steins of beer, is labelled as being German. This is applying a stereotype to a woman based on her clothes. But obviously not sexist.

Okay I’m going to come clean with you and confess I’d never heard about this activity before your thread and didn’t properly understand what it involved. And after all you did invite us to discuss issues not exclusive to your sport. I guess I just assumed and jumped to the more conceptually problematic conclusion, because I think it’s the most interesting one. Yeah no, I'd rather you do that than stick to roller derby...it's just that in the first blog link I posted, the girl blogging compared roller derby to mud wrestling and hilarity ensued :D I wasn't sure if you were repeating it, or coming up with it on your own, but either way, I had to shake my head :D


A wonderful family law lecturer I once had described some of her experiences in reading for the Bar when she told us about the helpful feedback she gave to instructors at the end of her course. Adjectives she used included sexist, male chauvinist and “borderline misogynistic”. Yeah, well it hasn't changed much despite the fact women are graduating in a small, but significant majority from law schools. Many are driven out of the profession within five years. Totally cuz we're weak and just can't handle it, of course.


Okay this is the question I wanted to answer but that Neesika didn’t ask.

One feminist interpretation might be that patriarchy is willing to tolerate your “kicking ass” only so long as you don’t rock the boat too much. The overriding status quo of male dominance needs to be maintained in some way. In other words, society might accept women “kicking ass”, but only so long as they’re dressed-up objects of sexual desire. You could go further and say that the violence of roller derby satisfies men's latent desire to see women hurt...and sure, this is going to be the case for some, but I think it's going a little far. I somewhat agree with your point though, although in the case of roller derby I doubt the women give a flying fuck.

However, looking at other areas where women want to 'kick ass', let's say high powered corporate positions or in political office, you don't have to try very hard to find scathing commentary about her dress and demeanour, her femininity or lack thereof, and the last US presidential election highlighted that in a really disgusting, yet common way. I'm not suggesting that if women dressed more 'feminine' in those situations, they'd be accepted...but rather I'm going with your theme that they aren't actually all that tolerated, and focusing on their adherence or bucking of gender roles is one expression of that intolerance.

For SURE what appeals to me about roller derby is that it appears to be a 'safe' space for women to express themselves. I don't belive, however, that this is because it's okay for women to be kick ass as long as they also offer themselves up as sexual objects. This is because they express themselves in ways that are not traditionally or normitatively 'sexy'. Tattoos, piercings, crazy war paint, ripped stockings, bad attitudes...I don't think the 'patriarchy' would find these women particularly sexually alluring. Part of what makes them so damn sexy is their devil-may-care attitude and their bucking of norms. I think they create sex appeal, they don't adhere to social norms of what sex appeal should be.



In making sure you secure patriarchy’s approval in this way, you aren’t being truly active. Being desired is the passive element and seeking it the reactionary one. I do agree with this...I think about Girls Gone Wild videos, and het chicks making out with het chicks to secure het boy approval...

Yet when I weigh sexual repression against sexual excess, I do tend to believe that in the latter case, more women are likely to find their own individual needs/wants outside of social norms than if they were always forced to clamp down.


Well as to the all-female qualifier, one feminist answer would be to look more widely at its context. Are there male spectators? Is male approval sought by some other analogy to justify its existence? I just want to point out the fact that lesbians are just as capable of objectifying other women as het boys...


I don’t think you can say that characterising the traditional homemaker and childrearing role as a part of the patriarchal status quo is biased. It’s really foundational feminism. The inferior economic status of housewives following relationship breakdown for example is empirical fact.

Does the housewife work against the feminist movement? No, of course not; men create patriarchy and men work against the feminist movement.

If we could ignore the patriarchal context the housewife finds herself in we could say with certainty that a woman’s choice of a domestic homemaker role is no more concerning than any other. After all, in such an ideal world women would receive the same opportunities as men in education, work and politics.

But in reality there are a very real set of prevailing notions that tend to confine women to their traditional roles as domestic homemakers. You can’t ignore these pressures. Can we really say that the housewife truly chose her role, or is her dependent social status more accurately a product of society’s biased, stereotypical or discriminatory perceptions? I think what she was objecting to was the often cited insinuation that feminists see ALL homemakers as subjects or victims. And yet, I do agree, that in many cases even those women who choose this role willingly and with open eyes, end up limited despite all their best efforts precisely for the reasons you've mentioned. Society STILL doesn't value this work, and instead of changing that with a choice to be a homemaker, women are instead forced to accept it as the price of doing what they want.

Did the housewife truly choose her role? Well aside from the ones who 'fall into motherhood' and domestic life, there are a fair amount of women who actually WANT these things. So yes, that part of the role can certainly be chosen. Would those women want their chosen role to be one of low status, low pay, and one that is as educationally and professionally damaging as it is? Of course not. But I don't think they are failing to fight the patriarchy if they do it anyway. Many women are pretty good at bringing up these points and I think that there is growing understanding of how freaking hard it is to work in the domestic sphere.

Worrying about "not endorsing the patriarchal stereotype" is limiting oneself, the way worrying about "not being seen as too white" is.

Of course it is limiting. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

Look at aboriginal people. So, there was a concerted, deliberate attempt to assimilate us into 'white' society. We've managed to hold on to many of our traditions, but we still struggle in areas of language, culture, community health, and so on; we are also extremely marginalised, the more-so the less we fit into that 'white' paradigm. You can be a successful Indian, but usually only if you put on a suit, love moniyaw kikway (whiteman stuff) and play the game according to their rules.

So yes, I do need to be cognisant of that, because I don't want to play by the rules, I don't want to assimilate just to find acceptance. For some of us, this is a really heartbreaking struggle...marrying out, for example, will mean that your children's children are no longer legally Indian. Do you follow love, or do you put the survival of your people first?

The problem is, it's not just about limiting yourself as though there are no other factors at play. The limitations exist outside of you, and you have to make choices about whether or not you are going to give legitimacy to those limitations by accepting the terms, or whether even though the terms might be somewhat appealing to you, that perhaps you need to resist in other ways.

Not to mention the fact that when you are raised to believe that you are inferior,that your ways are lessor, that such and such is bad...it's difficult if not impossible to internalise these beliefs, which in turn will inform your 'decisions'.

I'd rather the limitations be based on conscious decisions and actual analysis of the forces at play, than accept the pipe dream that we live in a totally free society that places no limitations on us besides those that we place on ourselves.

There's never been a single woman who conformed to the Platonic Form Of Feminist. All women (and all men), feminist or not, cave to the patriarchy to at least some degree. This isn't because we're bad or stupid or weak or anything, but rather because it's physically impossible to NOT cave to some degree, and it's absolutely exhausting to even try. You'd have time for nothing else in your life.

The key, IMO, is to do exactly what you're doing: examine your choices critically.

Da. This is indeed the way I approach it. I only snip the rest because I agree completely, not because I didn't love it (I did) :D. This is why I like these discussions, as long as they go beyond the stupid stereotypes of what feminists are.

I don't buy that things have changed so much that women are absolutely free to make any sort of decision they want for themselves, and the only factor is their decision. That attitude completely ignores reality. But you're right...trying to buck powerful forces, whether the patriarchy, entrenched racism, or what have you, is not something any one of us can be 100% successful in.

I don't mind feminists questioning choices and entering into a dialogue...those dialogues are my life blood. I do mind judgmental pieces of shit, whether they have tits or not.

But I have to admit, it feels kind of nice having someone remind me, ' look, you don't have to freaking buck the system in every single way ALL the time...you're not a failure for not doing so'. It's something I tell myself, but yeah. Good to be reminded.

It’s not only a matter of whether one’s actions contribute to societal change, though. I think that, with any ideology, people who strongly believe in its goals or social criticisms will often want to make sure that their actions harmonise as much as possible with their values. Not necessarily to further the movement, but to validate one’s own belief in it. Like not wearing Nike if you're really vocal about sweatshop labour :D


If we emphasised individuality over social reality, wouldn’t that be analogous to pretending patriarchy doesn’t exist? That power imbalances and the economic disadvantages faced by women are not a result of male dominance in society?

Feminism has never focused only on women or mandated some kind of uniformity. But can we pretend that women’s inequalities are precisely the same as any other? If that was the case, glass ceilings would not exist in a workforce with laws that do not discriminate between genders.
Most women I've met who say that they are not feminists, (because they have a warped veiw of what feminism is) will readily admit to these limitations existing, but they always somehow act as though bringing them up sort of gives them life. That's the feeling I get anyway...that feminists are now being blamed somehow for perpetuating a system they didn't create in the first place. I know it doesn't hold up to examination, and maybe I'm crazy...but I really do get the feeling that a lot of the so called anti-feminists actually (without probably a lot of critical thought on the subject) blame feminists for limitations women face.

Not going to happen. And I wonder if it even should? We all use labels, there is nowt inherently wrong in their usage.

If you see a bloke walk down the road all in leather, long hair, tats and piecrings, well you can assume that the label 'rocker' can be applied to him. Even if his apperance gives you false clues to the type of man he is, what does it matter if you think him a rocker when he isnt?

Not to mention that social stereotypes are pretty vital when we choose a look for ourselves...if it wasn't badass to dress a certain way, wouldn't it steal the fun from the person wanting to be perceived as badass?

Would somebody please define "the patriarchy" for me? I am seeing that term tossed around a lot and I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

That's because you're part of it.:p

Meet the Patriarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy)! Short hand to describe the various topically specific forces we (both men and women) are faced with. Related, but not entirely the same as The Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man).

I don't understand why some feminists have an issue about other women choosing to show off their bodies if they choose to.

Isn't it all about empowering them to give them the choice of what they want to do and what they want to wear amongst other things? Not wearing what they are told to by their husbands/brothers/other males.

Why should they now be told to wear by other women? How exactly does that make them more empowered? It is the feminists that demand that which is that sort of feminism I have no respect for.

The argument is that these women are doing what men are telling them to do, and what's worse, they think they are in fact the ones making the actual choice.

The argument is that these women are doing what men are telling them to do, and what's worse, they think they are in fact the ones making the actual choice.

That's kind of insulting to their intelligence, innit? Doesn't that imply that women (or at least a segment of women) are incapable of thinking for themselves?

Lets switch it to men.
If I wear a mini Kilt am I slut ?

No, you would just be ridiculous, Greedy.

That's kind of insulting to their intelligence, innit? Doesn't that imply that women (or at least a segment of women) are incapable of thinking for themselves?

Perhaps, but it also brings up the point that many attitudes about how we should behave, dress, and act towards one another, have been taught TO us and internalised to such an extent that it isn't too far fetched to say that a great deal of our decisions are unconscious expressions of social norms. Hence the need for critical analysis. Are you doing that because you want to? Or are you doing that because you've learned that doing something different causes you difficulties, and difficulties are inherently less pleasing to you than the acceptance you receive when you behave properly?

No, you would just be ridiculous, Greedy.

Hey the mini kilt is not ridiculous it is comfortable for the Texas heat.
though I got to wear underwear with it or a gust of wind could turn me into a sex offender.

For those of you tempted to be douchebags and go on and on about feminists wanting to rename things 'people holes' and so forth...kindly fuck off. I'd like to have a legitimate discussion about feminism, thanks.

Context. I'm trying to join a roller derby league, and I've been reading some rants both for and against roller derby as an expression of feminism. Roller girls tend to dress rather scantily (http://www.gophila.com/assets/dmt/images/70.PhillyRollerGirls-lrG.jpg), and some argue that the 'personal is political!' and therefore, the choices that women make, even if it is empowering for them (ie. to dress scantily, etc) ultimately dis-empowers women as a whole by playing into gendered stereotypes perpetuated by the patriarchy.

So what do you think? I can see how this can be true, but I also resent the idea of waking up every morning going, 'hmmm, would the patriarchy approve, because if so, I can't wear that!' before getting dressed.

Anyway, let this be an open, honest discussion about feminism, how we live it, how we struggle with it, and so on.

And I agree with this. Even with feminist movements behind wanting to be barely dressed, it does play into the whole perception that "Scantily dressed women are sluts!". It's like how black people have their own channels, it seems more racist than empowering to the general public.

Perhaps, but it also brings up the point that many attitudes about how we should behave, dress, and act towards one another, have been taught TO us and internalised to such an extent that it isn't too far fetched to say that a great deal of our decisions are unconscious expressions of social norms. Hence the need for critical analysis. Are you doing that because you want to? Or are you doing that because you've learned that doing something different causes you difficulties, and difficulties are inherently less pleasing to you than the acceptance you receive when you behave properly?


This is incredibly true. There's often a 'path of least resistence' when it comes to how we express ourselves that is somewhere between 'us' (how we'd dress/present if there were a way to take just our own opinion into account) and 'what society expects' which is cultural-typical. Where you're unique enough to feel happy but not quite breaking the mould enough to take flak for it. Obviously this isn't for everyone and doesn't seek to encapsulate everyone, it's just a vague generalisation.

For those of you tempted to be douchebags and go on and on about feminists wanting to rename things 'people holes' and so forth...kindly fuck off. I'd like to have a legitimate discussion about feminism, thanks.

Context. I'm trying to join a roller derby league, and I've been reading some rants both for and against roller derby as an expression of feminism. Roller girls tend to dress rather scantily (http://www.gophila.com/assets/dmt/images/70.PhillyRollerGirls-lrG.jpg), and some argue that the 'personal is political!' and therefore, the choices that women make, even if it is empowering for them (ie. to dress scantily, etc) ultimately dis-empowers women as a whole by playing into gendered stereotypes perpetuated by the patriarchy.

So what do you think? I can see how this can be true, but I also resent the idea of waking up every morning going, 'hmmm, would the patriarchy approve, because if so, I can't wear that!' before getting dressed.

Anyway, let this be an open, honest discussion about feminism, how we live it, how we struggle with it, and so on.
i think that the physicality and aggression of roller derby easily offsets the sexy clothing. its a feminist activity.

Perhaps, but it also brings up the point that many attitudes about how we should behave, dress, and act towards one another, have been taught TO us and internalised to such an extent that it isn't too far fetched to say that a great deal of our decisions are unconscious expressions of social norms. Hence the need for critical analysis. Are you doing that because you want to? Or are you doing that because you've learned that doing something different causes you difficulties, and difficulties are inherently less pleasing to you than the acceptance you receive when you behave properly?

Wow, I'm glad I don't have to go through all that. I just say "I feel like doing this" and do it, and fuck whether it's accepted or not.

I guess I'm saying that I'm happy to just fly by the seat of my pants.

For those of you tempted to be douchebags and go on and on about feminists wanting to rename things 'people holes' and so forth...kindly fuck off. I'd like to have a legitimate discussion about feminism, thanks.

Context. I'm trying to join a roller derby league, and I've been reading some rants both for and against roller derby as an expression of feminism. Roller girls tend to dress rather scantily (http://www.gophila.com/assets/dmt/images/70.PhillyRollerGirls-lrG.jpg), and some argue that the 'personal is political!' and therefore, the choices that women make, even if it is empowering for them (ie. to dress scantily, etc) ultimately dis-empowers women as a whole by playing into gendered stereotypes perpetuated by the patriarchy.

So what do you think? I can see how this can be true, but I also resent the idea of waking up every morning going, 'hmmm, would the patriarchy approve, because if so, I can't wear that!' before getting dressed.

Anyway, let this be an open, honest discussion about feminism, how we live it, how we struggle with it, and so on.

I would argue that choosing to dress any differently than the way you want to, because of what the patriarchy might think, is letting the patriarchy determine your choices. It doesn't matter if you're doing it specifically to follow what they say or specifically to go against it.

To me, the point of feminism is to make sure that someone can make his or her own choices, regardless of what their chromosomal makeup is or what genitalia they have. If a woman really wants to wear skirts down to her ankles and long sleeves all the time - more power to her! If she wants to go out in a mini-skirt and tube top - more power to her! (And the same goes for a man, btw).

Suggesting that a woman shouldn't do certain things that she wants to do because it's what the patriarchy wants is just another way of trying to control her life.

Wow, I'm glad I don't have to go through all that. I just say "I feel like doing this" and do it, and fuck whether it's accepted or not.

I guess I'm saying that I'm happy to just fly by the seat of my pants.

You speak as though men face no pressure to conform.

You speak as though men face no pressure to conform.

Men in general? I don't know about that.

Me?

Ever read Lord of the Rings?

I'm kind of like Tom Bombadil.

Men in general? I don't know about that.

Me?

Ever read Lord of the Rings?

I'm kind of like Tom Bombadil.

Haven't, don't get the reference.

My brothers get a fair amount of flak for how they choose to dress/express themselves. Enlightened individuals have called them 'fags' and other such awesome things for it. Wearing skirts was a sort of fad among hip men a few years back but became really 'uncool'...there are few who still do it, but they face a lot of pressure, and sometimes, you just don't want that kind of attention. Do men in general just not want to do certain things, or is it rather than they don't want to deal with the ridicule if they do?

Anyway, while men have more overall power in society in general, I don't think it's true that men are 'more free' than women, especially when it comes to gender stereotypes and expected levels of conformity.

Haven't, don't get the reference.

That's too bad. See, the ring could corrupt everyone (also rendered them invisible to normal people), except Tom Bombadil. Tom Bombadil didn't have power over the ring, but the ring didn't have power of Tom Bombadil. He just didn't care.

My brothers get a fair amount of flak for how they choose to dress/express themselves. Enlightened individuals have called them 'fags' and other such awesome things for it. Wearing skirts was a sort of fad among hip men a few years back but became really 'uncool'...there are few who still do it, but they face a lot of pressure, and sometimes, you just don't want that kind of attention. Do men in general just not want to do certain things, or is it rather than they don't want to deal with the ridicule if they do?

Anyway, while men have more overall power in society in general, I don't think it's true that men are 'more free' than women, especially when it comes to gender stereotypes and expected levels of conformity.

That's why I said men in general may be under pressure to conform, but I don't particularly feel it. I'm like Tom Bombadil - I just don't care.

For those of you tempted to be douchebags and go on and on about feminists wanting to rename things 'people holes' and so forth...kindly fuck off. I'd like to have a legitimate discussion about feminism, thanks.

Context. I'm trying to join a roller derby league, and I've been reading some rants both for and against roller derby as an expression of feminism. Roller girls tend to dress rather scantily (http://www.gophila.com/assets/dmt/images/70.PhillyRollerGirls-lrG.jpg), and some argue that the 'personal is political!' and therefore, the choices that women make, even if it is empowering for them (ie. to dress scantily, etc) ultimately dis-empowers women as a whole by playing into gendered stereotypes perpetuated by the patriarchy.

So what do you think? I can see how this can be true, but I also resent the idea of waking up every morning going, 'hmmm, would the patriarchy approve, because if so, I can't wear that!' before getting dressed.

Anyway, let this be an open, honest discussion about feminism, how we live it, how we struggle with it, and so on.

I'm actually kinda torn on this issue.

See, fundamentally, I believe very very strongly that feminism is about respecting personal choice, whether one chooses to be a housewife or a high-powered executive, to wear miniskirts and tube tops or a nun's habit. I absolutely do not think women should be forced to buck patriarchal norms any more than I think women should be forced to conform to them.

But (there's always a but).

The thing is, for all that I think it shouldn't be that way, the fact of the matter is, people are stupid, and they make dumb generalizations from the choices of individuals to the groups to which those individuals belong. There is no getting around the fact that some people will see a few women who enjoy being sexually objectified and conclude from that that sexually objectifying women is totally okay because they like it. On a visceral level, I hate the idea of letting those stupid people determine how I'll live - but if the results of my actions are that some other woman who didn't make my choices is going to get treated a little bit worse because idiots still don't understand that individuals are individuals, it does force me to question if my personal preference is worth it.

The unfortunate thing, of course, is that there's no way to win. I feel self-conscious and stupid when I try to dress sexily, so I tend to default to clothes that would be seen as tomboyish or conservative. Women like me probably make idiots see miniskirt-wearers as "sluts" (because obviously women-as-a-whole are comfortable in tomboyish clothes, and thus any woman wears miniskirts only does so because she wants male attention) just as much as the miniskirt-wearers make different idiots assume that I'm a "prude" (because obviously women-as-a-whole express confidence or sensuality only through one form of attire, and thus any woman who doesn't wear miniskirts hates sex/men/herself). No matter what you do, some idiot somewhere will almost certainly read meanings into it that aren't there and presume that you are somehow representative of something other than just YOU.

I think in the end, the best answer is probably Bottle's - that what you really need to do is not to conform to anyone's particular expectations but simply to THINK about your choices, because if the idea is stomping out stupidity, well, using your brain would seem to be the way to go about that. :)

Let's talk feminism!

Let's not.

Well the idea is, one of the main ways women can achieve status is by being sexually desireable, so the desire for status leads to women desiring to dress in a 'sexually appealing' way, which is not so much about what SHE wants to wear, and more about what makes her feel powerful...all of which feeds into the patriarchal standards she is supposedly sloughing off.

Maybe that's true. But we really can't completely figure out what we might like if we were raised in a different time and place, can we?

It seems that it's better to put the question out there and slowly break down the idea that a woman (or man) must fulfill any gender role than to try and tell individuals that they must do everything they can to avoid doing so.

Anyway, while men have more overall power in society in general, I don't think it's true that men are 'more free' than women, especially when it comes to gender stereotypes and expected levels of conformity.

It's from a different perspective - strictly stereotypically speaking and using the simplest possible language, men start off as perfect and women start off as losers. Both of these offer some advantages and disadvantages to their expression but neither side is 'more free' as you state. With women, there's the fact that no matter what you do, you're not good enough. You're judged, denegrated and generally made to feel less worthy. This offers some freedoms though. Since you're already in the back seat, you're more free to present yourself in a variety of different ways, and no matter what someone is going to find it unacceptable. As a man, you start off in a way that's impossible to sustain. Any attempt at individuality is to fall from the masculine ideal. You always have to present that stoic, emotionless, tough, isolated figure, because to be any less than that -is to be female- which is a terrible sin for someone who is masculine. So men have to to always be incredibly masculine, and women are just going to be considered worse on the off. Neither side is really better off, it's just the starting position is different and equally false.

That's just my -incredibly generalised and simplistically put- feelings on the matter though. if I went into more depth I'd be here all day.

The only people in a debate about feminism that irritate me more than the chauvinists are the feminists.

I think people should do what they want, within a context that is appropriate to the role--not the person filling it. If it is appropriate for a man to wear a suit and tie to the office, it's not appropriate for a woman to wear a halter dress. It's also not appropriate for a man to wear a halter dress. It seems common sensical to me.

But then again, I detest the existence of most skirt suits. If I want to wear a suit, I'll wear a suit. I won't wear a "look! it's just like a suit, only for girls!" suit.

Hmmm. I like skirt suits. But then, I think the answer is not to be like, "This is like a suit, only for girls!" I honestly think it should just be another fashion choice. If a man wants to wear a skirt suit, more power to him!

Hmmm. I like skirt suits. But then, I think the answer is not to be like, "This is like a suit, only for girls!" I honestly think it should just be another fashion choice. If a man wants to wear a skirt suit, more power to him!

I tried it once, but everyone laughed at me. :(

I tried it once, but everyone laughed at me. :(

If you've got hot legs, don't be scared to show them, FOR THE GOOD OF THE LAND. Ignore their small laughter. they're just scared of Your Power.

If you've got hot legs, don't be scared to show them, FOR THE GOOD OF THE LAND. Ignore their small laughter. they're just scared of Your Power.

Precisely.

That's too bad. See, the ring could corrupt everyone (also rendered them invisible to normal people), except Tom Bombadil. Tom Bombadil didn't have power over the ring, but the ring didn't have power of Tom Bombadil. He just didn't care.



That's why I said men in general may be under pressure to conform, but I don't particularly feel it. I'm like Tom Bombadil - I just don't care.

I tried it once, but everyone laughed at me. :(

Some Tom Bombadil you are. :p

Some Tom Bombadil you are. :p

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/shutupyoda.jpg

Am I the only one who doesn't see "slut", "whore", or "bratty" as gendered terms?

Just wondering.

Am I the only one who doesn't see "slut", "whore", or "bratty" as gendered terms?

Just wondering.

on complete technicality, I don't see them as gendered. emotively speaking I see slut and whore as typically inferring a gender, but not bratty.

Am I the only one who doesn't see "slut", "whore", or "bratty" as gendered terms?

Just wondering.

I've never actually heard 'slut' or 'whore' used to refer seriously to a man, but I've heard them often applied quite seriously to women. Bratty, dunno.

I don’t know who these idiots you are talking about are.

Look around. There's plenty. Humanity is full of idiots, and so is every political/social movement, INCLUDED feminism.

I've never actually heard 'slut' or 'whore' used to refer seriously to a man, but I've heard them often applied quite seriously to women. Bratty, dunno.
I've always seen 'slut' as a gendered term, 'whore', not so much.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/shutupyoda.jpg
:p

I've never actually heard 'slut' or 'whore' used to refer seriously to a man, but I've heard them often applied quite seriously to women.

Mostly, in your direction :tongue:

Look around. There's plenty. Humanity is full of idiots, and so is every political/social movement, INCLUDED feminism.

Zomg, source!!111!

Mostly, in your direction :tongue:

So you hypothesise :p Good thing you're not on yahoo or I'd chew you out, whore.

So you hypothesise :p Good thing you're not on yahoo or I'd chew you out, whore.

pft. Brat.

pft. Brat.

Too tame to turn my crank, I hate you.

So you hypothesise :p Good thing you're not on yahoo or I'd chew you out, whore.

NA is not a whore!

Whores cost money. Silly Sin.

if whore wasn't a gendered termm we would not say 'manwhore' also men cant be sluts, sluts have indescriminate sex, men wont sex fatties or uglies.

duh.

also, i'm all for femms in the derby, theire hot.

if whore wasn't a gendered termm we would not say 'manwhore' also men cant be sluts, sluts have indescriminate sex, men wont sex fatties or uglies.

duh.

also, i'm all for femms in the derby, theire hot.

YES! He's back everyone!

NA is not a whore!

Whores cost money. Silly Sin.

Ha, you know how people always joke about how some chick just 'gives it away for free'? How come we never say that about men?

Context. I'm trying to join a roller derby league, and I've been reading some rants both for and against roller derby as an expression of feminism. Roller girls tend to dress rather scantily (http://www.gophila.com/assets/dmt/images/70.PhillyRollerGirls-lrG.jpg), and some argue that the 'personal is political!' and therefore, the choices that women make, even if it is empowering for them (ie. to dress scantily, etc) ultimately dis-empowers women as a whole by playing into gendered stereotypes perpetuated by the patriarchy.

So what do you think? I can see how this can be true, but I also resent the idea of waking up every morning going, 'hmmm, would the patriarchy approve, because if so, I can't wear that!' before getting dressed.

Anyway, let this be an open, honest discussion about feminism, how we live it, how we struggle with it, and so on.

It's all perception. I've always thought that the reasons why Roller Derby girls dress that way was
1) long flowing dresses can get entangled in the wheels
2) skin tight uniforms offer less resistance
3) dunno if grabbing your opponent is allowed... but if so, then skimpy outfits offers less handholds.

they could be wearing the Lycra bodysuits Olympic Speed Skaters wear for all I care...

as for "de-empowering" women? that's like saying "Cooking" de-empowers women.

whether it does depends on the perception of the woman and man involved.

Ha, you know how people always joke about how some chick just 'gives it away for free'? How come we never say that about men?

Because all men give it away for free?

*uhn-TISH*

Not to mention that social stereotypes are pretty vital when we choose a look for ourselves...if it wasn't badass to dress a certain way, wouldn't it steal the fun from the person wanting to be perceived as badass?

It could make it more fun.

"Oh look, isn't she cute?"
BAM! BAM! "No, motherfucker, I'm badass!"

There's an episode of Firefly where Jane gets a goofy looking orange hat from his mother and immediately puts it on. One of his companions says something like, "That hat makes you look like.....a man who isn't afraid of anything." hehe

The unfortunate thing, of course, is that there's no way to win. I feel self-conscious and stupid when I try to dress sexily, so I tend to default to clothes that would be seen as tomboyish or conservative. Women like me probably make idiots see miniskirt-wearers as "sluts" (because obviously women-as-a-whole are comfortable in tomboyish clothes, and thus any woman wears miniskirts only does so because she wants male attention) just as much as the miniskirt-wearers make different idiots assume that I'm a "prude" (because obviously women-as-a-whole express confidence or sensuality only through one form of attire, and thus any woman who doesn't wear miniskirts hates sex/men/herself). No matter what you do, some idiot somewhere will almost certainly read meanings into it that aren't there and presume that you are somehow representative of something other than just YOU.

Clearly, the better option is just to go naked.

=)

I've never actually heard 'slut' or 'whore' used to refer seriously to a man, but I've heard them often applied quite seriously to women. Bratty, dunno.

Well, come to think of it, I haven't really heard heterosexual men use slut or whore to refer to another man. But I have heard women and homosexual men do it.

So, in my experience, people of different sexes/sexual orientations use it differently.

Clearly, the better option is just to go naked.

=)

You have my support! :D

Well, come to think of it, I haven't really heard heterosexual men use slut or whore to refer to another man. But I have heard women and homosexual men do it.

So, in my experience, people of different sexes/sexual orientations use it differently.

You're right, I was totally discounting homosexual men who can use the terms 'bitch' 'whore' and 'slut' in that perfect way...but het boys don't call other het boys those things. Hm.

It could make it more fun.

"Oh look, isn't she cute?"
BAM! BAM! "No, motherfucker, I'm badass!"

There's an episode of Firefly where Jane gets a goofy looking orange hat from his mother and immediately puts it on. One of his companions says something like, "That hat makes you look like.....a man who isn't afraid of anything." hehe

I love the bit with Jayne's hat. :)

And I agree that not looking a certain part can be quite amusing. I apparently look exceedingly sweet and innocent, which makes breaking people's brains ever so much more fun. Mwahahaha. ;)

I love the bit with Jayne's hat. :)

And I agree that not looking a certain part can be quite amusing. I apparently look exceedingly sweet and innocent, which makes breaking people's brains ever so much more fun. Mwahahaha. ;)

Yeah, I did enjoy that...I had to dress fairly professionally for quite a few years, and during that time I was also very politically active...sometimes I'd show up to an action in suit pants and a dress shirt. keheheheehe...some activists made certain assumptions about me, but so did the cops...suck on that! It was great, it allowed me to sneak attack people during debates a few times too!

I'm less interested in looking professional now...I have years of that ahead of me, so for the moment, I'm going full on badass :D

Nothing about it is clear, nothing shouts, "hey! I've thought about all this, and I've rejected the norms, and now I'm dressing this way because I like it damnit!" To outside eyes, it only appears as if I'm conforming to a norm.
Ah, I see. Well, you could always wear a sign around your neck stating your reasons for dressing that way. :tongue:

Anyway, once again, I don't accept this argument myself, not in the sense of letting it mould my behaviours, but I DO feel that it has some legitimacy, and I'm not sure how to get around it other than not giving a shit.
I'm all for not-giving-a-shit.

I think you're right in that it has some validity, but I think that it is rather like Climate Change. I can only effect myself, my family, and those closest to me to live a greener lifestyle. If I really start worrying about what everyone else is going to think of my driving a mini-van because they don't know the reasons for my decision (I.e. hyperactive toddler who no longer fits comfortably into his car seat in my old hatchback, etc.), I'm just going to drive myself nuts. Yeah, as a group we have power, but as you and Bottle noted later on, it's impossible NOT to look like you're conforming sometimes for whatever your reason. And, sadly, an individual does not have power over the whole unless they are in a position if power, which most are not.

Alright, let's talk language...I never used the word 'gay' as the sort of catch-all put-down for anything I didn't like, but every once in a while I do say things like 'that's retarded'. I always cringe when I find myself saying it, and I've tried hard to stop it.

However, this little blurb (http://community.feministing.com/2009/05/using-balls-as-a-representatio.html) brought up the use of words like 'pussy', 'balls', and so forth. I use these words all the time, in exactly the way being talked about. I sort of like it...but is it harmful in the same way 'gay' and 'retard' are?

I think it's about an area of feminalism that I have always never really understood. Woman and represnting them as objects of sexual desire.

But if they want to does it matter?

But then I see stuff like this and it just makes me think that sometimes women are their own worst enemy, they dictate what their gender can and cannot wear and what is acceptable or not. And those that don't comply by these standards (which are made by women) are the ones that are shunned by other women. Let's face it women are bitches and are worse to toher women. One really just needs to observe the behavoiur of a school to see how this works, and no it doesn't stop simply because they graduate and become adults.

Ha, you know how people always joke about how some chick just 'gives it away for free'? How come we never say that about men?

Well we do the term is stud the fact that it has different connotations to it changes nothing, it is more of a case that slut has been placed on women who sleep around as a bad thing whereas stud which has the same meaning but rather because it is a guy is seen by other guys to be a good thing.

Alright, let's talk language...I never used the word 'gay' as the sort of catch-all put-down for anything I didn't like, but every once in a while I do say things like 'that's retarded'. I always cringe when I find myself saying it, and I've tried hard to stop it.

However, this little blurb (http://community.feministing.com/2009/05/using-balls-as-a-representatio.html) brought up the use of words like 'pussy', 'balls', and so forth. I use these words all the time, in exactly the way being talked about. I sort of like it...but is it harmful in the same way 'gay' and 'retard' are?

you know, I actually had a conversation about this the other day. My friend uses "retard" frequently despite being an occupational therapist, and I use "gay" all the time despite my occasional affinity for the cock...aaaaaaanyway, we got to words like balls and pussy and even wuss (a combination of wimp and pussy)...and while we both agreed that gay and retard actually are pretty bad, balls in particular isn't, as it emphasizes a positive ("you've got balls" doesn't say anything bad about anyone...it is actually a compliment). Pussy, we were undecided against.

Well we do the term is stud the fact that it has different connotations to it changes nothing, it is more of a case that slut has been placed on women who sleep around as a bad thing whereas stud which has the same meaning but rather because it is a guy is seen by other guys to be a good thing.

I think the words mean completely different things. Slut is a derogatory term, referring to a woman who 'gives away' a precious commodity to anyone, disrespecting her own sexuality. Stud has a positive connotation, a man who can attract many women and win that treasured commodity without having to 'pay too dearly' for it. Sluts don't gain power, they lose it, because a woman's power is her chastity, or at least her ability to make men do things for her in order to gain her sexual favours...if she cheapens that, her bargaining chip loses value. Studs on the other hand gain power by accessing preciously hoarded sexual favours without having to deman themselves in order to get them.

you know, I actually had a conversation about this the other day. My friend uses "retard" frequently despite being an occupational therapist, and I use "gay" all the time despite my occasional affinity for the cock...aaaaaaanyway, we got to words like balls and pussy and even wuss (a combination of wimp and pussy)...and while we both agreed that gay and retard actually are pretty bad, balls in particular isn't, as it emphasizes a positive ("you've got balls" doesn't say anything bad about anyone...it is actually a compliment). Pussy, we were undecided against.

Well yeah, balls is a good word, it's a strong word. I often talk about how big my balls are in comparison to other people :D Pussy...is not a strong word. Don't be a pussy, don't puss out, etc. Wimpiness, cowardice. If you're talking about pussy as a thing, as something to eat/fuck/worship, okay fine, but in this sense, as a label, it's not at all positive.

So when I use these words in this sense, am I perpetuating the stereotype that masculine things are powerful, and feminine things are weak? Am I aspiring to masculinity when I talk about my balls? Ha, actually I like to freak people out and carry it further, talking about how big my dick is too, but that's just me. Anyway.

Alright, let's talk language...I never used the word 'gay' as the sort of catch-all put-down for anything I didn't like, but every once in a while I do say things like 'that's retarded'. I always cringe when I find myself saying it, and I've tried hard to stop it.

However, this little blurb (http://community.feministing.com/2009/05/using-balls-as-a-representatio.html) brought up the use of words like 'pussy', 'balls', and so forth. I use these words all the time, in exactly the way being talked about. I sort of like it...but is it harmful in the same way 'gay' and 'retard' are?

I tend to never use words like 'balls' to praise someone. However, I will utilise all parts of the body to insult someone, whether it is male or female. Not because I think the word is offensive because it's attached to the genitals or body in general, but typically because the words themselves have a nice solid ring to them. Calling someone an absolute cuntfish always goes down well.

I suppose there is harm to it - I've argued such on this forum, it'd be silly for me to go back on it without admitting I'd changed my mind (which I haven't). But I think with words there's intent, and there's certainly hypocrisy in what I'm saying. I wouldn't call someone a retard even if I did think the word had a certain punch to it because of what it means, but I will make fun of someone by referring to them as genitalia because I think it sounds punchy even though I also know what it means and what it's denigrating. perhaps it's because I'm an equal-opportunities insulter. I don't think there's something wrong with calling someone names about female genitalia if you're also going to call them names about male genitalia too, and that allows my mind to get around the cognitive dissonance I should experience.

Cuntfish.


CUNTfish.

Cuntfish.


Ooooh. I LIKE that!

Well yeah, balls is a good word, it's a strong word. I often talk about how big my balls are in comparison to other people :D Pussy...is not a strong word. Don't be a pussy, don't puss out, etc. Wimpiness, cowardice. If you're talking about pussy as a thing, as something to eat/fuck/worship, okay fine, but in this sense, as a label, it's not at all positive.

So when I use these words in this sense, am I perpetuating the stereotype that masculine things are powerful, and feminine things are weak? Am I aspiring to masculinity when I talk about my balls? Ha, actually I like to freak people out and carry it further, talking about how big my dick is too, but that's just me. Anyway.

It also has something to do with the sound of the words. Balls sounds powerful. Pussy just...doesn't. (mind you, I hate the word pussy...no clue why).

I think the issue is with portraying all things vag as weak, rather than all things cocknballs as powerful. There is nothing wrong with saying "you've got huge balls, bro", as it doesn't inherently imply that lacking balls is a bad thing. "pussy" on the other hand: "Bro, you're such a fucking pussy", inherently implies that being a pussy is bad.

I know, it's pretty good, huh? I just thought it up, normally I use Cuntmoose, but fish just seems to work nicer.

Also yes, I'm crass, irreverant, and quite often, I like to use particular slurs precisely because those slurs are supposed to apply to me (ie, savage, wagon burner, spear chucker, prairie n1gger, etc etc). I like to take those words and throw them in people's faces...it's amazing how unsettling it can be for someone who might willingly use that word out of my earshot, hearing it come out of my mouth. It's my way of saying I know exactly how some people see me, and fuck them in the ass with a rusty cheese grater, I'm not going to be cowed by it.

I know, it's pretty good, huh? I just thought it up, normally I use Cuntmoose, but fish just seems to work nicer.
Ohhhh, I like cuntmoose too! We could create a whole c*nt menagerie!

Sarkhaan...if we axed the denigrating word 'pussy' and only used balls to refer to both men and women...would this simply be pushing women to aspire to masculine standards?

Ohhhh, I like cuntmoose too! We could create a whole c*nt menagerie!

Sarkhaan...if we axed the denigrating word 'pussy' and only used balls to refer to both men and women...would this simply be pushing women to aspire to masculine standards?

Nope...just encouraging them to grow a pair ;)

I don't think so. It is good to have balls. Be you male or female. That doesn't inherently mean that a lack of balls is bad. For example, the word "tits" has come in as meaning something good..."Holy shit...that movie was pretty tits". Why can't that be coopted as a good thing along the lines of balls?


edit: and perhaps it should be an orgy of c*nts, rather than a menagerie?

Perhaps, but it also brings up the point that many attitudes about how we should behave, dress, and act towards one another, have been taught TO us and internalised to such an extent that it isn't too far fetched to say that a great deal of our decisions are unconscious expressions of social norms.

Well that is a part of living in society is it not? Unless you are a hermit who lives in the boonies with no other human contact, your perceptions and norms will always be affected to some extent by society around you. That does not mean you are no less your own person. Look at LG, if you want a rather extreme example. :p

Nope...just encouraging them to grow a pair ;)

I don't think so. It is good to have balls. Be you male or female. That doesn't inherently mean that a lack of balls is bad. For example, the word "tits" has come in as meaning something good..."Holy shit...that movie was pretty tits". Why can't that be coopted as a good thing along the lines of balls?


edit: and perhaps it should be an orgy of c*nts, rather than a menagerie?

Ha, okay well 'tits' hasn't come into usage in that way here yet :D And I like 'orgy of cunts', but I think a 'twattle of cunts' is better :D

Ha, okay well 'tits' hasn't come into usage in that way here yet :D And I like 'orgy of cunts', but I think a 'twattle of cunts' is better :D

I'll support the twattle of c*nts all the way.

As for tits, it's only come around these parts in the last year or two...but I've become a huge fan. "If we could get a couple of kegs for tomorrow, that would be tits." or "Getting daydrunk is pretty tits." or "Dude...your younger sister is wicked tits.". Okay, that last one might get you hit for several reasons....

Alright, let's talk language...I never used the word 'gay' as the sort of catch-all put-down for anything I didn't like, but every once in a while I do say things like 'that's retarded'. I always cringe when I find myself saying it, and I've tried hard to stop it.

However, this little blurb (http://community.feministing.com/2009/05/using-balls-as-a-representatio.html) brought up the use of words like 'pussy', 'balls', and so forth. I use these words all the time, in exactly the way being talked about. I sort of like it...but is it harmful in the same way 'gay' and 'retard' are?

I think it is, although to a lesser degree. I call wimpy people wimps, not pussies (I actually kinda hate the word "pussy" in general), and I've tried to make a point of praising women's "ovaries of steel" when the occasion calls for it. Unfortunately, "ovaries" simply isn't as fun a word as "balls." I think we just need to make up a good slang term for ovaries - after all, saying that a guy is really testiclesy sounds stupid, too. :p

I think the issue is with portraying all things vag as weak, rather than all things cocknballs as powerful. There is nothing wrong with saying "you've got huge balls, bro", as it doesn't inherently imply that lacking balls is a bad thing. "pussy" on the other hand: "Bro, you're such a fucking pussy", inherently implies that being a pussy is bad.

Of course, calling someone a dick is also bad, albeit in a different way than pussy. Maybe we're just too obsessed with genitals. =)

This is a case where my true opinions differ from my political opinions due to religion.

My political opinion is that men and women are equal. What women wear is their own damn business.

My true opinion is that women are created superior to men.

Of course, calling someone a dick is also bad, albeit in a different way than pussy. Maybe we're just too obsessed with genitals. =)

Nonsense... you can NEVER be too obsessed with genitals :D

Look around. There's plenty. Humanity is full of idiots, and so is every political/social movement, INCLUDED feminism.
Wow that’s so profound. Good thing feminists have incisive social critics like you around to keep them from labouring under the impression that membership of their movement automatically makes them intelligent.

Wow that’s so profound. Good thing feminists have incisive social critics like you around to keep them from labouring under the impression that membership of their movement automatically makes them intelligent.

It's not really that profound, it's one of those things that should be fairly obvious. Apparently Risottia felt you needed it pointed out to you, though, and I can't say that I blame him.

By the way, I think you mean 'in their movement' and not 'of.'

Apparently Risottia felt you needed it pointed out to you, though, and I can't say that I blame him.
I’d ask you why, but why would you bother with anything like thoughtful argument when you can just shake your head and smile knowingly? “Silly, deluded feminists”.

Of course, calling someone a dick is also bad, albeit in a different way than pussy. Maybe we're just too obsessed with genitals. =)

Nonsense... you can NEVER be too obsessed with genitals :D
Precisely. Take it back, Dem!!!

I’d ask you why, but why would you bother with anything like thoughtful argument when you can just shake your head and smile knowingly? “Silly, deluded feminists”.

Well obviously you wouldn't have realised this had he not pointed it out...and your after-the-fact sarcasm about it being a good thing he was there to set us straight only highlights the fact that this would never have occurred to feminists without him!

This is a case where my true opinions differ from my political opinions due to religion.

My political opinion is that men and women are equal. What women wear is their own damn business.

My true opinion is that women are created superior to men.

I'm...confused. YOu said that your political opinions are influenced by your religion? Aren't you a conservative leaning orthodox jew? In conservative judaism, aren't there some dress requirements for women (the head covering, etc)?

I'm...confused. YOu said that your political opinions are influenced by your religion? Aren't you a conservative leaning orthodox jew? In conservative judaism, aren't there some dress requirements for women (the head covering, etc)?

I'm pretty sure Mirk's not Orthodox, although I could be misremembering.

The only choice women should have is the choice between lights on and lights off.

Duh.

The only choice women should have is the choice between lights on and lights off.

Duh.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/sadatroll.gif