Posts by Deborah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Couldn't we be autonomous people? Persons in our own right, in a multifarious diversity, instead of pushed into this box or the other one.
I've just realised that this sounds rather facile - a bit like the people who bleat, "People's rights, people's rights, not women's rights."
I'm trying to get at the sentiment that lies behind Catharine MacKinnon's famous question: "Are women human?" And a sense of autonomy - that I am an adult who is capable of, and ought to be taken as capable of making decisions for myself, and being accountable for them.
That is all.
-
@Sacha and @Kowhai
Yes. Just so. As I said, I don't see boobquake as being part of raunch culture. It's a one off piece of mockery: live-action-satire, if you will.
More than that, it forces us to think about the myriad ways in which women's choices are constrained. It's the old virgin/whore dichotomy, which really is rather boring. Couldn't we be autonomous people? Persons in our own right, in a multifarious diversity, instead of pushed into this box or the other one.
(Yes, yes, wottabout teh menz?, men's choices are constrained too, sure. But boobquake is about the constraints on women, and it is entirely possible to focus on women's issue without implying that men don't count. It just happens that this time, we're talking about women.)
-
I'm sorry - I've been MIA on this one (work, stress, home renovations, insomnia, black chihuahua nipping around).
FWIW at this stage, I thought that Boobquake was a great response to the chap who thought that immoral women => adultery => earthquakes. There is something to be said about the pressures of raunch culture, especially with respect to young and very young women (I'm thinking barely post-pubescent teenagers here), but I didn't perceive boobquake as being part of raunch culture. It's mocking the pronouncements from on high about how women ought to behave. I see it as being very similar in spirit to the Foreign Office paper about proposed activities for the pope while he is in Britain.
And there's something to be said about the extent to which if we all "choose" the same thing, then there is very little space for anyone to "choose" anything else. So if we all "choose" raunch, then it can be very difficult for women and men who prefer (for want of a better word) modesty. But that choice constraint goes the other way too.
My preferred definition of feminism is the one that recognises women as autonomous adults, capable of making their own choices, and standing or falling by them. Boobquake looks to me to be entirely within that definition.
I'm cross posting this at The Hand Mirror.
-
Pot bellies and lyrca just don't seem to work together.
Sure they do! They're just not wearing lycra so that you may admire them: they're wearing it because it happens to be the most fitting attire for the activity they were engaged in.
Just like the short leather skirt that Eric Bana wore as Hector in Troy was the most fitting attire for the activity he was engaged in.
-
Of course, it's one thing to agree that it's okay to proudly carry one's body without being thought a whore.
Tricker, is when/why/for how long it's okay to look.
If the oglee is wearing one of these t-shirts, that might be a hint that your gaze is not appreciated.
There's a long discussion about dealing with Professor Breast Man on Dr Isis' blog. NB: some images may be NSFW. The context is different: a post-doc working in a lab with a professor who stares at her breasts, to the extent that she has changed what she wears, and he still stares. Not the same as someone getting on her strumpet.
It's a tricky line between admiring, because it's invited, and oogling and turning the subject into an object. Case by case, a lot of sensitivity, a lot of awareness of cultural context, and a readiness to apologise and modify behaviour if you are called out on it.
There's a good discussion on sexual objectification on Finally, a Feminism 101 Blog, in both the original post and in the comments..
Sexual objectification is the viewing of people solely as de-personalised objects of desire instead of as individuals with complex personalities and desires/plans of their own. This is done by speaking/thinking of women especially as only their bodies, either the whole body, or as fetishised body parts.
Sexual attraction is not the same as sexual objectification: objectification only occurs when the individuality of the desired person is not acknowledged.
-
as I've seen Deborah say before: Women aren't the Borg. Don't tell me how to do my feminism, and I'll repay the courtesy.
Just so. I'll do my strumpetry my own way, thank you very much.
-
Being a modestly (pun intended) sized woman (that means I'm in the same league as Keira Knightly, and I will be exceedingly RUDE to anyone who tries to commiserate with me about it, because actually, I'm very happy with my body), showing cleavage is a little ineffective, if not actually impossible. But I'm thinking tight jeans, and a lacy-is-it-see-through-or-isn't-it-and-perhaps-if-you-look-a-bit-harder-you-might-be-able-to-work-it-out-possibly-just-before-you-realise-that-it's-not-the-done-thing-to-go-around-staring-at-women's-breasts close fitting top, showing every proudly-earned post-baby roll.
-
Poi-E is back in the charts.
-
Amnesty International... have anyone been following the controversy over Gita Saghal's resignation? Briefly, Saghal headed up AI's gender unit, but she raised questions about AI getting close to Cageprisoners, because she felt that in the process, AI was sacrificing women's rights.
Gita Sahgal, who criticised Amnesty’s ‘pro-jihadi’ links, leaves job
There's a heap of stuff around about it - Butterflies and Wheels has a series of articles in its "Latest news" column. This selection of letters to The Nation Magazine sets out some of the arguments.
It has shaken my conception of AI as a "good" organisation. For me, it raises some critical questions about whose rights are prioritised, and to what extent some rights may need to be traded. I guess it shows that AI is a utilitarian organisation rather than a Kantian one (i.e. balance of good over bad, rather than sticking to unbreakable principles), and your mileage may vary as to whether that's an issue for you.
-
The drama button - ideal for teenage angst.