# Smash Miss University London Beauty Pageant!



## Koshka (Feb 15, 2009)

Applications are underway for the Miss University London Cattle market/Beauty Pageant.  The final os on the 10th march at a swanky club in Mayfair. (www.missuniversitylondon.com)

Beauty contests are ridiculous and demeaning. This pageant should not be happening, and should be disrupted all the way. 

To start with, the audition day is on saturday 21st february, and they are accepting online applications. 

This is a callout for a mass internet disruption. Please send your fake applications to http://www.missuniversitylondon.com/register.php

Not only is it a chance to speak directly to the organisers, with enough applications it'll actually disrupt and mess up their process.

More soon!  www.smashmisscontest.wordpress.com

xxx


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 15, 2009)

What if I send in a fake application and win, though?


----------



## embree (Feb 15, 2009)

You could bring down the system from within.

Fight the power


----------



## TomPaine (Feb 15, 2009)

> Beauty contests are ridiculous and demeaning. This pageant should not be happening, and should be disrupted all the way.



.. you forgot to add "In my opinion" to begining of that sentance. 
If a bunch of consenting adults want to parade around on a stage isn't that up to them? You don't have to enter or go watch and it is hardly like the Royal Navy have turned up and press ganged them into it.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 15, 2009)

It degrades me as a woman, with or without RN involvement. Unless I get that sash, though, in which case all principles will be forsaken and I'll endorse any brand willing to hand over a case of Lambrini.


----------



## Geri (Feb 15, 2009)

I came third in the competition for the Pill Rag Queen.


----------



## TomPaine (Feb 15, 2009)

> case of Lambrini.



I thought you said Lamborginis at first


----------



## Koshka (Feb 15, 2009)

If you send in a fake application and get into the final....
let me know


----------



## Bakunin (Feb 15, 2009)

Koshka said:


> Applications are underway for the Miss University London Cattle market/Beauty Pageant.  The final os on the 10th march at a swanky club in Mayfair. (www.missuniversitylondon.com)
> 
> Beauty contests are ridiculous and demeaning. This pageant should not be happening, and should be disrupted all the way.
> 
> ...



Um, far be it for me to throw a spanner in the works, but what about those women who actually like doing this sort of contest? They do exist, you know.

I'm not interested in beauty contests one way or the other, personally, but the fact remains that if women choose to apply and enter them of their own free will then what business is it of yours or anyone else's to give them hassle over it?


----------



## Gingerman (Feb 15, 2009)

Koshka said:


> Applications are underway for the Miss University London Cattle market/Beauty Pageant.  The final os on the 10th march at a swanky club in Mayfair. (www.missuniversitylondon.com)
> 
> Beauty contests are ridiculous and demeaning.   www.smashmisscontest.wordpress.com
> 
> xxx


Are male strippers demeaning to men,or the Chippendales?

https://www.chippendales.com/boutique/home.php


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 15, 2009)

Gingerman said:


> Are male strippers demeaning to men,or the Chippendales?
> 
> https://www.chippendales.com/boutique/home.php



nice try, but don't you think your point implies a level gender playing field?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 15, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> Um, far be it for me to throw a spanner in the works, but what about those women who actually like doing this sort of contest? They do exist, you know.
> 
> I'm not interested in beauty contests one way or the other, personally, but the fact remains that if women choose to apply and enter them of their own free will then what business is it of yours or anyone else's to give them hassle over it?



gross perpetuation of patriarchal structures ennit.


----------



## Bakunin (Feb 15, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> gross perpetuation of patriarchal structures ennit.



Free choice is free choice to me. If people (male or female) choose to flaunt what they've got and see if they can get anything out of it then that's up to them. It's their body, so it's their choice.


----------



## madzone (Feb 15, 2009)

Feminist men make my clitoris shrivel


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 15, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> Free choice is free choice to me. If people (male or female) choose to flaunt what they've got and see if they can get anything out of it then that's up to them. It's their body, so it's their choice.



All that means is "I don't mind the results of their free choice". Unless you mean that anything that anyone freely chooses to do, they should be allowed to do without challenge, which I imagine you don't.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 15, 2009)

madzone said:


> Feminist men make my clitoris shrivel


----------



## Bakunin (Feb 15, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> All that means is "I don't mind the results of their free choice". Unless you mean that anything that anyone freely chooses to do, they should be allowed to do without challenge, which I imagine you don't.



If someone, male or female, wants to get their kit off and prance about then that's their business as far as I'm concerned. Like I said, what people do with their bodies is pretty much their own affair unless it's posing a direct threat to someone else, which in the case of some beauty contest I don't really think it is.

I'm not a supporter of beauty contests, nor am I defending them, I'm personally indifferent to them as long as nobody is forced into it and, to be honest, I can think of things going on in the world that rile me a lot more than this and I find more deserving of my time and attention.

Besides, if people choose to enter these things and actually doing so, then it's not really for me or anyone else to say What I don't like, you aren't allowed to do', unless the activity concerned poses an actual danger to others.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 15, 2009)

^ cosign


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 15, 2009)

So basically you don't mind the results of their free choice. It's not about it being a free choice, it's about the results.

There's nothing intrinsically incoherent about that certainly, but it does make a difference - if somebody says "the results of this are X Y and Z which I think are bad so this event should be opposed" you can't then argue against that by saying "it's their choice".


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 15, 2009)

OP, earlier:


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 15, 2009)

how comical


----------



## emanymton (Feb 15, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> Free choice is free choice to me. If people (male or female) choose to flaunt what they've got and see if they can get anything out of it then that's up to them. It's their body, so it's their choice.


You think there is such a thing as free choice in our society do you, well Bakunin what about those people who enjoy their job (they do exist you know) does that mean they are not exploited? And yes I mean people with working class jobs before you say anything. Some anarchist


----------



## Jonti (Feb 15, 2009)

Why would/should an anarchist want to interfere?


----------



## Bakunin (Feb 15, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> So basically you don't mind the results of their free choice. It's not about it being a free choice, it's about the results.
> 
> There's nothing intrinsically incoherent about that certainly, but it does make a difference - if somebody says "the results of this are X Y and Z which I think are bad so this event should be opposed" you can't then argue against that by saying "it's their choice".



Of course you can. Or do you believe, and I don't think you do, that individual freedom to pursue personal advancement or enjoyment should be automatically sacrificed, merely on the basis that someone else doesn't like whatever you happen to be doing? 

If an individual's choices pose a direct danger to the health and well-being of others then, fair enough, I'd oppose what they were doing. But simply doing something for personal enjoyment or advancement that doesn't pose a direct danger simply isn't something I personally get that worked up about.

Like I said before, I can think of things going on in the world that are far more worrying to me than a collection of scantily clad people, male or female, strutting up and down a catwalk in their swimwear or whatever it is they do these days. So I'll motivate myself to be active on those things, thanks.

If I chose, God forbid, to get my kit off and prance about on some catwalk, either for my own enjoyment or personal advancement, then it's my body and my choice as to what to do with it. 

Bottom line, a few people wander about scantily clad (and I couldn't care less whether they're men or women that do it) and someone wins a prize. That's hardly the downfall of civilisation, is it? I wouldn't choose to do it personally, but I've got better things to do with my time than seek to impose my personal agenda on others, and in an authoritarian manner at that, when they're not doing anything that I can see makes much of a difference in the world.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 15, 2009)

And if somebody said "I think their free choice results in X Y and Z which are bad" what would you say? "It's their free choice" or "no it doesn't" / "those aren't bad"?


----------



## emanymton (Feb 15, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Why would/should an anarchist want to interfere?



Because most anarchist believe in sexual equality but I was mainly referring to the it’s a free choice comment


----------



## Bakunin (Feb 15, 2009)

emanymton said:


> You think there is such a thing as free choice in our society do you, well Bakunin what about those people who enjoy their job (they do exist you know) does that mean they are not exploited? And yes I mean people with working class jobs before you say anything. Some anarchist



I think I know my own beliefs somewhat better than you do, ta, seeing as we've never met nor talked at all.

I write, when my health permits. I enjoy my job, and no, I don't feel the least bit exploited by editors or publishers or whoever else happens to accept or commisiion my work.

I'm well aware that most people only work for the money and don't actually like what they do. My own Dad was one of them when he worked the local docks for 26 years and he's far happier working for himself, as he does now. I'm also well aware that by no means everybody is able to get a job that they actually like. But simply not liking your job doesn't equate to exploitation, in my book. Poor pay and conditions, unsafe working environments, being paid less than another worker who does the same job, those things are exploitative to me. And it's not as if we're even talking about something that people have to do to survive, like working in a job they may hate, we're talking about a fucking beauty contest, for heaven's sake.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 15, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> Of course you can. Or do you believe, and I don't think you do, that individual freedom to pursue personal advancement or enjoyment should be automatically sacrificed, merely on the basis that someone else doesn't like whatever you happen to be doing?
> 
> If an individual's choices pose a direct danger to the health and well-being of others then, fair enough, I'd oppose what they were doing. But simply doing something for personal enjoyment or advancement that doesn't pose a direct danger simply isn't something I personally get that worked up about.


You’re not an anarchist you’re a liberal this is straight from Mill.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 15, 2009)

Equal standing in the eyes of the law is laudable is straight from JS Mill and not a particularly anarchist aim in itself.

But why would anyone oppose the event on sexual equality grounds? As far as I am aware the legal rights of men and women are the same in this particular matter.


----------



## Bakunin (Feb 15, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> And if somebody said "I think their free choice results in X Y and Z which are bad" what would you say? "It's their free choice" or "no it doesn't" / "those aren't bad"?



That'd depend on the issue we were discussing, to be honest. Convince me that this is, in relation to other things such as the war on terror, climate change, the encroaching police state, global poverty, famine, war in general and issues on which the lives of million may well, and often actually do, hang in the balance, and I'll join you in whatever you're working against.

Bottom line, if you can convince me that particular issues and practices are worth fighting against then I'll be along to help out. If you can't then don't expect me to actively repress another individual or group and their freedom of choice based on what amounts to 'I personally don't like this, therefore I'm going to enforce that opinion on everybody, regardless of their personal opinions.'


----------



## Bakunin (Feb 15, 2009)

emanymton said:


> You’re not an anarchist you’re a liberal this is straight from Mill.



I've never read any Mill.

And how can you possibly know whether or not I'm an Anarchist based on a few posts on a bulleting board. You've never met me, you've never spoken to me, you don't even know what I look like, so you're really on to a loser from the off by thinking you can pigeonhole me just because my personal opinion doesn't happen to coincie exactly with your liberal opinions and rather high-and-mighty attitude.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 15, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Equal standing in the eyes of the law is laudable is straight from JS Mill and not a particularly anarchist aim in itself.
> 
> But why would anyone oppose the event on sexual equality grounds? As far as I am aware the legal rights of men and women are the same in this particular matter.



But there in lies the problem equal legal rights ignore the unequal situation in society, in which men are in a dominate postion. For example, women also have the right to equal pay but in reality don’t get it.
Lucky they also get more maternity leave then men or do you think it should be the same for both genders? After all that wound be fair right?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 15, 2009)

No, look, it's easy. It's this issue, and the point is not what X Y and Z are - it doesn't matter at all. The point is that saying "it's their free choice so we shouldn't interfere" doesn't work.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 15, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> I've never read any Mill.
> 
> And how can you possibly know whether or not I'm an Anarchist based on a few posts on a bulleting board.


 Urmm I was basing it on you username actrully I assume you just like the sound it makes and didn’t realise that having that as a username is a bit like going around with a sign saying hi I’m an anarchist.


Bakunin said:


> you don't even know what I look like


Ok I’ve tried but don’t get the relevance of this at all.


----------



## derf (Feb 15, 2009)

emanymton said:


> Because most anarchist believe in sexual equality but I was mainly referring to the it’s a free choice comment



But only if they follow the anarchist's version of what is equal and free.


----------



## Bakunin (Feb 15, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> No, look, it's easy. It's this issue, and the point is not what X Y and Z are - it doesn't matter at all. The point is that saying "it's their free choice so we shouldn't interfere" doesn't work.



That's your opinion, not mine.

If it's not posing a danger to others, and personally I don't see that it is, then I'm not about to turn it into some personal crusade and give people grief over taking part in it. People, male or female, prancing about in swimwear is hardly a mortal threat to the well-being of others as far as I can see. And, until it is, I'm not about to make any fuss about it.

I've campaigned on a number of issues over the last few years that were relevent to whether or not people underwent major suffering (climate change, the developing world, war and so on). Issues that were a far greater threat to the well-being, and the very lives, of a great many people around the world. And I'm happy to do that because people's very lives were and still are at stake. Until the issues that cause death, starvation, war and untold misery in the world are at least somewhere on their way to being resolved, then I'll concentrate my energies on those issues and leave the issue of a few pretty folk, prancing about not some London club wearing very much, to others.


----------



## Bakunin (Feb 15, 2009)

emanymton said:


> Urmm I was basing it on you username actrully I assume you just like the sound it makes and didn’t realise that having that as a username is a bit like going around with a sign saying hi I’m an anarchist.
> 
> Ok I’ve tried but don’t get the relevance of this at all.



I chose it because I am an Anarchist and have been for a number of years, actually.

We don't all have exactly the same opinions about every single issue, you know.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 15, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> That's your opinion, not mine.



No, it _isn't_ just my opinion, unless your opinion is that "it's their free choice" trumps everything ever. In which case it is my opinion but your opinion is bollocks.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 15, 2009)

emanymton said:


> But there in lies the problem equal legal rights ignore the unequal situation in society, in which men are in a dominate postion. For example, women also have the right to equal pay but in reality don’t get it.
> Lucky they also get more maternity leave then men or do you think it should be the same for both genders? After all that wound be fair right?


 That's just a bonkers interpretation of what "fair" means. Giving birth cannot fairly be equated with being the baby-father or partner of the new mother.

It's not me saying that these women should not have the right to take part in such entertainments.  Either nobody does, or we all do. Seriously, call off your old tired ethics.  Adult men and women have a right to make use of their sexuality and good looks for fame and fortune if they wish.

Even if you do find that tacky and yuchy.


----------



## Bakunin (Feb 15, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> No, it _isn't_ just my opinion, unless your opinion is that "it's their free choice" trumps everything ever. In which case it is my opinion but your opinion is bollocks.



I didn't say that an individual's freedom of choice 'trumps everything, ever' though, did I?

I said that I don't go round actively suppressing that choice unless it poses a clear and actual threat to others, and in this case it clearly doesn't.

Convince me that this particular event is a genuine danger to anybody and I'll happily get involved. Until then, I'll concentrate my energies on issues that are actually life or death to other people.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 15, 2009)

oh forget it


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 15, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> oh forget it




true

i know things were bad in the "old days", one way or another, but jesus - you wouldn't have to wade through this sort of wrongheadedness day in, day out


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 15, 2009)

Is it possible that the OP is some sort of troll? Just seems so 80's boiler-suit stereotype. I guess it's the use of the word 'smash' in particular that makes me think this.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 15, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> Free choice is free choice to me. If people (male or female) choose to flaunt what they've got and see if they can get anything out of it then that's up to them. It's their body, so it's their choice.



Funny sort of opinion for an anarchist not to analyse the social and historical context in which this "free" choice is taking place!


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 15, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> I've never read any Mill.
> 
> And how can you possibly know whether or not I'm an Anarchist based on a few posts on a bulleting board. You've never met me, you've never spoken to me, you don't even know what I look like, so you're really on to a loser from the off by thinking you can pigeonhole me just because my personal opinion doesn't happen to coincie exactly with your liberal opinions and rather high-and-mighty attitude.



Well you name yourself after a rather prominent anarchist!  One that was prone to secret vanguardism, but hey...


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 15, 2009)

madzone said:


> Feminist men make my clitoris shrivel




Clearly not just yours.  My mother was in a very angry at men place when I was in a key developmental stage which turned me for years into one of those simpering feminist ponces.  But once I accepted that people are people, whatcha gonna do, I got a lot more pussy.

It's a funny old world, if you think about it.  And doesn;t contain enough to drink.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Feb 15, 2009)

I think its a bit lame having a University beauty pageant though, I thought Uni was a place you went to be admired for your ability and brains, not how even your fake tan is.  

However the Daily Mail (and other right wing press) have been having a field day with this.  Unless the protesters all look like Jordan, they'll trot out the old 'ugly girls are jealous' sterotype.


----------



## madzone (Feb 15, 2009)

pinkmonkey said:


> I think its a bit lame having a University beauty pageant though, I thought Uni was a place you went to be admired for your ability and brains, not how even your fake tan is.
> 
> However the Daily Mail (and other right wing press) have been having a field day with this. Unless the protesters all look like Jordan, they'll trot out the old 'ugly girls are jealous' sterotype.


 I am


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 15, 2009)

madzone said:


> I am



Me too.  I'd like to be lauded for my beauty instead of my brains.

Um. 


Fuck.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Me too. I'd like to be lauded for my beauty instead of my brains.
> 
> Um.
> 
> ...


 
Innit. I'm going to sleep


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 16, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> I think I know my own beliefs somewhat better than you do, ta, seeing as we've never met nor talked at all.
> 
> I write, when my health permits. I enjoy my job, and no, I don't feel the least bit exploited by editors or publishers or whoever else happens to accept or commisiion my work.
> 
> I'm well aware that most people only work for the money and don't actually like what they do. My own Dad was one of them when he worked the local docks for 26 years and he's far happier working for himself, as he does now. I'm also well aware that by no means everybody is able to get a job that they actually like. But simply not liking your job doesn't equate to exploitation, in my book. Poor pay and conditions, unsafe working environments, being paid less than another worker who does the same job, those things are exploitative to me. And it's not as if we're even talking about something that people have to do to survive, like working in a job they may hate, we're talking about a fucking beauty contest, for heaven's sake.


If Bakunin were alive to read you writing this shit in his name, he'd literally kill you.

He'd also probably be pissed and ranting about the Jews while he was doing it, but that's by the by.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 16, 2009)

Jonti said:


> It's not me saying that these women should not have the right to take part in such entertainments.  Either nobody does, or we all do. Seriously, call off your old tired ethics.  Adult men and women have a right to make use of their sexuality and good looks for fame and fortune if they wish.
> 
> Even if you do find that tacky and yuchy.


While the idea of actively trying to disrupt this Miss University thing is a bit daft (seriously people, priorities), the point isn't really whether or not the pageant should be allowed to go ahead or whether the women involved have a "right" to participate, but what such contests say about wider social attitudes towards women in particular and gender in general.

It'd be nice to actually be able to discuss that without some banal liberal twat jumping in bleating about how criticising anything that anybody choses to do is basically the same as being a Nazi.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 16, 2009)

Who's this banal liberal twat jumping in bleating about how criticising anything that anybody choses to do is basically the same as being a Nazi?

I must have missed something!


----------



## Jonti (Feb 16, 2009)

It's the issues of sexual freedom and politics that most reliably mark out the neo-puritans these days.

Next, they'll be telling us that prostitution is an evil in itself, and justifying all sorts of repressive measures against sex-workers, their families, friends and clients.

Oh, wait!


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

Liberals will be telling us next that we all live in some vacuum of free choice, divorced from social circumstance...oh wait, look!


----------



## Jonti (Feb 16, 2009)

No one said any such thing -- only that the onus is on the moralists to justify their interference.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

who mentioned morality? That's one hell of a straw man


----------



## Jonti (Feb 16, 2009)

pfft,

if you prefer, just explain the "social circumstances" that justify interference


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

Jonti said:


> No one said any such thing -- only that the onus is on the moralists to justify their interference.



The only person mentioning morality is you.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

Jonti said:


> pfft,
> 
> if you prefer, just explain the "social circumstances" that justify interference



Did I say intereference was justified?


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

Jonti said:


> pfft,
> 
> if you prefer, just explain the "social circumstances" that justify interference



another straw man.

Keep 'em coming


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Feminist men make my clitoris shrivel



nah, thats age mate


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

What's so wrong with girls wanting to look pretty?


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> nah, thats age mate


Watch it, dottie. I'm keeping a tally


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> What's so wrong with girls wanting to look pretty?



nothing at all. You have to place that desire within the context of why and for who though surely? When our society places female beauty on such a high pedestal, like the best and most important thing a girl can do is be fit, I question the overall pattern. I mean, it's like all those stupid hooker-with-a-heart stories that don't reflect the drug/traffic slave reality for the majority. It's the commodifying of beauty that I object to, and pageants are just that, dressed up as celebrations of beauty

GF-less dottie is on a hiding to nothing here though.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> What's so wrong with girls wanting to look pretty?


Women's sexual power is a threat, don't you know!

It must be controlled and regulated, or society as we know it is doomed. Or something.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

I bet none of you would go out with a minger


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Women's sexual power is a threat, don't you know!
> 
> It must be controlled and regulated, or society as we know it is doomed. Or something.



They're coming thick and fast today!


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

How quaint I thought this type of militarist feminism had died out. Nice to see someone is carrying it on for the sake of nostalgia. 

What other things could we try and stop people from doing, perhaps we should appoint a committee to burn all books that do not come up to the required intellectual standard, or ban theatre shows that represent lifestyles we don’t personally agree with. Obviously these people have been brainwashed by the capitalist swine and only *YOU*  know what’s good for them. 

I don’t like ITV and think it turns people into chavs and rots their brains but if people want to watch it then it’s their life to waste. As soon as you start restricting freedoms of others when they are not causing harm you are on dodgy ground.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> I bet none of you would go out with a minger





 

E2A:

Actually, to be fair, someone on this thread did once make a post here suggesting that they would do me, even if I had a face like Jimmy Saville. 

This was of course on the basis of seeing a flatteringly lit photo of my arse. 



Serious question.  Further up the thread there was talk of free choice and results of those free choices.   What are the results X, Y and/or Z of beauty pageants?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> How quaint I thought this type of militarist feminism had died out. Nice to see someone is carrying it on for the sake of nostalgia.
> 
> What other things could we try and stop people from doing, perhaps we should appoint a committee to burn all books that do not come up to the required intellectual standard, or ban theatre shows that represent lifestyles we don’t personally agree with. Obviously these people have been brainwashed by the capitalist swine and only *YOU*  know what’s good for them.
> 
> I don’t like ITV and think it turns people into chavs and rots their brains but if people want to watch it then it’s their life to waste. As soon as you start restricting freedoms of others when they are not causing harm you are on dodgy ground.




Mate, your meetings with the Freedom Association have rotted your brain!


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Serious question.  Further up the thread there was talk of free choice and results of those free choices.   What are the results X, Y and/or Z of beauty pageants?



A representation of female Identity that some females (and men) disagree with but others are happy with. Obviously that's something that justifes it being branded an enemy of the revolution, as decreed by the dear leader.


----------



## ajdown (Feb 16, 2009)

What a storm in a D-cup.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> How quaint I thought this type of militarist feminism had died out. Nice to see someone is carrying it on for the sake of nostalgia.
> 
> What other things could we try and stop people from doing, perhaps we should appoint a committee to burn all books that do not come up to the required intellectual standard, or ban theatre shows that represent lifestyles we don’t personally agree with. Obviously these people have been brainwashed by the capitalist swine and only *YOU*  know what’s good for them.
> 
> I don’t like ITV and think it turns people into chavs and rots their brains but if people want to watch it then it’s their life to waste. As soon as you start restricting freedoms of others when they are not causing harm you are on dodgy ground.





question any kind of inequality, be it gender, race or economic based and some cunt will come along and call you a book burning militant. Perhaps the real book-burners are those who seek to suppress even the questioning by invoking silly comparisons?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> A representation of female Identity that some females (and men) disagree with but others are happy with. Obviously that's something that justifes it being branded an enemy of the revolution, as decreed by the dear leader.



ahistorical nonsense again mate!


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> A representation of female Identity that some females (and men) disagree with but others are happy with. Obviously that's something that justifes it being branded an enemy of the revolution, as decreed by the dear leader.



I'm drawing a chalk outline for you on the wall _right now_


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> I bet none of you would go out with a minger



boring troll is boring.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> ahistorical nonsense again mate!



I think Beauty Pageants are a pile of bull and perhaps the most tedious way in which you can spend your time. I also don't think you should reduce women to objects of beauty. But if that's what people want to do then you can't simply go around trying to ban it. 

If you disagree with it then put across your reasons to those who are participating in it and allow them to make their own minds up. Ultimately engaging in this type of juvenile direct action simply undermines your cause and allows people like myself to paint cruel stereotypes of militant feminist for their fickle amusement.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 16, 2009)

just sneery knocking from blagsta as usual

* turns off the tiresome puritan (again!)


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> boring troll is boring.


 I'm not trolling, jefe. True it was slightly tongue in cheek but all these 'boys' on here, defending women's rights - how many of you put it into practical application?


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> I'm not trolling, jefe. True it was slightly tongue in cheek but all these 'boys' on here, defending women's rights - how many of you put it into practical application?



So you think there's an analogue between personal attraction between men and women, and a beauty pageant?

If so, get help. Seriously.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

opposing inequality does not a feminist make.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 16, 2009)

What are the chances that the chance that the organisers of the pageant have covertly arranged the counter-action to increase nationwide publicity?


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm drawing a chalk outline for you on the wall _right now_





Let's ask ourselves, is this action about using a good argument to allow adults to decide themselves what they want to do with their own free time...

It would be far more effective to organize a meeting discussing the issue and inviting participants along. You might actually change someone’s mind rather than just get their backs up then.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> So you think there's an analogue between personal attraction between men and women, and a beauty pageant?
> 
> If so, get help. Seriously.


 One's just an extension of the other, yes 

What do (the majority of) men find attractive in women? It won't be too dissimilar to what the women in the pageant are judged on.

It's very sweet that men defend women and their right to not be judged on their looks but then most of you _wouldn't_ go out with a minger, would you?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 16, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> nah, thats age mate


actually, quite the contrary; the clitoris gets bigger with age, like ears and noses.

not a lot of people know that


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> opposing inequality does not a feminist make.


 I'm too pretty to understand what you mean


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> One's just an extension of the other, yes
> 
> What do (the majority of) men find attractive in women? It won't be too dissimilar to what the women in the pageant are judged on.
> 
> It's very sweet that men defend women and their right to not be judged on their looks but then most of you _wouldn't_ go out with a minger, would you?


----------



## smokedout (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> It's very sweet that men defend women and their right to not be judged on their looks but then most of you _wouldn't_ go out with a minger, would you?



define minger


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

Jonti said:


> actually, quite the contrary; the clitoris gets bigger with age, like ears and noses.
> 
> not a lot of people know that


 Indeed. It's not too long before I envisage having to make a little hammock for mine


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> What are the chances that the chance that the organisers of the pageant have covertly arranged the counter-action to increase nationwide publicity?



That depends on whether they are as cynical as you appear to be 

I bet loads more people will turn up now becuase of this, how ironic.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


>


 

He's not a minger


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

Jonti said:


> actually, quite the contrary; the clitoris gets bigger with age, like ears and noses.
> 
> not a lot of people know that




Well ears and noses DON'T get bigger, it's an urban myth.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> So you think there's an analogue between personal attraction between men and women, and a beauty pageant?
> 
> If so, get help. Seriously.


Help with unpleasant rhetoric being freely available?

I think the clue is in the question -- beauty pageant.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Help with unpleasant rhetoric being freely available?
> 
> I think the clue is in the question -- beauty pageant.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> Well ears and noses DON'T get bigger, it's an urban myth.


LOL


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> Well ears and noses DON'T get bigger, it's an urban myth.



no noses and ears stay the same, the rest of us just shrinks


----------



## Jonti (Feb 16, 2009)

Ooh, rhetoric by picture!

How wonderfully rational


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Ooh, rhetoric by picture!
> 
> How wonderfully rational



it's very hard to counter fatuous nonsense with rationality. The picture's caption says it all.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

As pleasant as it's been, having this litle chat, I have to go and get my son now so I'd better put my make up on and do my hair.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> As pleasant as it's been, having this litle chat, I have to go and get my son now so I'd better put my make up on and do my hair.



Sensible decision, madz.  Serious thread is serious and no place for a woman.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

I don't understand -- really, really don't understand, how anybody can look at something like this contest and divorce it from all social context, history and ongoing inequality.  How can anybody not realise the interconnectedness of social attitudes and social consequences?  It's not like it's a difficult idea or a shocking notion or anything.  But it's a problem, because if you can't even understand that things are a bit more complicated than simple "free choice" then we don't even have a framework to discuss the more interesting and complex meat of the issue.

And enough of this "ban it" straw man, too.  I personally am not talking of banning anything.  I'm talking about how we get to the point where one day a competition like this wouldn't even be an issue, because those social divisions and inequalities wouldn't exist.  But then, I suspect if we ever get to that day, this competition wouldn't even exist in the first place.  At least, not in this form.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> question any kind of inequality, be it gender, race or economic based and some cunt will come along and call you a book burning militant. Perhaps the real book-burners are those who seek to suppress even the questioning by invoking silly comparisons?




I'm all for people questioning it and think that's a very good and healthy thing for us to be doing, but taking direct action against people who enjoy being judged on their physical beauty? Well that's in a different league and in my view fair game for all sorts of silly comparisons.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Sensible decision, madz. Serious thread is serious and no place for a woman.


 While I'm waiting for my straighteners to heat up I'll just say that never a day goes by that I'm not grateful to have been born a woman. If I didn't have access to make up and hair products I'd never have procreated. Without make up people would set their dogs on me and run me out of town as a witch.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 16, 2009)

Pity you can't speak for yourself, I'd say. But, happy sneering anyway 

(I have to sort out my daughter's bike, so I have to go too)


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Without make up people would set their dogs on me and run me out of town as a witch.


That right there encapsulates the inequalities that are helped perpetuated by things like this contest.  I can't imagine a man ever feeling such a thing, let alone glibly throwing it out there as an wry couterpoint.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 16, 2009)

Did I wake up in the 70s?


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 16, 2009)

Koshka said:


> Applications are underway for the Miss University London Cattle market/Beauty Pageant.  The final os on the 10th march at a swanky club in Mayfair. (www.missuniversitylondon.com)
> 
> Beauty contests are ridiculous and demeaning. This pageant should not be happening, and should be disrupted all the way.
> 
> ...



Sadly, this is what our universities have become.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> That right there encapsulates the inequalities that are helped perpetuated by things like this contest. I can't imagine a man ever feeling such a thing, let alone glibly throwing it out there as an wry couterpoint.


 I'm only 99% being glib. By nature we find certain things attractive, I don't have those things. Luckily I have access to chemical and practical enhancements that mean I can get away with it.

With the best will in the world even the most 'right on' of men wouldn't find me attractive without some kind of make up. So, in a way you're all a leetle bit hypocritical


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

trust me, we're not.
i can't believe we're even having this argument. 

In fact, I'm not going to have it any more - I can't believe Urban's got to the point where this is even something that  needs explaining


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

You're not what? Hypocritical? But you are, a bit 

Anyway, I really do have to go and I really do have to put some make up on


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 16, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Did I wake up in the 70s?



someone mentioned jimmy saville's face so its probable.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 16, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Did I wake up in the 70s?



Put your knickers on and make me a cup of tea.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> trust me, we're not.
> i can't believe we're even having this argument.
> 
> In fact, I'm not going to have it any more - I can't believe Urban's got to the point where this is even something that  needs explaining




I've only been here a couple of years and I asked a question further up the thread.  I am genuinely interested in hearing genuine answers to it, rather than just facepalms.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I don't understand -- really, really don't understand, how anybody can look at something like this contest and divorce it from all social context, history and ongoing inequality.  How can anybody not realise the interconnectedness of social attitudes and social consequences?  It's not like it's a difficult idea or a shocking notion or anything.  But it's a problem, because if you can't even understand that things are a bit more complicated than simple "free choice" then we don't even have a framework to discuss the more interesting and complex meat of the issue.
> 
> And enough of this "ban it" straw man, too.  I personally am not talking of banning anything.  I'm talking about how we get to the point where one day a competition like this wouldn't even be an issue, because those social divisions and inequalities wouldn't exist.  But then, I suspect if we ever get to that day, this competition wouldn't even exist in the first place.  At least, not in this form.



It's a matter of education, if you believe strongly in the arguments against such events then educate others as to your reason. The reason so many people are taking exception on this thread is because the attitude of this action is juvenile and if anything actually undermines the cause of gender equality.

If people do things you don’t like then you should try and educate them as to the reasons why they shouldn’t do it. Stunts like this makes those that strive for gender equality look unreasonable, and undermine the wider cause. Saying it attracts attention to it is no excuse, as it simply attracts negative attention.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 16, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Put your knickers on and make me a cup of tea.


<giggles>  Alright love.  You men get off down the pub, now.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> trust me, we're not.
> i can't believe we're even having this argument.
> 
> In fact, I'm not going to have it any more - I can't believe Urban's got to the point where this is even something that  needs explaining


I agree, except that it no longer surprises me that this needs explaining in all sectors of society over and over again.  We're so programmed by our upbringing and the constant media bombardment that questioning that programming is a difficult process.

Madz, actually we do *not* "by nature find certain things attractive."  At least, not in the way you mean.  Evidence is that there is a *very* broad general template for attractiveness and the rest is programmed by our environment.  Partly, this programming is wide social programming -- and things like this beauty pagent are very much part of that -- but there is also a large element of it that is actually a biological response to "things we like".  If people are kind to us, their image actually gets absorbed into our biological template of "attractiveness".  That's why we all experience the phenomenon of friends appearing to look better the more we get to know and like them.  How many people have you known that when you first met them, they looked like right weirdos and yet now you think they look perfectly normal?  That's the biological attractiveness template in action.

This adjustable template's chief function, however, is to programme us to see our mate as the most attractive person we know.  It isn't the case that we all objectively have the prettiest wife or the handsomest husband... but most of us feel we do, because to *us* these things are actually subjective, not objective and so to us they genuinely are the prettiest or most handsome.  

Taken in this light, your entire basis for your comments is simply wrong.  It mixes up what we are socially programmed to think is attractive -- which works only in the broadest terms -- and the more important individual programming that makes up the details of what we really think is attractive.  And so it critically fails to recognise that a social group that values elements other than pure physical appearance will, ironically, come to genuinely find somebody attractive because they like things about them other than physical appearance.

In short, it is *so* much more complicated than your two-line comment that your comment can't even really be replied to in the first place, without significant questioning of the assumptions that are underlying it -- assumptions that are fundamentally predicated in the exact social programming that this kind of event is perpetuating!


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

Jonti said:


> just sneery knocking from blagsta as usual
> 
> * turns off the tiresome puritan (again!)



I love the way you think you know everything about everything, then get abusive when your ignorance is pointed out!


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 16, 2009)

what are the women's views on this?

there's an irony that a group of men are deciding what's best for them.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> I think Beauty Pageants are a pile of bull and perhaps the most tedious way in which you can spend your time. I also don't think you should reduce women to objects of beauty. But if that's what people want to do then you can't simply go around trying to ban it.
> 
> If you disagree with it then put across your reasons to those who are participating in it and allow them to make their own minds up. Ultimately engaging in this type of juvenile direct action simply undermines your cause and allows people like myself to paint cruel stereotypes of militant feminist for their fickle amusement.



You're missing the point.  First off I haven't stated any support for the OP or disrupting this event.  What I _have_ done is to question the notions of free choice being bandied about.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> It's a matter of education, if you believe strongly in the arguments against such events then educate others as to your reason. The reason so many people are taking exception on this thread is because the attitude of this action is juvenile and if anything actually undermines the cause of gender equality.
> 
> If people do things you don’t like then you should try and educate them as to the reasons why they shouldn’t do it. Stunts like this makes those that strive for gender equality look unreasonable, and undermine the wider cause. Saying it attracts attention to it is no excuse, as it simply attracts negative attention.


I do not endorse this stunt (because I think it is counterproductive) and I *am* trying to educate people.  My comments in this thread are one way in which I am trying to do exactly that.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> what are the women's views on this?
> 
> there's an irony that a group of men are deciding what's best for them.



Which women?  The few women taking part or the millions of women that are not?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> I'm not trolling, jefe. True it was slightly tongue in cheek but all these 'boys' on here, defending women's rights - how many of you put it into practical application?



Personally, I haven't defended anything - all I've done is to question the notion of choice being divorced from history and social circumstance.  This seems to have annoyed some people for some reason.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> what are the women's views on this?
> 
> there's an irony that a group of men are deciding what's best for them.



I aint deciding shit. I'm questioning validity. Your attempt to polarise the debate have been noted


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Personally, I haven't defended anything - all I've done is to question the notion of choice being divorced from history and social circumstance.  This seems to have annoyed some people for some reason.



Likewise. I haven't advocated anything, I'm just astonished at some of the logic on this thread, and some of the fucking weird analogies being drawn. Nowhere have I claimed to know what's best for people. It's a thread populated mainly by strawmen and weak thinking and it's depressing


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I do not endorse this stunt (because I think it is counterproductive) and I *am* trying to educate people.  My comments in this thread are one way in which I am trying to do exactly that.



That's good to hear.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> what are the women's views on this?
> 
> there's an irony that a group of men are deciding what's best for them.



Who's deciding what, where now?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I don't understand -- really, really don't understand, how anybody can look at something like this contest and divorce it from all social context, history and ongoing inequality.  How can anybody not realise the interconnectedness of social attitudes and social consequences?  It's not like it's a difficult idea or a shocking notion or anything.  But it's a problem, because if you can't even understand that things are a bit more complicated than simple "free choice" then we don't even have a framework to discuss the more interesting and complex meat of the issue.
> 
> And enough of this "ban it" straw man, too.  I personally am not talking of banning anything.  I'm talking about how we get to the point where one day a competition like this wouldn't even be an issue, because those social divisions and inequalities wouldn't exist.  But then, I suspect if we ever get to that day, this competition wouldn't even exist in the first place.  At least, not in this form.



I agree with this 

For me it comes in the same context as how women are portrayed in fashion magazines, adverts, on TV etc.. which is an ongoing discussion and a today to day presence for women.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Personally, I haven't defended anything - all I've done is to question the notion of choice being divorced from history and social circumstance.  This seems to have annoyed some people for some reason.



get out of my mind charles


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Which women?  The few women taking part or the millions of women that are not?



Which women that aren't taking part?  The ones that have a chance of winning but don't take part, or the ones who would never win so don't take part or the ones who would never win and even if they could they wouldn't take part?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Which women that aren't taking part?  The ones that have a chance of winning but don't take part, or the ones who would never win so don't take part or the ones who would never win and even if they could they wouldn't take part?


Well quite.  Which women are the ones being referred to in the original quote?  And who, precisely, are the people trying to decide things for them?

I suspect that Citizen hasn't thought this through.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Well quite.  Which women are the ones being referred to in the original quote?  And who, precisely, are the people trying to decide things for them?
> 
> I suspect that Citizen hasn't thought this through.



I suspect he was on a wind up.

And you have displayed admirable loyalty to your liberal ideals on this thread


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 16, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I aint deciding shit. I'm questioning validity. Your attempt to polarise the debate have been noted



I just asked a question. Can you seriously not see the irony?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> And you have displayed admirable loyalty to your liberal ideals on this thread


I yam what I yam.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I suspect he was on a wind up.



i think half the time his posts are desperate attempts to secure sexual favours from whichever female poster he's defending at any particular point.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 16, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> I just asked a question. Can you seriously not see the irony?



I can. 



El Jefe said:


> i think half the time his posts are desperate attempts to secure sexual favours from whichever female poster he's defending at any particular point.



What an odd and unpleasant riposte.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> I just asked a question. Can you seriously not see the irony?



socratic, dramatic or situational?

or just Allanis?


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> What an odd and unpleasant riposte.



It's not random, I assure you


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

I'm warning you, leave off Alanis.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> I can.



I love the way it's cool to oppose economic inequality and yet daring to question the motives behind beauty pageants is silly boy feminism.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Well quite.  Which women are the ones being referred to in the original quote?  And who, precisely, are the people trying to decide things for them?
> 
> I suspect that Citizen hasn't thought this through.



I asked a question. What are women's views on this. Obviously the ones taking part don't have a problem with it. As a man, I don't see how I can dictate what they do with their free time, whatever my views on equality. I personally don't agree with beauty paegents.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Personally, I haven't defended anything - all I've done is to question the notion of choice being divorced from history and social circumstance.  This seems to have annoyed some people for some reason.



That's becuase we are all Bona fide existentalists/


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> I asked a question. What are women's views on this. Obviously the ones taking part don't have a problem with it. As a man, I don't see how I can dictate what they do with their free time, whatever my views on equality. I personally don't agree with beauty paegents.


You really think that all women will have a single view?  Or do you really want every woman's separate view?  Either way, I think you have a problem.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> i think half the time his posts are desperate attempts to secure sexual favours from whichever female poster he's defending at any particular point.



And which female poster would it be in this instance, then?


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 16, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I love the way it's cool to oppose economic inequality and yet daring to question the motives behind beauty pageants is silly boy feminism.



I'm not saying it necessarily is the case. I'm just amused that it is mostly men up in arms, and women mostly absent ( though I don't know the sex of all the posters on this thread). 

I am genuinely interested in learning what effect beauty pageants have and there are some posts on here I think look interesting.  I'll take a better look at lunchtime.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> You really think that all women will have a single view?  Or do you really want every woman's separate view?  Either way, I think you have a problem.



I said 'views' as a plural and the women in question would be the ones who post here. Are you being deliberately obtuse?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> You really think that all women will have a single view?  Or do you really want every woman's separate view?  Either way, I think you have a problem.


Strangely enough, a few clicks away, you can actually find some women who do have a problem with the pageant!!!

_"It's like a cattle market," says Elly James, a women's officer at the School of Oriental and African Studies. "Contestants had to have their waists and breasts measured. I come from quite a rural area and that's what they do to animals." 

Last month, James and her outraged peers launched Miss-Ogynist University of London — a campaign that calls for the "degrading" pageant to be scrapped before its grand finale. Three-hundred people have joined the Facebook group, and together they have organized debates and rallies in London, and convinced several student unions to ban pageant advertisements on campus because they violate the "safe space" policy of various university charters. Feminist ire isn't just directed at pageant organizers either. They also point the finger at contestants who they feel possess a false sense of emancipation. "Their attention-seeking is completely misplaced," says Ruby Buckley, a women's officer at LSE. "They are parading up and down and being leered at by men who have paid money to judge them on how they look."_ Time magazine


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> I'm not saying it necessarily is the case. I'm just amused that it is mostly men up in arms, and women mostly absent ( though I don't know the sex of all the posters on this thread).


If it's any comfort to you, my knowledge of this area mostly has come through my mum's studies into its history, context and ongoing effects.  So you can count off one educated woman's views if you like.  You'll have to make do with me as the proxy though, because she doesn't tend to post to online message boards, being more interested in getting on with actually living life and having fun.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> I'm not saying it necessarily is the case. I'm just amused that it is mostly men up in arms, and women mostly absent ( though I don't know the sex of all the posters on this thread).



Seriously - who's "up in arms"? I don't like beauty pageants, but like Blagsta I've hardly advocated firebombing the venue. I just feel very uncomfortable with some of the comments justifying them. If anyone's up in arms, it's those defending the pageant - hence the steady succession of strawmen.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I agree, except that it no longer surprises me that this needs explaining in all sectors of society over and over again. We're so programmed by our upbringing and the constant media bombardment that questioning that programming is a difficult process.
> 
> Madz, actually we do *not* "by nature find certain things attractive." At least, not in the way you mean. Evidence is that there is a *very* broad general template for attractiveness and the rest is programmed by our environment. Partly, this programming is wide social programming -- and things like this beauty pagent are very much part of that -- but there is also a large element of it that is actually a biological response to "things we like". If people are kind to us, their image actually gets absorbed into our biological template of "attractiveness". That's why we all experience the phenomenon of friends appearing to look better the more we get to know and like them. How many people have you known that when you first met them, they looked like right weirdos and yet now you think they look perfectly normal? That's the biological attractiveness template in action.
> 
> ...


 
Fair do's but if I didn't wear make up I'd never get any male interest at all - not even from so called feminist men. What are we women supposed to do? Would you have (some of) us sacrifice any chance of finding a partner 
 at the altar of feminsim? And it's not even all about finding a partner, there are plenty psychological studies which show that human beings behave more positively towards someone who is 'pretty'.  

It's easy to rail against the injustice but what would _you_ do?


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 16, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> I asked a question. What are women's views on this. Obviously the ones taking part don't have a problem with it. As a man, I don't see how I can dictate what they do with their free time, whatever my views on equality. I personally don't agree with beauty paegents.


Nobody is "dictating" anything, nor does anybody on this thread have the power to do so.

The _only_ post on here arguing in favour of action being taken to stop this pageant going ahead was the OP and the person who posted it appears to have fucked off.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> I said 'views' as a plural and the women in question would be the ones who post here. Are you being deliberately obtuse?


I assumed that by "views" you were merely being intelligent enough to realise that a woman may have more than one view on such a complex issue.  Silly me!


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Nobody is "dictating" anything, nor does anybody on this thread have the power to do so.
> 
> The _only_ post on here arguing in favour of action being taken to stop this pageant going ahead was the OP and the person who posted it appears to have fucked off.



exactly.

And in a rare moment of agreement with In Bloom, I take his point re: priorities too.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

Let's pretend that commodification of beauty and female sexuality is not an issue that affects our society. It's much easier to do that.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Fair do's but if I didn't wear make up I'd never get any male interest at all - not even from so called feminist men.


This sentence makes me weep.  Firstly for the assumption that you wouldn't.  Secondly for the use of the phrase "so called".  And thirdly for the failure to recognise the biological truth that we _become_ attracted to that which we like for other reasons.



> What are we women supposed to do? Would you have (some of) us sacrifice any chance of finding a partner
> at the altar of feminsim? And it's not even all about finding a partner, there are plenty psychological studies which show that human beings behave more positively towards someone who is 'pretty'.
> 
> It's easy to rail against the injustice but what would _you_ do?


Have I told you to not put on make-up?


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> i think half the time his posts are desperate attempts to secure sexual favours from whichever female poster he's defending at any particular point.


 Works for me


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

Gender politics are unfashionable aren't they?

not the popular ball to kick around.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Gender politics are unfashionable aren't they?
> 
> not the popular ball to kick around.



We're all post-feminist now, doncha know


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> If it's any comfort to you, my knowledge of this area mostly has come through my mum's studies into its history, context and ongoing effects.  So you can count off one educated woman's views if you like.  You'll have to make do with me as the proxy though, because she doesn't tend to post to online message boards, being more interested in getting on with actually living life and having fun.



 I have found your posts interesting and thoughtful. 



El Jefe said:


> Seriously - who's "up in arms"? I don't like beauty pageants, but like Blagsta I've hardly advocated firebombing the venue. I just feel very uncomfortable with some of the comments justifying them. If anyone's up in arms, it's those defending the pageant - hence the steady succession of strawmen.



I withdraw 'up in arms'. Excuse my histrionics.  Let's replace it with 'speaking out against beauty pageants''.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> This sentence makes me weep. Firstly for the assumption that you wouldn't. Secondly for the use of the phrase "so called". And thirdly for the failure to recognise the biological truth that we _become_ attracted to that which we like for other reasons.


 
Have a good old weep then kabbes, but with due respect you're not the one who has to live with it day to day. 



> Have I told you to not put on make-up?


 No


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> I have found your posts interesting and thoughtful.
> 
> 
> 
> I withdraw 'up in arms'. Excuse my histrionics.  Let's replace it with 'speaking out against beauty pageants''.



For the most part, there's been very little of that either. What there's been, mostly, is frustration at some of the arguments put forward by those defending the pageants.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> For the most part, there's been very little of that either. What there's been, mostly, is frustration at some of the arguments put forward by those defending the pageants.


 To be fair, I think there's only a couple of people defending the pageants


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Fair do's but if I didn't wear make up I'd never get any male interest at all - not even from so called feminist men. What are we women supposed to do? Would you have (some of) us sacrifice any chance of finding a partner
> at the altar of feminsim? And it's not even all about finding a partner, there are plenty psychological studies which show that human beings behave more positively towards someone who is 'pretty'.
> 
> It's easy to rail against the injustice but what would _you_ do?


Ideals of beauty vary massively throughout history, culture and even social strata, from the androgynous Venus






To exagerately feminine and pale depictions of Queen Elizabeth I





To the lightly tanned, thin, naturally curvy women you're likely to see in FHM or one of those other Godawful wank mags





The idea that there is any objective standard of beauty is absurd.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> No


So why pretend that I have?  I'm not suggesting that women don't have to live in the society that exists.  And they, of course, have to do whatever they have to do to get along in it.

No, I'm saying that the society that exists is not the society I would like to have.  And I'm saying that I would like to work towards a future in which some long distant female ancestor of mine doesn't even have to feel that she *has* to wear make-up just to be allowed to function without getting grief.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> Seriously - who's "up in arms"? I don't like beauty pageants, but like Blagsta I've hardly advocated firebombing the venue. I just feel very uncomfortable with some of the comments justifying them. If anyone's up in arms, it's those defending the pageant - hence the steady succession of strawmen.



Perhaps the use of the word *SMASH* in the title of thread has something to do with it.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Ideals of beauty vary massively throughout history, culture and even social strata...
> The idea that there is any objective standard of beauty is absurd.


And you didn't even mention the many societies that worshipped and worship at the alter of the larger frame.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I assumed that by "views" you were merely being intelligent enough to realise that a woman may have more than one view on such a complex issue.  Silly me!



I was merely asking the views of female urbanites. Why you're choosing to interpret it as a statement is frankly quite baffling.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Perhaps the use of the word *SMASH* in the title of thread has something to do with it.


Again, that was just the OP's point of view.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you'll find any subsequent poster in the myriad of intervening pages suggesting that such a direct action is, in fact, the way to go?


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> To be fair, I think there's only a couple of people defending the pageants



Unless you mistakenly think that people defending other people's desire to partake in them if they choose is defending or justifying the event.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Ideals of beauty vary massively throughout history, culture and even social strata, from the androgynous Venus
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Eh? 

Of course there's objective standards of beauty. I accept that they're not always biologically defined but they're definitely culturally and historically defined. If you're unfortunate enough not to fit the current template what are you suppsed to do?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> I was merely asking the views of female urbanites. Why you're choosing to interpret it as a statement is frankly quite baffling.


What, ALL the female urbanites?  And why do you feel it necessary to call for such a thing, given that this thread already exists and they can already read it and give their view?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> And you didn't even mention the many societies that worshipped and worship at the alter of the larger frame.



before western elimination of food scarcity fatness was a sign of wealth. In older histories it was even a praised attribute for females cause even your club-weilding caveman knew a porky girl would be able to nurture his brood if he should have a lean month or two on the old mammoth carcass scavenging.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> So why pretend that I have? I'm not suggesting that women don't have to live in the society that exists. And they, of course, have to do whatever they have to do to get along in it.


 
I didn't  



> No, I'm saying that the society that exists is not the society I would like to have. And I'm saying that I would like to work towards a future in which some long distant female ancestor of mine doesn't even have to feel that she *has* to wear make-up just to be allowed to function without getting grief.


 

How?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Eh?
> 
> Of course there's objective standards of beauty. I accept that they're not always biologically defined but they're definitely culturally and historically defined. If you're unfortunate enough not to fit the current template what are you suppsed to do?


If it's a "current" template then it is not "objective".  And if it is not objective then there will inevitably be a large spread of opinions on the matter at any given point in time.

But this isn't to argue that there isn't a current social media-perpetuated "norm".  Of course there is!  This is merely to argue that I would like to see that norm challenged.  And that beauty pagents like this help to perpetuate the norm in an entirely unhealthy way.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Eh?
> 
> Of course there's objective standards of beauty. I accept that they're not always biologically defined but they're definitely culturally and historically defined.


If they're culturally and historically defined, in what sense are they objective?  Beauty is necessarily subjective because without an observer, a _subject_, to make a value judgement beauty ceases to exist.



> If you're unfortunate enough not to fit the current template what are you suppsed to do?


That would be up to you


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> If it's a "current" template then it is not "objective". And if it is not objective then there will inevitably be a large spread of opinions on the matter at any given point in time.


 
 This thread makes me want to club baby seals 



> But this isn't to argue that there isn't a current social media-perpetuated "norm". Of course there is! This is merely to argue that I would like to see that norm challenged. And that beauty pagents like this help to perpetuate the norm in an entirely unhealthy way.


 So, what would you do?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> I didn't


 Then please tell me what you meant by challenging me about what I would do if I were you?  Since I never suggested that you do anything differently and since you apparently never thought that I suggested such a thing, why would you ask me that question?  If it isn't because you thought I was suggesting it then what possible relevance could your question have?



> How?


Well, a good start is by standing up and saying that *beauty pagents are a bad idea*!


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> If they're culturally and historically defined, in what sense are they objective? Beauty is necessarily subjective because without an observer, a _subject_, to make a value judgement beauty ceases to exist.


 
Ok, I misundersttod the use of 'objective'



> That would be up to you


 No answer then


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Again, that was just the OP's point of view.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you'll find any subsequent poster in the myriad of intervening pages suggesting that such a direct action is, in fact, the way to go?



No they don't as far as I’ve noticed, but the tone of the first post is what has got people's backs up. 

I don't think anyone is saying they think Beauty Pageants are necessarily a good thing, aside from perhaps some people winding others up for their own personal humor. I think most people on here have some sympathy with the view they are degrading to women.

The method of objecting to this event is what has got people's backs up, and inadvertently lead to people defending it that otherwise might not. This proves why the method is hopeless, and I know you have acknowledged this in part on an earlier post.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> What, ALL the female urbanites?  And why do you feel it necessary to call for such a thing, given that this thread already exists and they can already read it and give their view?



You're being ridiculous. Why keep twisting the question to the point of exaggeration?

You clearly have a problem with the question being asked.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Of course there's objective standards of beauty.



bollocks


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> bollocks


That's not one of my criteria.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> This thread makes me want to club baby seals


Yes, it is a very sad thread indeed.  Even those who are apparently being most damaged by the perpetuation of social norms of physical attractiveness and its importance are apparently arguing that beauty pagents are nothing but a good laugh and those who oppose them are just hypocrites that "make their clits shrivel".



> So, what would you do?


Educate.  Tell people *why* beauty pagents have social consequences.  Challenge people who say that they are harmless fun.  What else can I do?


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Then please tell me what you meant by challenging me about what I would do if I were you? Since I never suggested that you do anything differently and since you apparently never thought that I suggested such a thing, why would you ask me that question? If it isn't because you thought I was suggesting it then what possible relevance could your question have?
> 
> Well, a good start is by standing up and saying that *beauty pagents are a bad idea*!


 You know, this is what invariable happens on these threads. It gets bogged down in semantics and willy wavig and the point is suddenly lost. It's like playing scarbble with someone who just wants to win at any cost. Life sapping. 

I used the example of make up as that is what feminists are always claiming we shouldn't do. I wore make up and high heels to a germaine greer lecture once, the venom and hatred that was aimed at me while we were queuing to go in was hilarious. I wasn't necessarily aiming the question at you alone, kabbes 

I also never said that beauty pageants are a good idea - so rightbackatcha 'sister'


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> That's not one of my criteria.



I would have thought the lack thereof would have been tbh.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> No answer then


Well since your initial grievance here seems to be something to do with this idea (pulled from some orifice or other, near as I can tell) that anybody is trying to give you such an answer, what the fuck do you want me to say?

Women


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 16, 2009)

...


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Yes, it is a very sad thread indeed. Even those who are apparently being most damaged by the perpetuation of social norms of physical attractiveness and its importance are apparently arguing that beauty pagents are nothing but a good laugh and those who oppose them are just hypocrites that "make their clits shrivel".


 
Show me where I said beauty pageants are a good laugh


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> I used the example of make up as that is what feminists are always claiming we shouldn't do. I wore make up and high heels to a germaine greer lecture once, the venom and hatred that was aimed at me while we were queuing to go in was hilarious. '



so what?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> I don't think anyone is saying they think Beauty Pageants are necessarily a good thing, aside from perhaps some people winding others up for their own personal humor. *I think most people on here have some sympathy with the view they are degrading to women.*


Sadly, I don't think that this is the case in wider society.  And even more sadly, I think that this view is actually receding.  So allowing such comments in a widely read public forum to go unchallenged -- even if those comments were only made in jest -- can actually be highly counterproductive.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 16, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I would have thought the lack thereof would have been tbh.


I can see beauty in owners thereof, but not the articles themselves.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> You're being ridiculous. Why keep twisting the question to the point of exaggeration?
> 
> You clearly have a problem with the question being asked.


I do have a problem with it, because of the underlying assumptions and attitudes it reveals about the questioner.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Show me where I said beauty pageants are a good laugh



I imagined you saying it, and imagined you laughing about our socities exploitation of women. _therefore it must be true_


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> bollocks


 Bollocks aren't beautiful.

It's silly to dismiss the idea of an 'objective' standard of beauty anywy. It may not be the be all and end all but I'm sure there were studies which showed that we're biologically more likely to find certain aspects of someone attractive


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I imagined you saying it, and imagined you laughing about our socities exploitation of women. _therefore it must be true_


 Is there anything else you imagine me doing dottie?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Bollocks aren't beautiful.


I think I told the joke better.

But that'll be subjective.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> so what?


 What?


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I do have a problem with it, because of the underlying assumptions and attitudes it reveals about the questioner.



Which are..?


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> I think I told the joke better.
> 
> But that'll be subjective.


 I wasn't joking though - bollocks are vile things


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Is there anything else you magine me doing dottie?



Well _now_ there is


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> It's silly to dismiss the idea of an 'objective' standard of beauty anywy. It may not be the be all and end all but I'm sure there were studies which showed that we're biologically more likely to find certain aspects of someone attractive



i'm sure there are, but that's not the same as objectivity. Nor is the biological imperative of much bearing on beauty pageants, which as you've said yourself tend to represent current societal norms of beauty.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

Leeds University student union recently banned a pole dancing society from forming. Personally I didn't think the Union should be acting as the moral guardian of individuals wishing to form a society which they choose to partake in. I think it's patronizing to prescribe what people can or can’t do in this manner. I also don’t think it’s justified to say that women partaking are causing themselves psychological harm, just as I don’t think it’s justify to criminalize people taking drugs on the same basis. 

On the other hand if somebody else wanted to create a society to try and educate women why they shouldn’t partake in pole dancing them good for them. 

It’s about ensuring adults have the full information available to them to make an informed consent about what they do or do not want to do in life. Whether it’s drugs, exploitative sexual behavior whatever the same principle applies.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> I wasn't joking though - bollocks are vile things


I can say that, but you can't.   Unless you can claim male heritage.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> What?



the behaviour of a small group of people tells you nothing about the validity of what is a very broad church of ideas.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

To the window! To the walls!
till the sweat drips from mah balls


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> i'm sure there are, but that's not the same as objectivity. Nor is the biological imperative of much bearing on beauty pageants, which as you've said yourself tend to represent current societal norms of beauty.


 So, what's your point? I already said I'd misunderstood the use of 'objective'

The biological imperative is relevant to the rest of what I've been saying though.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> I can say that, but you can't.  Unless you can claim male heritage.


 *shows DLR 'her' birth certificate*


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Show me where I said beauty pageants are a good laugh


It started with this post, which you chose to make just as people were starting to challenge the idea that they were just a good laugh.  It was your first post on the thread.

Why did you make that post?  Did you not realise what side of the issue it placed you on?  If you think that beauty pagents are harmful, do you think that it was a helpful post to make when people were trying to establish just why they were harmful?

You followed it up with a post agreeing that you would like to be "lauded for your beauty rather than your brains".

Then you came out with this gem.  That was followed up with the importance of make-up and how great it is to be a woman because you can use it.

Since then, you have not shown one whit of a notion that you might actually disapprove of beauty pagents until right now.  Given that little potted history, is it suprising that your posts might be thought of as being rather on the side of pagents all just being a good laugh?


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> the behaviour of a small group of people tells you nothing about the validity of what is a very broad church of ideas.


 Which small group? I've yet to read any feminist literature that supports the wearing of make up or high heels. Not for women anyway.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> You followed it up with a post agreeing that you would like to be "lauded for your beauty rather than your brains".



It was me that said that.

E2A:  did you edit?  I'm sure it didn't say ''agreeing'' at first.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> Which are..?


Number one on the list would be that a woman must have a different view just because she is a woman.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> It started with this post, which you chose to make just as people were starting to challenge the idea that they were just a good laugh. It was your first post on the thread.
> 
> Why did you make that post? Did you not realise what side of the issue it placed you on? If you think that beauty pagents are harmful, do you think that it was a helpful post to make when people were trying to establish just why they were harmful?
> 
> ...


 You're a bit serious aincha, kabbes


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> It was me that said that.


Madzone immediately agreed with it.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Madzone immediately agreed with it.


 Kabbes, I think you may have your irony filter switched off mate


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Which small group? I've yet to read any feminist literature that supports the wearing of make up or high heels. Not for women anyway.


There's a difference between supporting something and not opposing it.  I know some very active feminists who wear both make up and high heels (the high heels I don't get, since they are the worst kind of shoe ever, but that's by the by).


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> You're a bit serious aincha, kabbes


About some subjects, sure.  Why shouldn't I be?  The consequences of this particular inequality has caused serious misery for millions of people.  That strikes me as something worth taking seriously.

Now, if I know my urbans, cue srs cat.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> The biological imperative is relevant to the rest of what I've been saying though.



Find me a pageant that's judged according to biological imperative, and in turn I'll capture the Easter Bunny and have it sent over to you, ok?


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Number one on the list would be that a woman must have a different view just because she is a woman.



Link to where I said that. Thanks in advance.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Kabbes, I think you may have your irony filter switched off mate


Can you really not review your contribution to this thread and recognise that it is actively harmful to the arguments being made as to why a beauty pagent is a negative thing?  Whether you intended those comments seriously or not?  Bear in mind that this is a public forum and that lurkers massively outnumber participants and that most of those lurkers probably have no idea who you are or what your posting history is.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> Find me a pageant that's judged according to biological imperative, and in turn I'll capture the Easter Bunny and have it sent over to you, ok?


 I'm not talking about the pageants now though jefe, you know that really.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> Link to where I said that. Thanks in advance.


That's the thing about underlying assumptions though, isn't it?  They tend to be unspoken.

Tell me this -- why else would you specifically request the views of a woman just because she is a woman?


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 16, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> To the window! To the walls!
> till the sweat drips from mah balls



*objectifies dot*


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Which small group? I've yet to read any feminist literature that supports the wearing of make up or high heels. Not for women anyway.



I've read a lot less feminist literature than i should, but trust me, the opposition to such things isn't universal.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> There's a difference between supporting something and not opposing it. I know some very active feminists who wear both make up and high heels (the high heels I don't get, since they are the worst kind of shoe ever, but that's by the by).


 Fair enough - though I find it hard to accept they're active feminists yet wear make up and high heels. Surely that flies in the face of what feminism is about?


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> I'm not talking about the pageants now though jefe, you know that really.



Well I lost track of what you were talking about when you started to try and compare interpersonal attraction with beauty pageants in order to expose the rank hypocrisy of any men who opposed pageants.

Which is such a steaming pile of shit it must have messed with my understanding. So what ARE you talking about?


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> About some subjects, sure. Why shouldn't I be? The consequences of this particular inequality has caused serious misery for millions of people. That strikes me as something worth taking seriously.
> 
> Now, if I know my urbans, cue srs cat.


 I meant that in your quest for 'seriousness' you've missed some gentle leg pulling from the 'ladies' of urban


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Fair enough - though I find it hard to accept they're active feminists yet wear make up and high heels. Surely that flies in the face of what feminism is about?



No, it doesn't. Only your narrow, ill-informed stereotype of it.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> No, it doesn't. Only your narrow, ill-informed stereotype of it.


 

Yeah alright jefe


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Fair enough - though I find it hard to accept they're active feminists yet wear make up and high heels. Surely that flies in the face of what feminism is about?


Does it?  I suppose it depends what you think feminism is all about.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Which small group? I've yet to read any feminist literature that supports the wearing of make up or high heels. Not for women anyway.



Does this not depend on how you define feminist literature?


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Yeah alright jefe



Typical response - get pwned so go for the "whatEVER" response.

Well done


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> Well I lost track of what you were talking about when you started to try and compare interpersonal attraction with beauty pageants in order to expose the rank hypocrisy of any men who opposed pageants.
> 
> Which is such a steaming pile of shit it must have messed with my understanding. So what ARE you talking about?


 
Are you incapable of having an interaction on here without resorting to abuse? I find it hard to take what you say seriously because of it.


I haven't made any comment about the beauty pageants AT ALL.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Does this not depend on how you define feminist literature?


 Errrr... go on then, you define it


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Does it? I suppose it depends what you think feminism is all about.


 Yeah, fair point  

There must be some cross over amongst the different schools though


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> That's the thing about underlying assumptions though, isn't it?  They tend to be unspoken.
> 
> Tell me this -- why else would you specifically request the views of a woman just because she is a woman?



Because I want to know how women feel about girls being objectified in beauty paegents before I wade in and start patronising them with inverted sexism.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Fair enough - though I find it hard to accept they're active feminists yet wear make up and high heels. Surely that flies in the face of what feminism is about?


Not really, feminism is far from monolithic.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> Typical response - get pwned so go for the "whatEVER" response.
> 
> Well done


 If you think you 'pwned' me (whatever that means ) I'm happy to go along with it 

I have a feeling that this thread is about to be dragged down the cul-de-sac of  point scoring though, which is a shame becasue everfone could probably learn something from this one


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> I haven't made any comment about the beauty pageants AT ALL.



oh rlly?

you've made any number of points in response to people who were talking about pageants, so it would be reasonable to assume you were commenting on them at a remove, at least.

So your comment about "girls wanting to look pretty" doesn't relate to beauty pageants?


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Not really, feminism is far from monolithic.


 Haven't we already coverd that?


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> which is a shame becasue everfone could probably learn something from this one



so your sarcasm and fatuous comments are all part of a learning process?

eta: by which I mean, to be more precise: i'd have been more than happy to have a proper debate about this, but your comments have done nothing to convince me that's what you were after.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Haven't we already coverd that?


I missed it if we have.

The point I'm trying to make is that whether or not wearing make up or whatever "flies in the face of what feminism is all about" is contingent on which strain of feminism you're talking about.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> oh rlly?
> 
> you've made any number of points in response to people who were talking about pageants, so it would be reasonable to assume you were commenting on them at a remove, at least.
> 
> So your comment about "girls wanting to look pretty" doesn't relate to beauty pageants?


 You were right first time, it was a piss take. I find it hard not to when there's a thread full of men being righteously indignant about something that affects women to such a degree. I used to find feminist men quite sweet but now it pisses me off when you have men saying how outrageous something is whilst usually perpetuating the very problems that are caused by it.

How many of you go on the ugly mug thread and tell women they look good? What is it that you find attractive about women? I bet it fits fairly closely to the template society currently prescribes. How do you respond to women who don't fit that template? Who are so far out of that template as to be feeling miserbale? I bet you feel a stroing bond of 'sisterly' love towards them but you wouldn't want them having your babies


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> I missed it if we have.
> 
> The point I'm trying to make is that whether or not wearing make up or whatever "flies in the face of what feminism is all about" is contingent on which strain of feminism you're talking about.


 Yes, a point which was alaready raised by several other posters  I've already answered it


----------



## Kanda (Feb 16, 2009)

Pageants are usually full of flat chested waifs. I prefer some boobs


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> You were right first time, it was a piss take. I find it hard not to when there's a thread full of men being righteously indignant about something that affects women to such a degree.



that's pretty fucking infantile.



madzone said:


> How many of you go on the ugly mug thread and tell women they look good? What is it that you find attractive about women? I bet it fits fairly closely to the template society currently prescribes. How do you respond to women who don't fit that template? Who are so far out of that template as to be feeling miserbale? I bet you feel a stroing bond of 'sisterly' love towards them but you wouldn't want them having your babies



Another facepalm. How can you post this shit with a straight face?


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> so your sarcasm and fatuous comments are all part of a learning process?
> 
> eta: by which I mean, to be more precise: i'd have been more than happy to have a proper debate about this, but your comments have done nothing to convince me that's what you were after.


 
You're just looking for a fight 

I've made plenty valid points since the pisstakes, you can focus on them instead if you want to though


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Yes, a point which was alaready raised by several other posters  I've already answered it



did you actually answer it, or just make snide comments in response. 

I don't recall reading anything along the lines of "OK, right, I wasn't aware that there was such a varied standpoint - thanks for clearing that up".


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> that's pretty fucking infantile.


 
Yes, because there's no pisstaking on urban is there. Down with that sort of thing 





> Another facepalm. How can you post this shit with a straight face?


 
Because it's valid. You can't seem to address it at all. Just more abuse.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Errrr... go on then, you define it




I don't want to define it! I leave third wave feminist to aruge about that. There is a huge debate what is or isn't feminism. There are also people who call themselves feminists who others disagree with their definition... for instance Is Difference feminism really feminism?


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> You're just looking for a fight



No, really not. But read your first few contributions and see how much  you think they contribute to a thread you've suggested could be educational and worthwhile?



madzone said:


> I've made plenty valid points since the pisstakes, you can focus on them instead if you want to though



You haven't, not really. You've made some fucked up assumptions about men, you've reduced feminism to a monothought dogma, that's about it.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> did you actually answer it,


I said to DLR that it was a fair poiint but that there must be some kind of crossover between the different schools of feminism


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Because it's valid. You can't seem to address it at all. Just more abuse.



I can't address it because it's based on so many untenable assumptions, rank generalisations and all-round nonsense that I honestly don't know where to start.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> I said to DLR that it was a fair poiint but that there must be some kind of crossover between the different schools of feminism



In which case, I apologise - I obviously missed that in amongst all the "if you say so, El Jefe" style posts


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> No, really not. But read your first few contributions and see how much you think they contribute to a thread you've suggested could be educational and worthwhile?
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't, not really. You've made some fucked up assumptions about men, you've reduced feminism to a monothought dogma, that's about it.


 You've provided no evidence to the contrary though. Repeatedly telling me it's shit and saying 'facepalm' is hardly likely to 'educate' me as to the error of my ways is it?


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> You were right first time, it was a piss take. I find it hard not to when there's a thread full of men being righteously indignant about something that affects women to such a degree. I used to find feminist men quite sweet but now it pisses me off when you have men saying how outrageous something is whilst usually perpetuating the very problems that are caused by it.
> 
> How many of you go on the ugly mug thread and tell women they look good? What is it that you find attractive about women? I bet it fits fairly closely to the template society currently prescribes. How do you respond to women who don't fit that template? Who are so far out of that template as to be feeling miserbale? I bet you feel a stroing bond of 'sisterly' love towards them but you wouldn't want them having your babies



The ugly ones can have my babies if the price is right. Everything has a value, they will just have to work harder and make up in economic value what they lack in physical repoductive value.

That's the beauty of capitalism it enables ugly women to have babies too.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> I can't address it because it's based on so many untenable assumptions, rank generalisations and all-round nonsense that I honestly don't know where to start.


 Think harder 

Is there any point in this jefe? Shall we just agree to disagree?

On everything.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> You've provided no evidence to the contrary though. Repeatedly telling me it's shit and saying 'facepalm' is hardly likely to 'educate' me as to the error of my ways is it?




evidence to the contrary of what? Ask me a straight question, free of sarcasm and cliche and i'll give it a go. Deal?


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> The ugly ones can have my babies if the price is right. Everything has a value, they will just have to work harder and make up in economic value what they lack in physical repoductive value.
> 
> That's the beauty of capitalism it enables ugly women to have babies too.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Think harder
> 
> Is there any point in this jefe? Shall we just agree to disagree?
> 
> On everything.



Don't give much of a fuck really, if you post I'll respond. But you could make up your mind if you want to actually debate, or just be a snide wisecracking infant. It's less confusing that way.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> evidence to the contrary of what? Ask me a straight question, free of sarcasm and cliche and i'll give it a go. Deal?


 I haven't been sarcastic 

The questions are all in there, should you wish to see them.

Let's start with just the one then...

Does what you find sexually attractive in a female fit the current template prescribed by society?


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> There must be some cross over amongst the different schools though


Of course there is, but it doesn't follow from the existence of some crossover between different feminisms that they all oppose individual women wearing make up or high heels.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> Don't give much of a fuck really, if you post I'll respond. But you could make up your mind if you want to actually debate, or just be a snide wisecracking infant. It's less confusing that way.


 Aside from the (blatantly obvious) pisstakes (even dottie got it ) I've been perfectly serious. You're the one responding with face palms and snideness. It really confuses me when you get like this jefe. You're tilting at windmills on this one.

Yes, the first few posts were taking the piss (though they did have a serious underbelly) but since then I've done my best to engage in debate and not be tempted to respond to your taunts.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Of course there is, but it doesn't follow from the existence of some crossover between different feminisms that they all oppose individual women wearing make up or high heels.


 I've conceded that


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> How many of you go on the ugly mug thread and tell women they look good? What is it that you find attractive about women? I bet it fits fairly closely to the template society currently prescribes. How do you respond to women who don't fit that template? Who are so far out of that template as to be feeling miserbale? I bet you feel a stroing bond of 'sisterly' love towards them but you wouldn't want them having your babies


Even if the assumptions you make here were all true, it doesn't really prove much of anything.  Nobody on this thread has claimed to be completely above socially defined notions of beauty.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Even if the assumptions you make here were all true, it doesn't really prove much of anything. Nobody on this thread has claimed to be completely above socially defined notions of beauty.


 Again, fair enough. I do find it a bit hypocritical of the men on here who are arguing against being judged on beauty when you do it yourselves though. Just for the record, before kabbes starts off again, I am NOT defending, supporting or otherwise stating that beauty pageants are anything but negative - ok?


----------



## The Groke (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> I do find it a bit hypocritical of the men on here who are arguing against being judged on beauty when you do it yourselves though.



Doesn't this still imply a predefined, empirical notion of "beauty" though and indeed one that you seem feel doesn't apply to you?

You would agree that the concept of men finding women physically attractive (or indeed vica versa) is not sexist or hateful in any way?

I think in fact that the Ugly Mug thread (and indeed the naked thread) is a shining example as to the diverse and subjective nature of physical attraction and notion of beauty.

Um...I kind of lost where I was going with that, but there was a point coming.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Again, fair enough. I do find it a bit hypocritical of the men on here who are arguing against being judged on beauty when you do it yourselves though.


I don't think that that's necessarily hypocritical, as long as it is acknowledged.  Like any other bloke, sometimes I unintentionally behave in a sexist way, I'm quite happy to be challenged on that, for the simple reason that it gives me an opportunity to look at my own behaviour and consider how I can improve it.  That doesn't mean that I'm going to shag somebody I'm not attracted to (unless I'm bored, lonely or drunk ), but I'm happy to acknowledge that my ideas of what makes men and women attractive are partially a result of living in a patriarchical society.

The reason that I object to beauty pageants isn't as simple as a blanket opposal to finding people attractive or not, but that they come out of and reinforce all kinds of backwards, patriarchical ideas about gender.


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 16, 2009)

emanymton said:


> You’re not an anarchist you’re a liberal this is straight from Mill.




True.
Especially the "having a job is not exploitative" bit. What happened to the abolition of the wages system? I seem to remember that being in my Welcome Pack to Anarchism list of pledges.


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 16, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> There's a difference between supporting something and not opposing it.  I know some very active feminists who wear both make up and high heels (the high heels I don't get, since they are the worst kind of shoe ever, but that's by the by).


What? High heels are awesome as they make women look ace.
How is that not part of their function?


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 16, 2009)

How fucking patronising and cunty do you wanna be?

'Sorry sweetie, we're against you doing this. Poor deluded thing -I'm afraid you don't 
properly appreciate the historical context of your actions with regard to gender equality'


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 16, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> How fucking patronising and cunty do you wanna be?
> 
> 'Sorry sweetie, we're against you doing this. Poor deluded thing -I'm afraid you don't
> properly appreciate the historical context of your actions with regard to gender equality'


So nobody should criticise anything anybody does, ever?


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 16, 2009)

kropotkin said:


> True.
> Especially the "having a job is not exploitative" bit. What happened to the abolition of the wages system? I seem to remember that being in my Welcome Pack to Anarchism list of pledges.




You got a welcome pack?  Fucksake, I only got lectures from my teachers saying that calling myself an anarchist would interfere with my job prospects.


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 16, 2009)

Write to the Secretary, they'll send you one along with the black and red star badge.
[I do actually own one of those :redface: ]


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 16, 2009)

bluestreak said:


> You got a welcome pack?  Fucksake, I only got lectures from my teachers saying that calling myself an anarchist would interfere with my job prospects.


Join an organisation, we have welcome packs.

And cake


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 16, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> So nobody should criticise anything anybody does, ever?



Spoiling other peoples' fun when they aren't hurting anyone else is lame. It's doubly lame when it comes accompanied with a hearty side order of smug paternalism.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Does what you find sexually attractive in a female fit the current template prescribed by society?


First we have to agree *precisely* what is the current template prescribed by society.  I can tell you that as I understand the current template, no -- it does not fit that template.  There is undoubted overlap (which should be the case even if it were completely random, which it is not).  But it is sufficiently different that I can say that it is not that template.

Of course, what most of us actually pragmatically find sexually attractive on a day-to-day level also tends not to fit that template, or at least our personal template tends to be considerably wider than the social norm.  Otherwise why would your average 50 year old husband still find his average 50 year old wife attractive and desirable?  I have to wonder at this point if the information I am giving you about our psychological construction of our perception of beauty is registering with you at all, because you're not even paying lip service to it.

I'm also wondering what any of this has to do with the institutional sexism that is still rampant in society or the propogation of that sexism that is represented by things like beauty pageants.  Because I'm really not seeing the link.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> Spoiling other peoples' fun when they aren't hurting anyone else is lame.


Agreed.  Of course, that has nothing to do with this subject, which is about something that causes untold damage to millions of people.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Agreed.  Of course, that has nothing to do with this subject, which is about something that causes untold damage to millions of people.



How, exactly?

EDIT: Oh actually never mind. I see what you're going to say. I just don't agree with it.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

Perhaps we can have an Urban 75 Pageant?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> EDIT: Oh actually never mind. I see what you're going to say. I just don't agree with it.


Well if what has been written on this thread and the wider world about why attitudes drive real world consequences hasn't convinced you then I guess nothing ever will.

But I'm hoping that at least you can recognise why somebody who *does* think pageants cause widespread damage might then feel justification in arguing against them?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Perhaps we can have an Urban 75 Pageant?


Only if I can wear my lucky white Y-fronts.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Does what you find sexually attractive in a female fit the current template prescribed by society?



believe it or not, I don't have a template of my own to compare it with. 

between the skinny girlfriends and the curvy girlfriends, the asian girlfriend and the italian girlfriend, the redheads and the brunettes, my sexual attraction to females has never involved ticking any particular boxes. So while it's feasible that at some point in the past, my current sexual partner might have fit the current societal template, it's never been a factor and I really don't know. I don't tend to see things in those terms, I'm afraid.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> I don't think that that's necessarily hypocritical, as long as it is acknowledged. Like any other bloke, sometimes I unintentionally behave in a sexist way, I'm quite happy to be challenged on that, for the simple reason that it gives me an opportunity to look at my own behaviour and consider how I can improve it. That doesn't mean that I'm going to shag somebody I'm not attracted to (unless I'm bored, lonely or drunk ), but I'm happy to acknowledge that my ideas of what makes men and women attractive are partially a result of living in a patriarchical society.


 
That's a very reasoned response and an opinion that I feel I can respect


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I have to wonder at this point if the information I am giving you about our psychological construction of our perception of beauty is registering with you at all, because you're not even paying lip service to it.


 
Fuck me, kabbes - pat the little woman on the head or what? 

I did a social care degree, I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with all of it.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

finding someone sexually attractive isn't, or doesn't need to be, inter-related with sexism. I can fancy the arse off someone without reinforcing the patriarchical status of society, and it's silly to claim otherwise.


----------



## Koshka (Feb 16, 2009)

Hello, 

As a woman, and as a human, I object to the beauty pageant because it perpetuates, encourages and renders tangible the fact that women are judged primarily on their physical appearance. 

This is a social and cultural problem, which is sometimes difficult to quantify and to struggle against, as it is embedded within the complex fabric of social relations and how people treat each other.  Assumptions around gender are often part of the social conditioning that many of us grow up with, and women can internalise the beauty myth,  believing that the main way they can get ahead, or paid any attention, is to be physically attractive. 

I don't blame the women involved for taking this view; they are reading mainstream society's view fairly accurately. Here is a quote from one of the contestants: ‘'I feel that we are all being judged all the time, whenever we walk down the street, so why not just do it for real?".  

My response to this is; yes, we are judged all the time, when we walk down the street, when we go to a job interview, when we discuss politics amongst our male comrades, when we become well known for a job that has nothing to do with our physical appearance, even when we protest against these superficial judgements against our sisters.  Yes this judgement exists, and we do not want to acquiesce with this dynamic by participating in or ignoring  a contest which demeans and degrades the participants as well as women (and men!) in a wider sense. Instead, we choose to challenge it in as many different ways as we can.  

We think it is important to raise these issues and have spaces to discuss them, both within the activist community and outside it.  We want to challenge the beauty pageant itself as it is a focus for these issues. We also want to try and reach out to these young women, as it is actually sad to see that they are choosing this path.  We also see the links between gender struggles and other kinds of economic and social oppression and exploitation.    

The suggestion at the forefront of this thread is only one aspect of it, and a way of getting people to engage in discussion. We are also taking many different approaches and welcome participation and constructive ideas.

xx


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Fuck me, kabbes - pat the little woman on the head or what?
> 
> I did a social care degree, I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with all of it.


I'm not talking about the social aspects, I'm talking about the personal biological mechanisms involved in attractiveness and the way in which our personal attractiveness tempate is HIGHLY malleable according to our personal experiences.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> finding someone sexually attractive isn't, or doesn't need to be, inter-related with sexism. I can fancy the arse off someone without reinforcing the patriarchical status of society, and it's silly to claim otherwise.


 I haven't claimed that, though. I've suggested that even men who claim to be feminists are capable of having sexist attitudes or hold stereotypical views of women (even if they don't acknowledge it) You say it's otherwise for you, I'll have to believe that.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I'm not talking about the social aspects, I'm talking about the personal biological mechanisms involved in attractiveness and the way in which our personal attractiveness tempate is HIGHLY malleable according to our personal experiences.


 When I spoke about the bilogical imperative I was shouted down 

'Personal' biological mechanisms? You'll have to explain that one to me


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> I haven't claimed that, though. I've suggested that even men who claim to be feminists are capable of having sexist attitudes or hold stereotypical views of women (even if they don't acknowledge it) You say it's otherwise for you, I'll have to believe that.



I haven't claimed otherwise, because I haven't once claimed to not have sexist attitudes, OR to be a feminist.

This is a big part of my problem arguing with you: you make shit up, or (more generously) make unfounded assumptions.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> ... you could make up your mind if you want to actually debate, or just be a snide wisecracking infant...


priceless! 

you really couldn't make it up!


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> When I spoke about the bilogical imperative I was shouted down
> 
> 'Personal' biological mechanisms? You'll have to explain that one to me



the biological imperative is a generalisation that serves as a kind of tool. By personal biological mechanisms, I assume kabbes is referring to the massive amount of personal experience, tastes, etc etc etc that make up each individual.

Just because there is a general "biological imperative", an idealised female form, say, doesn't mean everyone is going to find her attractive.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

Koshka said:


> Hello,
> 
> As a woman, and as a human, I object to the beauty pageant because it perpetuates, encourages and renders tangible the fact that women are judged primarily on their physical appearance.
> 
> ...



Well said and interesting to hear your response.

I wish you well with your protest, because I entirely agree with your point.  However, my long view is that direct protests can be rather counterproductive, because they can ultimately reduce a complex issue into a shouting match.  And in a shouting match, the one with the most simplistic attitude that can most easily summarised will tend to win.  You need to educate people as to why this is a problem and people being shouted at and bombarded with slogans don't tend to engage and reconsider their position.  Still, good luck anyway.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Feb 16, 2009)

Koshka said:


> Hello,
> 
> As a woman, and as a human, I object to the beauty pageant because it perpetuates, encourages and renders tangible the fact that women are judged primarily on their physical appearance.
> 
> ...


participation and constructive ideas you say? you'll be very lucky getting much of that round here at the moment by the look of it.....


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> I haven't claimed otherwise, because I haven't once claimed to not have sexist attitudes, OR to be a feminist.
> 
> This is a big part of my problem arguing with you: you make shit up, or (more generously) make unfounded assumptions.


 Ok, put us all out of our misery and put me on ignore, jefe. There really isn't any point in this is there? The things I've posted on here are my opinion, same as you. I haven't sneered, I haven't claimed anything to be  other than just my opinion. The concept of feminism seems to be something you're comfortable with, the concept of namecalling and sneering at a real life woman also seems to be something you're comfortable with.

Enough now.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Ok, put us all out of our misery and put me on ignore, jefe.



why would i do that? You sound just like cheesy 



madzone said:


> The things I've posted on here are my opinion, same as you.



but you keep making my opinions up for me - can't you see why that's not really on?



madzone said:


> the concept of namecalling and sneering at a real life woman also seems to be something you're comfortable with.



so i should treat you differently?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> 'Personal' biological mechanisms? You'll have to explain that one to me


It's exactly what I've been talking about repeatedly for post after post.  It's the *fact* (as confirmed through numerous studies) that what we find attractive is driven by personal experience and, in particular, by who is nice to us and who we like.  To repeat the point, this is why an elderly couple will still genuinely find each other eminently desirable -- their personal perception of attractiveness has genuinely been distorted by the experience of loving each other, to the extent that their attractiveness template is in accordance with the physical appearance of their spouse.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> It's exactly what I've been talking about repeatedly for post after post. It's the *fact* (as confirmed through numerous studies) that what we find attractive is driven by personal experience and, in particular, by who is nice to us and who we like. To repeat the point, this is why an elderly couple will still genuinely find each other eminently desirable -- their personal perception of attractiveness has genuinely been distorted by the experience of loving each other, to the extent that their attractiveness template is in accordance with the physical appearance of their spouse.


 Explain why it's biological and not nurture


----------



## Yelkcub (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Perhaps we can have an Urban 75 Pageant?



Ugly Mug and Nekkid threads shirely?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Explain why it's biological and not nurture


I see why you're taking issue with it now.  It's biological in that the mechanism involved that determines what we find attractive is biological in nature, because we are biological beings.  There is a physical process in the that rewires our brain according to our experience with the result that what we find attractive changes as a consequence (i.e. what we find attractive is not hard wired into us).  But yes, it is nurture.  If you prefer to call it that then that's fine by me.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Perhaps the use of the word *SMASH* in the title of thread has something to do with it.



Are you unable to differentiate between different people on this thread?


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I see why you're taking issue with it now. It's biological in that the mechanism involved that determines what we find attractive is biological in nature, because we are biological beings. There is a physical process in the that rewires our brain according to our experience with the result that what we find attractive changes as a consequence (i.e. what we find attractive is not hard wired into us). But yes, it is nurture. If you prefer to call it that then that's fine by me.


 Ok - we're on common ground at last 

Though I *will* argue about it not being hard wired at all.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Feb 16, 2009)

Koshka said:


> Hello,
> 
> As a woman, and as a human, I object to the beauty pageant because it perpetuates, encourages and renders tangible the fact that women are judged primarily on their physical appearance.
> 
> ...



I agree absolutely with what you are saying here and what you are trying to do but please, please do not refer to me or other women as 'sisters'. 

I can be a friend, a fellow activist, but first and foremost I am a women, a person but NOT your sister and I do not like being 'labelled' as such. Sorry to be so  about it but I really, really the hate term 

(I also hate the phrase "male comrade" btw. Why don't you just say men, or friends or colleagues )


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> How fucking patronising and cunty do you wanna be?
> 
> 'Sorry sweetie, we're against you doing this. Poor deluded thing -I'm afraid you don't
> properly appreciate the historical context of your actions with regard to gender equality'



wrong end of the stick again


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I agree absolutely with what you are saying here and what you are trying to do but please, please do not refer to me or other women as 'sisters'.
> 
> I can be a friend, a fellow activist, but first and foremost I am a women, a person but NOT your sister and I do not like being 'labelled' as such. Sorry to be so  about it but I really, really hate term
> 
> (I also hate the phrase "male comrade" btw. Why don't you just say men, or friends or colleagues )


 Same here. I lost interest when I got to the word comrade.

And I don't have any sisters


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> believe it or not, I don't have a template of my own to compare it with.
> 
> between the skinny girlfriends and the curvy girlfriends, the asian girlfriend and the italian girlfriend, the redheads and the brunettes, my sexual attraction to females has never involved ticking any particular boxes. So while it's feasible that at some point in the past, my current sexual partner might have fit the current societal template, it's never been a factor and I really don't know. I don't tend to see things in those terms, I'm afraid.



It'll be influenced by unconscious factors though, to do with your upbringing.  This would operate on an emotional level more than a physical one though.


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 16, 2009)

There is something to it though, Blagsta.
The same sort of tendency that campaigned against lap-dancing clubs without engaging or even attempting to engage the women that actually worked in them. Or the tendencies within third wave feminism that didn't have anything to do with the British Collective of Prostitutes.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> It'll be influenced by unconscious factors though, to do with your upbringing.  This would operate on an emotional level more than a physical one though.




Oh, of course, couldn't be otherwise. All I'm saying is that it's not some kind of mechanical, looks-based template.  Every time you look at someone you're probably bringing into play a million different factors without even realising it


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

Jonti said:


> priceless!
> 
> you really couldn't make it up!



sneery knocking?  What's that?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Though I *will* argue about it not being hard wired at all.


OK, fair enough.  Actually, evidence is for something like 20-33% hard wired, IIRC.  But the important thing is what this hard wired element is all about.  The first interesting fact about it is that it apparently includes no detail -- there is no hard wiring of what shape a nose should be or how big ears should be, for example.  The second thing is that it tends to be more ratio based than absolute.  So there is a hard wiring for a certain hip-to-waist ratio.  But even this hard wiring is easily overwritten by both social norms and the personal experience mechanism.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Ok, put us all out of our misery and put me on ignore, jefe. There really isn't any point in this is there? The things I've posted on here are my opinion, same as you. I haven't sneered, I haven't claimed anything to be  other than just my opinion. The concept of feminism seems to be something you're comfortable with, the concept of namecalling and sneering at a real life woman also seems to be something you're comfortable with.
> 
> Enough now.



You're now using feminism to hide behind when someone points out your ill thought out views?


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Only if I can wear my lucky white Y-fronts.



Yes lucky white Y-fronts and also encouraged


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I agree absolutely with what you are saying here and what you are trying to do but please, please do not refer to me or other women as 'sisters'.
> 
> I can be a friend, a fellow activist, but first and foremost I am a women, a person but NOT your sister and I do not like being 'labelled' as such. Sorry to be so  about it but I really, really the hate term
> 
> (I also hate the phrase "male comrade" btw. Why don't you just say men, or friends or colleagues )


As far as I can tell, she's a student.  There's a lot of idealism at that stage.  Well done for pointing out that such language is counterproductive, but I say give her a bit of a break on it too.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

kropotkin said:


> There is something to it though, Blagsta.
> The same sort of tendency that campaigned against lap-dancing clubs without engaging or even attempting to engage the women that actually worked in them. Or the tendencies within third wave feminism that didn't have anything to do with the British Collective of Prostitutes.



Yep, but that's not what's been discussed on here.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> OK, fair enough. Actually, evidence is for something like 20-33% hard wired, IIRC. But the important thing is what this hard wired element is all about. The first interesting fact about it is that it apparently includes no detail -- there is no hard wiring of what shape a nose should be or how big ears should be, for example. The second thing is that it tends to be more ratio based than absolute. So there is a hard wiring for a certain hip-to-waist ratio. But even this hard wiring is easily overwritten by both social norms and the personal experience mechanism.


 I agree. However, people can go through their lives without challenging what they find attractive or why*. Hence the burgeoning sale of lads mags. The objectification of women has got much worse, not better. There may be a few enlightened males on urban but the majority seem to be buying into what they're being told is desirable.

* I have experience of men challenging their assumptions of what they find attractive. Two of them changed their view and one can't. It's too deeply ingrained in him and ironically he's the one that calls himself a feminist


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You're now using feminism to hide behind when someone points out your ill thought out views?


 No, I'm not. They're not ill thought out - you just don't agree with them


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Yep, but that's not what's been discussed on here.


 Yes, it is. It's not just about the beauty pageants anymore


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> The objectification of women has got much worse, not better. There may be a few enlightened males on urban but the majority seem to be buying into what they're being told is desirable.


Yes, it is getting worse and has been doing so since it became unfashionable to be seen as a feminist at some point in the early 90s.  

Which is why saying things like "male feminists make my clit shrivel" is EXTREMELY unhelpful.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> I There may be a few enlightened males on urban but the majority seem to be buying into what they're being told is desirable.



serious question: can you prove or demonstrate or substantiate this in any way?


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> serious question: can you prove or demonstrate or substantiate this in any way?


 
Only by citing the rise in eating disorders, self harm and the burgeoning sales of magazines that objectify women as sex objects. And anecdotally relaying the experiences I've had as a woman who doesn't 'fit the template' Aside from that, no I can't. Can you demonstrate or substantiate anything you've said?

In fact, I don't think anyone on this thread has substantiated or demonstrated anything that would back their point up, have they?

*eta - I don't think those thiongs are exclusive to women any more though - the rise in all of throse things in men is testament to the fact that it's moved on from being more than about feminism - IN MY OPINION


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> No, I'm not. They're not ill thought out - you just don't agree with them



I'm not even sure what you are saying - you're all over the place.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Yes, it is. It's not just about the beauty pageants anymore



Well discuss those issues then.  I haven't seen you do it so far!


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Yes, it is getting worse and has been doing so since it became unfashionable to be seen as a feminist at some point in the early 90s.
> 
> Which is why saying things like "male feminists make my clit shrivel" is EXTREMELY unhelpful.


 Ok, I apologise for that 
I was drunk and bored and I thought it was funny. I still do if I'm honest


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Well discuss those issues then. I haven't seen you do it so far!


I'm happy discussing what I'm discussing, thanks


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> I'm happy discussing what I'm discussing, thanks



You can't have it both ways!


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You can't have it both ways!


Says who? 

There's several levels of discussion going on around the same theme. I can't see the problem with that


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Ok, I apologise for that
> I was drunk and bored and I thought it was funny. I still do if I'm honest


Apology accepted.

Just remember that funny in private or with mates is not the same thing as funny on a public forum read by god-only-knows who or how many.  There's many highly inappropriate things that I laugh at with the kabbess and/or friends that I would never dream of saying to those who lack the context, knowledge of the true issues and understanding of my real attitudes towards same.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Says who?



Look - you just said that certain things had been discussed on a thread when they hadn't.  You're all over the shop.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Apology accepted.
> 
> Just remember that funny in private or with mates is not the same thing as funny on a public forum read by god-only-knows who or how many. There's many highly inappropriate things that I laugh at with the kabbess and/or friends that I would never dream of saying to those who lack the context, knowledge of the true issues and understanding of my real attitudes towards same.


 That's a tad patronising, kabbes


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> That's a tad patronising, kabbes



yeah, kabbes, you sexist pig


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Only by citing the rise in eating disorders, self harm and the burgeoning sales of magazines that objectify women as sex objects. And anecdotally relaying the experiences I've had as a woman who doesn't 'fit the template' Aside from that, no I can't. Can you demonstrate or substantiate anything you've said?
> 
> In fact, I don't think anyone on this thread has substantiated or demonstrated anything that would back their point up, have they?
> 
> *eta - I don't think those thiongs are exclusive to women any more though - the rise in all of throse things in men is testament to the fact that it's moved on from being more than about feminism - IN MY OPINION



The rise of eating disorders etc etc is NOT to do with what individual men find attractive, or an example of men fitting in with what they're supposed to find attractive.

Compare page 3 with catwalk models. I imagine more men find the former attractive than the latter, and yet the latter are what we're societally told is attractive. 

Not for the first time, you're confusing the specific with the general


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Says who?
> 
> There's several levels of discussion going on around the same theme. I can't see the problem with that



It's a problem when you move the goalposts pretty much every page.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

eating disorders are generally about emotional control issues in the family


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> That's a tad patronising, kabbes


I'm not sure you understand the word, madzone.  Patronising means "talking down to", like if I patiently explained something that you already well understood.











Now THAT'S funny.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> The rise of eating disorders etc etc is NOT to do with what individual men find attractive, or an example of men fitting in with what they're supposed to find attractive.
> 
> Compare page 3 with catwalk models. I imagine more men find the former attractive than the latter, and yet the latter are what we're societally told is attractive.
> 
> Not for the first time, you're confusing the specific with the general


 
I never said it was to do with individuals, jefe  I'm citing the general consensus. Maybe that's where our breakdown in comminication is stemming froim. I'm talking about cultural norms and expectations, not individuals. And not you in particular. Of course the masses are made from individuals - so where do you draw the line. And all the books and abstract concepts won't change the experience I've had.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I'm not sure you understand the word, madzone. Patronising means "talking down to", like if I patiently explained something that you already well understood.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And again


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> It's a problem when you move the goalposts pretty much every page.


 I don't think I am.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

And again what?


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> And again what?


 Being condescending


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Are you unable to differentiate between different people on this thread?



No there are these helpful name things that aide and assist me.  

I was pointing out that the title and tone on which this thread was started had influenced where people were coming from in subsequent discussions. It was a point about the wider context of the thread in response to a generalization about people’s reaction to it. It wasn’t a specific criticism leveled against any particular poster, but perhaps I wasn’t clear as you appear to have interpreted it as such. 

*Koshka* my advice would be to avoid using the word smash in your terminology, it allows opponents to quickly dismiss your views with stereotypes. I also question the extent to which direct action like this is an effective manner is facilitating a meaningful debate and actual change. Although cynically speaking it does get you attention, it’s just whether you can then transform that attention into anything meaningful.

How do you feel about the Biological Nature/Nurture debate as I could imagine some people suggesting that the desire for females to participate in Beauty Pageants is tied to a biological desire to be attractive? I suppose it’s the social context that places the value upon this attractiveness though as other posters have shown by their portrayal of female beauty through the ages.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Being condescending


It was a joke, madz.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> I never said it was to do with individuals, jefe  I'm citing the general consensus. Maybe that's where our breakdown in comminication is stemming froim. I*'m talking about cultural norms and expectations, not individuals. *And not you in particular. Of course the masses are made from individuals - so where do you draw the line. And all the books and abstract concepts won't change the experience I've had.



and another goalpost shift. I don't even know if you realise you're doing it, but you seem to constantly get to the end of one logical dead end and adopt another position straight away, or give up on them, or something.

it's just futile 

For example the bit in bold in the quote - barely 5 minutes ago you were talking about men (who are all individuals) fitting in with being told what they should find attractive, now you're saying it's cultural norms and expectations, which is exactly what I'VE been saying.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> I don't think I am.



it's demonstrably the case, I'm afraid. Otherwise why am I not the only person to suggest it?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> No there are these helpful name things that aide and assist me.
> 
> I was pointing out that the title and tone on which this thread was started had influenced where people were coming from in subsequent discussions. It was a point about the wider context of the thread in response to a generalization about people’s reaction to it. It wasn’t a specific criticism leveled against any particular poster, but perhaps I wasn’t clear as you appear to have interpreted it as such..



You're able to examine context in the case of this thread, but not in the case of the subject of the thread?  Most curious!


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> and another goalpost shift. I don't even know if you realise you're doing it, but you seem to constantly get to the end of one logical dead end and adopt another position straight away, or give up on them, or something.
> 
> it's just futile
> 
> For example the bit in bold in the quote - barely 5 minutes ago you were talking about men (who are all individuals) fitting in with being told what they should find attractive, now you're saying it's cultural norms and expectations, which is exactly what I'VE been saying.


 No, I've talked about cultural norms and expectations all the way through the thread. I've talked about how many men (IN MY OPINION) still buy into the cultural expectation of what they're told to find attractive.
 Society is made from individuals. It's possible to talk about cultural norms and expectations as being applied to individuals, isn't it? I xcan't see how that's contradictory.
To be honest, jefe, you've completely lost me now. I'm struggling to see what it is you're actually arguing. I know I haven't changed my point of view on anything as a result of this thread so I don't know why you think I'm arguing somehtng different now


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> No, I've talked about cultural norms and expectations all the way through the thread. I've talked about how many men (IN MY OPINION) still buy into the cultural expectation of what they're told to find attractive.



Of course we do, a lot of this stuff works on an unconscious level.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> it's demonstrably the case, I'm afraid. Otherwise why am I not the only person to suggest it?


It's only you and blagsta

It turned out that kabbes and I were arguing ther same thing at one time, it was the use of a word that's generally used differently in this context that threw a spanner


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> It's only you and blagsta
> 
> It turned out that kabbes and I were arguing ther same thing at one time, it was the use of a word that's generally used differently in this context that threw a spanner



It's not generaly used differently at all.  You just used the wrong word.
</pedantry>


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> It's not generaly used differently at all. You just used the wrong word.
> </pedantry>


 Really? Clarify.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

Moldy Lunchbox


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

Sexist pig


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You're able to examine context in the case of this thread, but not in the case of the subject of the thread?  Most curious!



Smash in the context of the subject of the thread has affected the content of the thread in the context of people's 'strawman' critctisms against the action. That was the point I was trying to make.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

Boxxy=love


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> It'll be influenced by unconscious factors though, to do with your upbringing.  This would operate on an emotional level more than a physical one though.



Woooooooo! Unconscious factors.... mystic.

What other unsubstantiated bullshit can we invoke using 'unconscious factors'

To be honest much of this whole thread reminds me of a painful redux of the harm arguments to do with violent video games.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Really? Clarify.



jesus 

I give up, you'll be glad to hear, like I should have done pages ago.

Your sophisticated debating approach is just too much for me, I'm afraid.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Of course we do, a lot of this stuff works on an unconscious level.



If the desire for women to participate in Beauty Pageants results from an unconscious drive to appear attractive is there anything wrong with that unconscious desire? Would a society that nurtured women differently so they didn't want to seek male approval of their physical beauty be any better? Or would it just be different, with perhaps it's own set of socially constructed unconscious desires that were equally as restrictive in preventing us from achieving gender equality (if that is our aim).

How false is false consciousness? Does the concept of false consciousness in itself rob us of our Existentialist free choice and trap us to interpret the world in a deterministic fashion. If we do accept a notion of false consciousness that allows us to dismiss the notion that women are free to choose to partake in a Pageant, then what are the implications of other people misprescribing choice as unconcious behaviour and thus creating a system of paternalistic and higherarchcal thought control. If we don't attempt it though are we simply allowing cultural injustices to continue?

PS I don’t have the answers for these questions


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

I thought that you were kidding earlier when you said that you were an existentialist!


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> jesus
> 
> I give up, you'll be glad to hear, like I should have done pages ago.
> 
> Your sophisticated debating approach is just too much for me, I'm afraid.


 And yet, here you are, replying to one of my posts. Again 

I don't think it's too much to ask for blagsta to clarify what he meant. Is it such a problem? See, I don't think it was me who got the wrong gist of the word. Kabbes was using it in a context that isn't usual for a debate on a sociological subject. I'd just like blagsta to clarify why he thought I got it wrong.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I thought that you were kidding earlier when you said that you were an existentialist!



I see both sides of the coin, I understand that there are unpleasant social traits that nurture people to behave in ways which are not in their best interests. However I accept that we are still in an existentialist way free to choose an alternative. I think the only way to break those social constructs that enslave us is to educate the self to an extent that you can simply choose to do otherwise. Cue Nietzsche…

I also see an explicit danger in proclaiming someone else to be acting not of their own free as one you have done that you can justify all sorts of things that are 'good for people' but against their will. 

The paternalistic state is a fear of mine for instance. So I’d say I’m an existentialist with caveats.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> I think the only way to break those social contructs that enslave us is to educate the self to an extent that you can simply choose to do otherwise.


 
That's what I was saying at the beginning. I _know_ that the social construct of beauty and being judged solely on it is enslaving but it's a brave woman who tackles it by 'doing otherwise'.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> I see both sides of the coin, I understand that there are unpleasant social traits that nurture people to behave in ways which are not in their best interests. However I accept that we are still in an existentialist way free to choose an alternative. I think the only way to break those social constructs that enslave us is to educate the self to an extent that you can simply choose to do otherwise. Cue Nietzsche…
> 
> I also see an explicit danger in proclaiming someone else to be acting not of their own free as one you have done that you can justify all sorts of things that are 'good for people' but against their will.
> 
> The paternalistic state is a fear of mine for instance. So I’d say I’m an existentialist with caveats.


That prompted me to read the Wiki article on existentialism and, to the extent that Wiki is reliable on such matters, I have come to the realisation that I am an existentialist too.  Who knew?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> Woooooooo! Unconscious factors.... mystic.
> 
> What other unsubstantiated bullshit can we invoke using 'unconscious factors'
> 
> To be honest much of this whole thread reminds me of a painful redux of the harm arguments to do with violent video games.



You're an idiot.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> I see both sides of the coin, I understand that there are unpleasant social traits that nurture people to behave in ways which are not in their best interests.



The assumption being that pursuit of beauty is a dead-end. I'm sure that any attractive lady who has used her beauty, makeup, and wardrobe to influence others would disagree, distasteful though this idea must be to some.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> If the desire for women to participate in Beauty Pageants results from an unconscious drive to appear attractive is there anything wrong with that unconscious desire? Would a society that nurtured women differently so they didn't want to seek male approval of their physical beauty be any better? Or would it just be different, with perhaps it's own set of socially constructed unconscious desires that were equally as restrictive in preventing us from achieving gender equality (if that is our aim).
> 
> How false is false consciousness? Does the concept of false consciousness in itself rob us of our Existentialist free choice and trap us to interpret the world in a deterministic fashion. If we do accept a notion of false consciousness that allows us to dismiss the notion that women are free to choose to partake in a Pageant, then what are the implications of other people misprescribing choice as unconcious behaviour and thus creating a system of paternalistic and higherarchcal thought control. If we don't attempt it though are we simply allowing cultural injustices to continue?
> 
> PS I don’t have the answers for these questions




who mentioned false consciousness?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> And yet, here you are, replying to one of my posts. Again
> 
> I don't think it's too much to ask for blagsta to clarify what he meant. Is it such a problem? See, I don't think it was me who got the wrong gist of the word. Kabbes was using it in a context that isn't usual for a debate on a sociological subject. I'd just like blagsta to clarify why he thought I got it wrong.



Lots of people pointed out how your post was contradictory.  Go back and check if you like.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

This thread isn't fun any more.  I needs me somebody to patronise or insult, quick.


----------



## contadino (Feb 16, 2009)

But surely this particular pageant is just the start.  Maybe Miss University London will go on to compete in Miss London, who will go on to participate in Miss England, and on into the Miss World competition.

I skimmed through the first 11 pages so apologies if I missed it, but has anyone considered how embarrassing it would be for England or the UK _not_ to be represented in Miss World?  You'd be the laughing stock of the world.  It would be like not sending a team to the World Cup - an admission that you as a country aren't very good at football/have no pretty girls.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Feb 16, 2009)

So, protest against a beauty pageant, good idea or not?


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You're an idiot.



Dude, you just used 'unconscious factors' to justify why something is bad. Can you not see where your approach falls down?

I posit a surfeit of too much Hello Kitty Island Adventure in your youth as the prime unconscious factor determining your maladjusted and simplistic approach to the human brain.

E2A This applies to the whole of society as well QED.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

We don't send anybody to the World Beat a Serf competition either.

I'll live with it.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Lots of people pointed out how your post was contradictory. Go back and check if you like.


 I think you've got a bit lost. I said that kabbes and I were actually agreeing but that the use of the word in an unusual (for this type of debate) context had caused some confusion. Afaik no-one has commented on that apart frm me and kabbes.

I'd gladly check my posts but you'd have to be clearer about which one you meant


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> We don't send anybody to the World Beat a Serf competition either.
> 
> I'll live with it.


 Where does thatr get held? I can think of somoene I'd like to enter for that


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Where does thatr get held? I can think of somoene I'd like to enter for that


In contadino's house.  Every other gibbous moon.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> In contadino's house. Every other gibbous moon.


 Oh, I love the word gibbous


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> That prompted me to read the Wiki article on existentialism and, to the extent that Wiki is reliable on such matters, I have come to the realisation that I am an existentialist too.  Who knew?



Yes now you can be critised by Dialectical materialst that wish to place everything in histrocial and socal context, and Freudian pyschoanalyst that wish to presribe your choices to unconcious desires. The Frankfurt school's synthesis of Marxist economic critism and Freud's pyschoanaylsis is the sole reason why I say that I see the otherside of the coin.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> Dude, you just used 'unconscious factors' to justify why something is bad. Can you not see where your approach falls down?
> 
> I posit a surfeit of too much Hello Kitty Island Adventure in your youth as the prime unconscious facter determining your maladjusted and simplistic approach to the human brain.



I didn't say anything about anything being "bad".  At all.

That's why I think you're an idiot.  You can't read the thread.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> I think you've got a bit lost. I said that kabbes and I were actually agreeing but that the use of the word in an unusual (for this type of debate) context had caused some confusion. Afaik no-one has commented on that apart frm me and kabbes.
> 
> I'd gladly check my posts but you'd have to be clearer about which one you meant



*facepalm*


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Oh, I love the word gibbous




That's becuase you a lunatic.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Yes now you can be critised by Dialectical materialst that wish to place everything in histrocial and socal context, and Freudian pyschoanalyst that wish to presribe your choices to unconcious desires. The Frankfurt school's synthesis of Marxist economic critism and Freud's pyschoanaylsis is the sole reason why I say that I see the otherside of the coin.


I believe in social forces and I'm a Freudian too.  I am quite capable of firmly holding three contradictory positions simultaneously.  It's what makes me a good actuary.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> *facepalm*


 Erudite, pithy, entirely fucking useless as a response 

Which post are you talking about, blagsta? You've tied yourself up in knots here, haven't you?


----------



## contadino (Feb 16, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> So, protest against a beauty pageant, good idea or not?



Not a good idea.  It's an infringement of rights.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> That's becuase you a lunatic.


That's no bad thing


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> . I am quite capable of firmly holding three contradictory positions simultaneously.


 
Is this where I'm supposed to go:

*facepalm*


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> It's not generaly used differently at all. You just used the wrong word.
> </pedantry>


 This is what I'm asking you to clarify, Blagsta. Which word was it I used that was wrong?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> This is what I'm asking you to clarify, Blagsta. Which word was it I used that was wrong?



fucks sake.

The one where you used the word "objective" and a few people pointed out how what you were saying was contadictory.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You're an idiot.



Somewhat Ironically Adorno once criticized existentialism as mystical, and Marcuse complained that it tries to take choices out of their historical and social context and place them within ontological and metaphysical contexts. It's quite amusing that someone would call you a mystic for employing the unconscious, they must be retarded I think.

Within that framework the unconscious as a model of explanation is actually the less mystical of interpretations about our actions. It’s a paradoxical situation but maybe you can’t be an existentialist with free choice unless you understand the unconscious enough to be able to choose something that goes against it. I’m not sure really to be honest it’s an interesting philosophical problem. That lies at the heart of Identity politics, amongst many other things.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Feb 16, 2009)

contadino said:


> Not a good idea.  It's an infringement of rights.


_An infringement of rights?_ Care to explain how so?


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Explain why it's biological and not nurture


 


kabbes said:


> I see why you're taking issue with it now. It's biological in that the mechanism involved that determines what we find attractive is biological in nature, because we are biological beings. There is a physical process in the that rewires our brain according to our experience with the result that what we find attractive changes as a consequence (i.e. what we find attractive is not hard wired into us). But yes, it is nurture. If you prefer to call it that then that's fine by me.


 



Blagsta said:


> fucks sake.
> 
> The one where you used the word "objective" and a few people pointed out how what you were saying was contadictory.


 That's the exchange I'm talking about, blagsta. No mention of 'objective' is there? See how easily these misunderstandings occur?


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> That's the exchange I'm talking about, blagsta. No mention of 'objective' is there? See how easily these misunderstandings occur?



you're an idiot


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Within that framework the unconscious as a model of explanation is actually the less mystical of interpretations about our actions.



You misunderstand what I meant. The unconscious is important, but you can't assume without some justification what effect things like beauty pageants will have on it. Never mind - I mixed Blagsta's sentiment with someone elses, anyway.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

This is the post 



madzone said:


> Of course there's objective standards of beauty. I accept that they're not always biologically defined but they're definitely culturally and historically defined. If you're unfortunate enough not to fit the current template what are you suppsed to do?



where you used the word "objective" in the wrong context


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> You misunderstand what I meant. The unconscious is important, but you can't assume without some justification what effect things like beauty pageants will have on it. Never mind - I mixed Blagsta's sentiment with someone elses, anyway.




I was being glib sorry.... but you are right there are problems with interpreting unconcious desires and then prescribing how people should behave as a result.

Perhaps it is becuase we are free to choose how we interput other people's unconcious desires - lol

Blagsta what are your thoughts


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> This is the post
> 
> 
> 
> where you used the word "objective" in the wrong context


 

Yes, blagsta, I know. That's not the post I was talking about though. When I said that me and kabbes were actually agreeing I was talking about another post entirely. Does kabbes agree with me on the post you just quoted?

There's so much misunderstanding (deliberate or otherwise) that goes on in threads like this I wonder what the point is sometimes. That and the seeming use of the internet for spleen venting by people who are allegedly quite nice in real life makes it a bit of a soul sapping excercise.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> you're an idiot


 I see 

Blagsta gets it very wrong and I'm the idiot. I'm enjoying you not responding to my posts jefe, keep it up


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Yes, blagsta, I know. That's not the post I was talking about though. When I said that me and kabbes were actually agreeing I was talking about another post entirely. Does kabbes agree with me in the post you just quoted?



Oh, OK.  My bad.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> I was being glib sorry.... but you are right there are problems with interpreting unconcious desires and then prescribing how people should behave as a result.
> 
> Perhaps it is becuase we are free to choose how we interput other people's unconcious desires - lol
> 
> Blagsta what are your thoughts



My thoughts on what?  A post I didn't make?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2009)

What were we talking about again?


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

kabbes said:


> What were we talking about again?


 Fuck knows. It's all gone a bit silly hasn't it?


----------



## contadino (Feb 16, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> _An infringement of rights?_ Care to explain how so?



Telling people that they are forbidden to partake in a perfectly legal entertainment event is an infringement of rights.  It's equivalent to saying "Ban X-factor Come Dance With Me" or whatever those shows are called nowadays - on the basis that "It makes me feel insignificant because I can't ballroom dance/sing."

How about Smash School Sports Days?  Or Wreak Merry Hell at the Olympics?  Or an End Job Interviews - Make Employers Hire Everyone Who Applies campaign?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Feb 16, 2009)

contadino said:


> Not a good idea.  It's an infringement of rights.



Eh? Protesting is an infringement of what and whose rights?


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Oh, OK. My bad.


 Not bad, just confused, which to be fair isn't hard in a thread like this


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Feb 16, 2009)

contadino said:


> Telling people that they are forbidden to partake in a perfectly legal entertainment event is an infringement of rights.  It's equivalent to saying "Ban X-factor Come Dance With Me" or whatever those shows are called nowadays - on the basis that "It makes me feel insignificant because I can't ballroom dance/sing."
> 
> How about Smash School Sports Days?  Or Wreak Merry Hell at the Olympics?  Or an End Job Interviews - Make Employers Hire Everyone Who Applies campaign?



Erm... I don't think _protesting _against something is an infringement of rights. Or not in this situation anyway


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Erm... I don't think _protesting _against somethingis an infringement of rights


 I kind of get what contadino is saying though. Isn't it a bit arrogant?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 16, 2009)

also it is not equivalent in the slightest


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Feb 16, 2009)

contadino said:


> Telling people that they are forbidden to partake in a perfectly legal entertainment event is an infringement of rights.  It's equivalent to saying "Ban X-factor Come Dance With Me" or whatever those shows are called nowadays - on the basis that "It makes me feel insignificant because I can't ballroom dance/sing."
> 
> How about Smash School Sports Days?  Or Wreak Merry Hell at the Olympics?  Or an End Job Interviews - Make Employers Hire Everyone Who Applies campaign?


the point------------------------------------------------------------------------>

<-------------------------------------------------------------------------------you


----------



## contadino (Feb 16, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Erm... I don't think _protesting _against somethingis an infringement of rights



Only if you're protesting with a caveat of your protests falling on deaf ears.  If your protests achieved anything, you would have infringed someone's rights.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> My thoughts on what?  A post I didn't make?


Yes your thoughts on a post you didn't make, what do you think about the relationship between people's freedom to choose to go to things like Pageant's vs the Unconscious desire of women to fit into social constructs of gender Identify?

Also I’d be interested to know what your thoughts are regarding people misperceiving people's actions as being behaviors. For instance I dislike advertising and think it negatively influences people on an unconscious level, but worry that I might violate their freedom of choice if I was to try and alter their behavior through certain methods.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> I kind of get what contadino is saying though. Isn't it a bit arrogant?



No I don't think so. I don't like beauty contests and I would protest against them because I think they are demeaning to women and upholding a stereotype which I don't. However I  would in no way put myself 'above' any women who wants to take part in a beauty contest but rather try to explain to them why I feel the way I do. I hope that doesn't make me seem arrogant  

Oh and I wouldn't _ban _them but I would protest against them


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Erm... I don't think _protesting _against something is an infringement of rights. Or not in this situation anyway



Depends on the type of protest. I think taking direct action is an infringement of people's rights to do what the fuck they like with their freedom so long as it's not hurting others.

Of course we all have a right to protest


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Feb 16, 2009)

contadino said:


> Only if you're protesting with a caveat of your protests falling on deaf ears.  If your protests achieved anything, you would have infringed someone's rights.



What?


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> No I don't think so. I don't like beauty contests and I would protest against them because I think they are demeaning to women and upholding a stereotype which I don't. However I  would in no way put myself 'above' any women who wants to take part in a beauty contest but rather try to explain to them why I feel the way I do. I hope that doesn't make me seem arrogant
> 
> Oh and I wouldn't _ban _them but I would protest against them



That seems quite a sensible position.


----------



## madzone (Feb 16, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> No I don't think so. I don't like beauty contests and I would protest against them because I think they are demeaning to women and upholding a stereotype which I don't. However I would in no way put myself 'above' any women who wants to take part in a beauty contest but rather try to explain to them why I feel the way I do. I hope that doesn't make me seem arrogant
> 
> Oh and I wouldn't _ban _them but I would protest against them


 I used to feel the same, now I'm not so sure.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> That seems quite a sensible position.



Thanks - also meant to say (sorry supposed to be leaving work so am trying to think, tidy up and get me coat all at the same time) that, as Kabbes kind of said earlier in the thread, what I ideally want is a society where beauty contest have no 'need' to exist. 

So in a sense I would be protesting for that as much as against the contests themselves.

Right, I gotta go!


----------



## contadino (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Depends on the type of protest. I think taking direct action is an infringement of people's rights to do what the fuck they like with their freedom so long as it's not hurting others.
> 
> Of course we all have a right to protest



Well, I think you're right, although direct action is the only effective form of protest I know.




			
				QueenOfGoths said:
			
		

> However I would in no way put myself 'above' any women who wants to take part in a beauty contest but rather try to explain to them why I feel the way I do. I hope that doesn't make me seem arrogant



That's just discussion, not protest.  I wouldn't call that "Smash"ing, more "Gently Dissolving."


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Yes your thoughts on a post you didn't make, what do you think about the relationship between people's freedom to choose to go to things like Pageant's vs the Unconscious desire of women to fit into social constructs of gender Identify?



I think your question is meaningless and simplistic.



moon23 said:


> Also I’d be interested to know what your thoughts are regarding people misperceiving people's actions as being behaviors. For instance I dislike advertising and think it negatively influences people on an unconscious level, but worry that I might violate their freedom of choice if I was to try and alter their behavior through certain methods.



I don't understand this.  Sorry.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I think your question is meaningless and simplistic.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand this.  Sorry.



I'd be interested to know why you thought the question was meaningless and simplistic as it's something i've often grappeled with. Perhaps you have another way of approaching it that means it isn't an issue.

In my second question I was asking whether you think sometimes people's actions (as in exert their free will) are misinterpreted as behaviors (behaviors as in reactions to unconscious determing factors created by society). Maybe you think this is simplistic and meaningless as well, but I’d appreciate an explanation as to why if that is the case.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> I'd be interested to know why you thought the question was meaningless and simplistic as it's something i've often grappeled with. Perhaps you have another way of approaching it that means it isn't an issue.



I'm not sure what you're asking tbh.  I'm not sure what you mean by "freedom to choose".  I think the notion of "free choice" is flawed.  It's often used to mean that we are all totally conscious actors, with no hidden influences on us and we all have equal "choice".  I think that's nonsense.



moon23 said:


> In my second question I was asking whether you think sometimes people's actions (as in exert their free will) are misinterpreted as behaviors (behaviors as in reactions to unconscious determing factors created by society). Maybe you think this is simplistic and meaningless as well, but I’d appreciate an explanation as to why if that is the case.



I'm not sure why you're differentiating between action and behaviour.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

Yes I can see those flaws in freedom of choice, would you go so far as radical behaviorism philosophy and say we were not ever free though? I make the distinction between actions and behavior as I think an action is when we are aware of the choice and make a decision based on it; and a behavior can sometimes just be a reaction to things like unconscious social conditioning.

I think through education and self-awareness people can become free to act in more situations. I do however as I think there is a danger with prescribing reasons as to why people are behaving when they might really be acting.

I'm more of an existentialist and think that less people would participate in Beauty Pagenets if they were aware fully of the choices they were making. Being fully aware of the choice would involve understanding the unconscious factors. For if you were not aware of those factors you wouldn’t be making a choice with all the correct information.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

The point about unconscious motivations is that they are unconscious!  We can become more and less aware of how they affect our actions, but we can never be full conscious of all of them all of the time.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

There is of course, nothing schizo about US child beauty pageants and their puritan attitude to emergent female sexuality. All is normal, move along.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 16, 2009)

I see nothing wrong with such contests among consenting adults.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> The point about unconscious motivations is that they are unconscious!  We can become more and less aware of how they affect our actions, but we can never be full conscious of all of them all of the time.


Yes by definition of course that is true but I think you can become aware of all the unconscious implications and infulences around something like a beauty contest. Because that which is not there affects that which is.


----------



## purplex (Feb 16, 2009)

No one is being forced to take part. These are all intelligent young ladies at university not vacuous bimbos playing on nothing but their body image alone.
There is surely nothing wrong with an intelligent woman making her own choices, so what if she wants so take part in a fun beauty competition for a bit of a laugh. Its not just men, gay girls like ladies too. Your denying women the right to want be beautiful, that imo is a little bit nazi.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 16, 2009)

Didn't you agree with banning that Dutch MP from entering the country?


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 16, 2009)

purplex said:


> Your denying women the right to want be beautiful, that imo is a little bit nazi.



Actually the Nazis were well into beauty contests.


----------



## purplex (Feb 16, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Didn't you agree with banning that Dutch MP from entering the country?



Indeed I did


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 16, 2009)

Well, he was a consenting adult wanting to show a video to a bunch of consenting adults. Even if none of them were particularly good looking.

edit: and just to make it clearer, he didn't just have some protestors saying "boo down with this sort of thing", he had _the government ejecting him from the country_


----------



## Jonti (Feb 16, 2009)

There's a bit of a difference between ordinary women preening themselves in the limelight of attention, and a party bent on denying human rights to folks.

Actually, they're flatly opposed. One could not prevent beauty pageants except by denying some pretty basic rights to people.

It makes perfect sense to oppose prescriptive authoritarianism in the sexual sphere, as well as the "ordinary" political policy areas.

This ... 





Wolveryeti said:


> The assumption being that pursuit of beauty is a dead-end. I'm sure that any attractive lady who has used her beauty, makeup, and wardrobe to influence others would disagree, distasteful though this idea must be to some.


----------



## purplex (Feb 16, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well, he was a consenting adult wanting to show a video to a bunch of consenting adults. Even if none of them were particularly good looking.



No, he was attacking and misrepresenting a religion that a large number of people in this country practice. I believe they have the right to worship the religion they choose without constant ridiculous and unwarranted attacks. 
How that relates to a beauty pageant I dont know, you know there are muslim ladies planning to take part, this pageant is open to all.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 16, 2009)

Posters who would make common cause with the Taliban on this issue should take a long, hard, look at their values.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Posters who would make common cause with the Taliban on this issue should take a long, hard, look at their values.



Good job no one has done so then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> I chose it because I am an Anarchist and have been for a number of years, actually.
> 
> We don't all have exactly the same opinions about every single issue, you know.



In fact it's well-known that our name is Legion, for we are many, and we hardly ever agree on anything!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> Fair enough - though I find it hard to accept they're active feminists yet wear make up and high heels. Surely that flies in the face of what feminism is about?



I always believed that feminism was about women asserting their absolute right to be whatever they want and do whatever they want, within the bounds of law, not that it was about conforming to a preconceived template of what "being a woman" is.
Perhaps I was wrong.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 16, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> That's your opinion, not mine.
> 
> If it's not posing a danger to others, and personally I don't see that it is, then I'm not about to turn it into some personal crusade and give people grief over taking part in it. People, male or female, prancing about in swimwear is hardly a mortal threat to the well-being of others as far as I can see. And, until it is, I'm not about to make any fuss about it.
> 
> I've campaigned on a number of issues over the last few years that were relevent to whether or not people underwent major suffering (climate change, the developing world, war and so on). Issues that were a far greater threat to the well-being, and the very lives, of a great many people around the world. And I'm happy to do that because people's very lives were and still are at stake. Until the issues that cause death, starvation, war and untold misery in the world are at least somewhere on their way to being resolved, then I'll concentrate my energies on those issues and leave the issue of a few pretty folk, prancing about not some London club wearing very much, to others.



liberal twonk


----------



## Jonti (Feb 16, 2009)

Posturing moralist?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Yes by definition of course that is true but I think you can become aware of all the unconscious implications and infulences around something like a beauty contest.



I disagree.



moon23 said:


> Because that which is not there affects that which is.



This is meaningless to me.


Anyway, we're straying from the point I was originally making, which was questioning people's ideas of choices free from social context.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 16, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Posters who would make common cause with the Taliban on this issue should take a long, hard, look at their values.



Oooh, another straw man!


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

purplex said:


> this pageant is open to all.



Men can enter..?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

Seems neurotic to me, to worry about well educated young women who want to bask in an audience's adulation of their beauty (or whatever).  Why the concern that some may exploit their beauty and sex-appeal to get on in life?

Anyway, there's no way the law can reasonably intervene if people want to put on a show like this for their friends, or for a paying audience, come to that.  What on earth is a protest ("_smash_ the pageant" ffs!) supposed to achieve in this context? What is it protesting against?  The fact that some young women are competitive for attention?  The fact that sex can be sold?

There is a deep ambivalence in feminist thought at the ease with which feminine sexual power can be monetised ...





> In the 1970s, Margo St. James, founded COYOTE (Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics) as the first U.S. prostitutes' rights organization. The prostitutes' rights movement in the U.S. grew aligned with sex positive feminism and sex radical feminism.
> 
> Still, a schism existed. Some feminists considered sex work to be a labor issue. Others, most prominently represented today by the Coalition Against Trafficking of Women, regarded sex work as a form of violence against women. Today, feminists in countries around the world align with these factions to one degree or another. While the former group of sex worker organizers sought to decriminalize prostitution, the latter group of feminists moved to expand criminalization of prostitution and quash decriminalization efforts.


... with many "feminists" working to criminalise women, thier friends and families.  This protest comes from that  latter group of feminists, the ones working to expand criminalization of women in the sex industry.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

*wooosh*


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

Ooops, above quote from The Strange Relationship Between Feminism and Sex Work at AlterNet.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Seems neurotic to me, to worry about well educated young women who want to bask in an audience's adulation of their beauty (or whatever).  Why the concern that some may exploit their beauty and sex-appeal to get on in life?



But isn't it a shame that even well educated women still have such pressure and desire to be socially evaluated according to their looks, and that our culture has institutions for judging them in this way which just don't exist on the same level for men. 

On the flip side, I've also heard comments about the mingingness of female academics who don't make an effort with their appearance that just aren't made about their male peers. Things like this beauty pagent reinforce those nastier things too.

I'm not sure I'd protest, I do agree that women have a right to take part in these things if they want to, but it still saddens me because of the wider sociological context. And like QoG, perhaps if I just keep voicing my opinion then someone might consider an alternative they hadn't thought about before.


----------



## Kanda (Feb 17, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> someone might consider an alternative they hadn't thought about before.



A fugly pageant?


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 17, 2009)

Kanda said:


> A fugly pageant?



If you're feeling left out dear, why don't you organise one then?


----------



## cesare (Feb 17, 2009)

I can't help thinking that these sorts of campaigns would be far more effective if they staged an equivalent Mr University London Beauty Pageant.


----------



## Kanda (Feb 17, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> If you're feeling left out dear, why don't you organise one then?



I'm comfortable with my fugliness, it's difficult to get other competitors


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 17, 2009)

cesare said:


> I can't help thinking that these sorts of campaigns would be far more effective if they staged an equivalent Mr University London Beauty Pageant.



I'm guessing you may be suggesting this for the impact of the different, but considering there does seem to be increasing pressure now on both sexes to look hot all the time (rather than reduced pressure on women), I'm not sure it would be my choice.


----------



## Kanda (Feb 17, 2009)

I'd say that there's the same amount of pressure on both sexes. Just that men are generally too lazy to give a fuck.


----------



## cesare (Feb 17, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I'm guessing you may be suggesting this for the impact of the different, but considering there does seem to be increasing pressure now on both sexes to look hot all the time (rather than reduced pressure on women), I'm not sure it would be my choice.



It was more of an observation about the effectiveness of "SMASH" type campaigning.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

Kanda said:


> I'd say that there's the same amount of pressure on both sexes. Just that men are generally too lazy to give a fuck.


I can't believe that anybody could actually make such a claim with a straight face.  It shows a simply extraordinary lack of awareness of history, social pressures and ongoing inequalities.  Really, it really has staggered me.


----------



## cesare (Feb 17, 2009)

Kanda said:


> I'd say that there's the same amount of pressure on both sexes. Just that men are generally too lazy to give a fuck.



I don't think that there's the same amount of male beauty pageants unless I've missed something.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

cesare said:


> I don't think that there's the same amount of male beauty pageants unless I've missed something.


There's also a very different attitude surrounding the ones that do exist.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 17, 2009)

Kanda said:


> I'd say that there's the same amount of pressure on both sexes. Just that men are generally too lazy to give a fuck.



Nah, I'd really disagree. I think there is increasing pressure for men, but the majority is still on women. If there was equal pressure then much fewer men would be lazy about it. 




			
				cesare said:
			
		

> It was more of an observation about the effectiveness of "SMASH" type campaigning.


Fair enough. You have a point there. 

Perhaps there should be a beauty pagent on a similar theme to Ben Elton's Benny Hill spoof (ages ago in the day when he was funny, don't suppose anyone else remembers it?)


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 17, 2009)

As contributors have already pointed out, beauty is a social construct defined largely through the conduit of the mass media. You have magazines like “Closer” and “Hello” week in and week out declaring women celebrities as too fat or too thin, placing every minor imperfection within a “ring of shame” and exposing just how disgusting they look when they nip out for a pint of milk not having spent several hours in front of a mirror to do their make up and hair. In the lads mags women are reduced to the status of cheap, contemptible sex objects and readers are invited to enter competitions to win  boob jobs for their girlfriends. At student nights up and down the country prizes are handed out to women (and women alone) for having the “best booty” or “best chest”.

An increasing homogenised construction of beauty inexorably also creates a powerful model of what beauty isn’t. More and more women who fail to conform to the air-brushed, slim-and-curvy with big tits archetype are coming to hate their own bodies. Hence the rise in eating disorders (there was a programme on c4 a few months back about an 8 year old with bulimia) body dysmorphia and intrusive surgeries.

This is the backdrop against which people object to these pageants  - pageants where women have their chests and waists measured like livestock and then read out as “vital statistics” as if they are their defining characteristics. In short, they feed into eugenic, perfectionist, objectified model of beauty that is so harmful to both men and women.  

The voluntary participation of men and women in these events isn’t much of a defence to the utter crapness they represent.


----------



## cesare (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> There's also a very different attitude surrounding the ones that do exist.



The more I think about this, the more mileage I see in doing a deadpan male equivalent.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you can make a free choice in spite of the social context. As Kant would say we have transcendental freedom as freedom is a presupposition of the question "what _ought _I to do"? Our will is the extent to which we can shape the faculty of desire our animal behavior (_arbitrium brutum_).

If we say that we have no choice free from our social context then how can you say whether someone ought to attend a beauty pagenent? You risk sliding into a moral subjectivism, or fatalistism (like that which plagues orthodox Marxism). If we have no choice free from our social context then are not women and men who partake in this act simply determined by patriarchal system, that values an aesthetic and judges women on such an aesthetic. If we deny that I have a choice then can I be judged on my actions? How can we choose to challenge the social contexts or act to change them?

I argue for a form of Compatibilism probably closest to someone like Robert Kane. Yes there are determined influences that are tied to our social-political circumstances, sometimes we can have “self-forming” actions (although personally I’d call them behaviors) when the unconscious mind takes control and we act on instinct or as a result of past historical events and social norms. However as free agents we can also choose to do otherwise if will it to be so. We can then educate ourselves and apply the faculty of reason to challenge the social/political norms that would otherwise shape our behavior/actions. 

I also can’t help but notice our experience of the world is that we have free choice when we are engaged and thinking, but at other times we simply react on auto-pilot.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

I think we're talking at cross purposes.  I'm saying that we are all influenced by our unconscious and by childhood experiences in ways that we can never be fully conscious of at all times.  Nothing to do with Kant or Marx.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2009)

Is someone doing an essay or something?


----------



## cesare (Feb 17, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Is someone doing an essay or something?


----------



## rover07 (Feb 17, 2009)

Any pics of the contestants?


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Is someone doing an essay or something?



no it's just interesting


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

moon23 said:


> no it's just interesting



It's way over my head mate.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

rover07 said:


> Any pics of the contestants?


Here's last year's winner ... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ... what a hussy, eh!

Brazen with it ... 






			
				Keelin Gavaghan said:
			
		

> It was so much fun. It was more about having a great time and raising money for breast cancer.
> 
> I fail to see what is wrong with feeling glamorous for one night. We hardly sold our souls.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I think we're talking at cross purposes.  I'm saying that we are all influenced by our unconscious and by childhood experiences in ways that we can never be fully conscious of at all times.  Nothing to do with Kant or Marx.



Such a claim about influence does impact upon morality though Blagsta, is a man who has been brought up in childhood to judge women on their aesthetic alone to blame if he goes on to organize and promote beauty pageants. 

I'd say we still ultimatley have a choice not to do something. Women who partake in it have a choice also, they are not being forced to do so. If other women or men disagree with that choice they should employ the faculty of reason to presuade them why they shouldn't make it.

What they shouldn't do it try and take direct action to prevent them from making that choice, as ultimatley it's not their place to try and coerce another person into making a decision.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> It's way over my head mate.



It's ok, just so you agree with me totally and are willing to submit to my infallible reason and I’ll shut up


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

Keelin Gavaghan said:
			
		

> We hardly sold our souls.


Are you quite sure about that, Keelin?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 17, 2009)

Just to recap: so the possible reasons for not being entirely happy with beauty contests are

* prudery/puritanism;
* jealousy;
* being a bloke on the pull for feminist birds.

Did I miss any?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Such a claim about influence does impact upon morality though Blagsta, is a man who has been brought up in childhood to judge women on their aesthetic alone to blame if he goes on to organize and promote beauty pageants.
> 
> I'd say we still ultimatley have a choice not to do something. Women who partake in it have a choice also, they are not being forced to do so. If other women or men disagree with that choice they should employ the faculty of reason to presuade them why they shouldn't make it.
> 
> What they shouldn't do it try and take direct action to prevent them from making that choice, as ultimatley it's not their place to try and coerce another person into making a decision.




It's much more complex than you present.  Yes, we have choice, but that choice is always contingent on circumstance - we don't all have the same choices, we don't all have the same awareness of our choices, we don't all have the same ability to choose and act on choices.  These will all vary as well over time.

btw, I'm coming at this from a psychotherapy angle I guess, as someone with experience of being in therapy and as someone who works in a therapeutic kind of job, it's made me very aware that we often have less choice in our actions than we think we do and that choice is a very difficult concept when unpacked


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Here's last year's winner ... ] ... what a hussy, eh!
> 
> Brazen with it ...



Is there no end to your straw men?


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Just to recap: so the possible reasons for not being entirely happy with beauty contests are
> 
> * prudery/puritanism;
> * jealousy;
> ...



I think you forgot potential psychological damage of living in a society that judges people on aesthetic value, or women obsessing for years over their appearance whilst trying to seek male approval.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> It's much more complex than you present.  Yes, we have choice, but that choice is always contingent on circumstance - we don't all have the same choices, we don't all have the same awareness of our choices, we don't all have the same ability to choose and act on choices.  These will all vary as well over time.
> 
> btw, I'm coming at this from a psychotherapy angle I guess, as someone with experience of being in therapy and as someone who works in a therapeutic kind of job, it's made me very aware that we often have less choice in our actions than we think we do and that choice is a very difficult concept when unpacked




Yes I agree ability to choose is not an equal playing field. It is a faculty that needs to be nurtured, people need to be empowered to make choices. One way in which we can empower people in such a way is to get them to recognize that they do have a choice about their circumstances.

I'm not in the psychotherapy line of work, but I would have thought that change comes from getting people to realize the choices they have. Part of this is also respecting the choices they have made and allowing them to make mistakes.

The sooner people realize that they are free to choose, then the less they will have to comply with patricidal social conventions. Meanwhile you have to respect someone’s right to do what they want.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 17, 2009)

moon23 said:


> I think you forgot potential psychological damage of living in a society that judges people on aesthetic value, or women obsessing for years over their appearance whilst trying to seek male approval.



don't be silly

you must hate freedom


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)




----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Yes I agree ability to choose is not an equal playing field. It is a faculty that needs to be nurtured, people need to be empowered to make choices. One way in which we can empower people in such a way is to get them to recognize that they do have a choice about their circumstances.
> 
> I'm not in the psychotherapy line of work, but I would have thought that change comes from getting people to realize the choices they have. Part of this is also respecting the choices they have made and allowing them to make mistakes.
> 
> The sooner people realize that they are free to choose, then the less they will have to comply with patricidal social conventions. Meanwhile you have to respect someone’s right to do what they want.



I would broadly agree with that.  However, not many people have posted on here about stopping people doing what they want.  My main point was about certain people trying to divorce things from their context.  Jonti said something about prostitution not being an "evil in itself".  This is an absurd position, as if you can abstract prostitution from the social, political, economic, personal etc circumstances it operates in!  Wooly liberal thinking of the worst kind.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

Keelin Gavaghan said:
			
		

> We hardly sold our souls.





kabbes said:


> Are you quite sure about that, Keelin?


She's an accountancy student.  If she did, I expect the devil came off the worse.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

At the risk of taking this thread in a new and horrible direction, why drag liberalism into this?  Being a liberal doesn't mean that you have to ignore social, political, economic and personal context in forming your opinions and policies.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> At the risk of taking this thread in a new and horrible direction, why drag liberalism into this?  Being a liberal doesn't mean that you have to ignore social, political, economic and personal context in forming your opinions and policies.



I'm using liberal in it's classic sense - a philosophy that is based on the notion that individuals can be abstracted from the social and that they are the basic building blocks of society, with needs, desires etc existing before and outside of society.  A position known as abstract individualism.  From this, springs the idea that things like prostitution can be considered "in itself".


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

Fair enough, that sounds reasonable.  Of course, the word "liberal" is almost as bad as the word "class" in its myriad definitions and appropriations.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Fair enough, that sounds reasonable.  Of course, the word "liberal" is almost as bad as the word "class" in its myriad definitions and appropriations.



true!


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

"Liberal" is not a bad word. California's mooted (sadly defeated) Proposition K is the sort of measure that any progressive should support ... 





> Proposition K would decriminalize prostitution, enforce laws against crimes on sex workers, and disclose all investigations and prosecutions of violent crimes against sex workers.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> "Liberal" is not a bad word.



Did anyone say it was?  How can a word be "bad" anyway?

Are you actually going to engage with the arguments put before you?  Or are you going to snipe and sneer as usual?


----------



## contadino (Feb 17, 2009)

moon23 said:


> I think you forgot potential psychological damage of living in a society that judges people on aesthetic value, or women obsessing for years over their appearance whilst trying to seek male approval.



That's like blaming petrol companies for road accidents.  Don't women have a responsibility to not let themselves get obsessed, to be happy with what they have, to not care whether some knob who's only interested in looks approving of them?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> That's like blaming petrol companies for road accidents.  Don't women have a responsibility to not let themselves get obsessed, to be happy with what they have, to not care whether some knob who's only interested in looks approving of them?


See, moon -- this is what happens when you divorce choice from social context.  You get this kind of inane suggestion.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> That's like blaming petrol companies for road accidents.  Don't women have a responsibility to not let themselves get obsessed, to be happy with what they have, to not care whether some knob who's only interested in looks approving of them?



It's all about the individual!

Maybe liberal should be a bad word after all.


----------



## contadino (Feb 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> It's all about the individual!



No it's not.  It's about one person condemning what other people want to do.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> No it's not.  It's about one person condemning what other people want to do.


Tell me, do you REALLY not understand why the propogation of certain attitudes might be a problem for wider society?  Is it a concept that you really, truly can't get your head around at all?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

I certainly do:  and there is a direct ideological connection between laws that criminalise prostitutes, their friends, families and customers, and the placard-waving opponents of this Pageant.

Again... The Strange Relationship Between Feminism and Sex Work


----------



## contadino (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Tell me, do you REALLY not understand why the propogation of certain attitudes might be a problem for wider society?  Is it a concept that you really, truly can't get your head around at all?



I understand perfectly well TYVM, but that's hardly the point.

What I can't understand is why people think they have the right to dictate to a bunch of beauty contestants.

I can't understand why anyone would think that a beauty contest would suddenly somehow make me think my wife is just an object, or make my wife think that she wasn't beautiful.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> No it's not.  It's about one person condemning what other people want to do.



You've completely missed the argument being made.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> I understand perfectly well TYVM, but that's hardly the point.
> 
> What I can't understand is why people think they have the right to dictate to a bunch of beauty contestants.
> 
> I can't understand why anyone would think that a beauty contest would suddenly somehow make me think my wife is just an object, or make my wife think that she wasn't beautiful.



You don't understand the argument, otherwise you wouldn't write stuff like "I can't understand why anyone would think that a beauty contest would suddenly somehow make me think my wife is just an object, or make my wife think that she wasn't beautiful" - for the record, that's not the argument being made.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I certainly do:  and there is a direct ideological connection between laws that criminalise prostitutes, their friends, families and customers, and the placard-waving opponents of this Pageant.
> 
> Again... The Strange Relationship Between Feminism and Sex Work


How is it that you are able to conceptualize prostitution with no context at all, talking about it "in itself", and yet you aren't able to divorce the arguments about prostitution from the issues about portrayals of and consequent attitudes to women in wider society?


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> don't be silly
> 
> you must hate freedom



Have you read my posts on this thread? I'm stating the reasons people will come up with, some of them might be good reasons. I still think people should be free to choose and shouldn't be prevented to doing so through direct action.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Have you read my posts on this thread? I'm stating the reasons people will come up with, some of them might be good reasons. I still think people should be free to choose and shouldn't be prevented to doing so through direct action.


That's as may be, but you aren't being very good at spotting Fridge's irony, unfortunately.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> See, moon -- this is what happens when you divorce choice from social context.  You get this kind of inane suggestion.



That type of inane argument is a very primitive version of liberalism, not many contermpoary liberals wish to divorce free will entirely from the social context. That’s why I’m into compatablism. What I’m saying is that it is possible if someone’s faculty of reason is suitably trained for them to impose their will on the situation. If they are lacking in will they will be influenced by the social-political situation. By treating others as free agents we encourage them to exert their will and make choices. If we constantly try to explain their behavior in terms of their social/political context then does that help empower them or does it make them victims of a fatalistic determinism?


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> That's as may be, but you aren't being very good at spotting Fridge's irony, unfortunately.



no i'm in the middle of thinking about the issue so my irony radar is switched off.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> I understand perfectly well TYVM, but that's hardly the point.
> 
> What I can't understand is why people think they have the right to dictate to a bunch of beauty contestants.
> 
> I can't understand why anyone would think that a beauty contest would suddenly somehow make me think my wife is just an object, or make my wife think that she wasn't beautiful.


This isn't about your wife, it's about a beauty pageant. One of the issues being discussed was the way in which such events can compound and/or instil societal norms that are damaging to gender relationships, engender certain behavioural traits and justify discriminatory attitudes. 

Some woman may indeed decide to participate - whereas some would argue that their motivation arises from these norms and need to be challenged, if we are ever to move towards a more equal society. That's what the organisers of this protest clearly feel, so that's why they are taking action against it. Does that clarify anything for you?


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> This isn't about your wife, it's about a beauty pageant. One of the issues being discussed was the way in which such events can compound and/or instil societal norms that are damaging to gender relationships, engender certain behavioural traits and justify discriminatory attitudes.
> 
> Some woman may indeed decide to participate - whereas some would argue that their motivation arises from these norms and need to be challenged, if we are ever to move towards a more equal society. That's what the organisers of this protest clearly feel, so that's why they are taking action against it. Does that clarify anything for you?



We have now also made the distinction between dictating that it shouldn't go ahead aka 'smash' the pagenet,  and protesting to raise awarness of these social norms so people are able to make an informed choice about what they want to do.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 17, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Just to recap: so the possible reasons for not being entirely happy with beauty contests are
> 
> * prudery/puritanism;
> * jealousy;
> ...



Seems pretty comprehensive to me. I think we also need to sketch the different social, political and psychological profiles of the critics aswell though:

•	Feminazis 
•	The PC loon brigade 
•	The Taliban 
•	Ugly bitches frustrated with their saggy tits itching under the heat of their dungaree boiler suits
•	Small dicked pansy boys who would rather stay in reading Dworkin articles than ejaculate in the eye socket of a coked up hookers like wot real men do
•	The Zionists (fuck it – why not?)
•	Dykes and poofs 
•	Anybody remotely critical of unreconstructed 19th century liberalism (aka the commies)
•	er… that's it.


----------



## Fruitloop (Feb 17, 2009)

They would certainly make for an interesting cocktail evening.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 17, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> They would certainly make for an interesting cocktail evening.




Yeah, but they'd probably insist on calling it a "genitaltail evening" to be all gender neutral and shit. Hell in a handcart!


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2009)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Yeah, but they'd probably insist on calling it a "genitaltail evening" to be all gender neutral and shit. Hell in a handcart!



I've got another category:


Vast majority of people who have better things to do with their time


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 17, 2009)

moon23 said:


> I've got another category:
> 
> 
> Vast majority of people who have better things to do with their time



Like cut and paste extracts of their dissertation thesis onto online message boards?


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 17, 2009)

Kanda said:


> I'd say that there's the same amount of pressure on both sexes. Just that men are generally too lazy to give a fuck.



Nah, that's just silly.


----------



## contadino (Feb 17, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> This isn't about your wife, it's about a beauty pageant. One of the issues being discussed was the way in which such events can compound and/or instil societal norms that are damaging to gender relationships, engender certain behavioural traits and justify discriminatory attitudes.
> 
> Some woman may indeed decide to participate - whereas some would argue that their motivation arises from these norms and need to be challenged, if we are ever to move towards a more equal society. That's what the organisers of this protest clearly feel, so that's why they are taking action against it. Does that clarify anything for you?



Fine.  Stick that on your plackard and see where it gets you.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

Does the inability to distil a complex issue into a pithy soundbite for a placard render an argument meaningless for you, then?  Are you incapable of synthesising anything greater than three-word phrases?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> Fine.  Stick that on your plackard and see where it gets you.



Yet again, the point eludes you.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> Fine.  Stick that on your plackard and see where it gets you.



Bet my placard's bigger than your placard


----------



## contadino (Feb 17, 2009)

I don't believe a beauty pageant does

a) damage gender relationships
b) change people's behaviour
c) create, augment, or justify discriminatory attitudes (Nothing, ever justifies a discriminatory attitude)
d) damage gender equality

It's just some girls walking about on a catwalk.  It's less damaging than a fashion show.  It's less damaging than a school sports day.  It's less damaging than an egg & spoon race.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2009)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Like cut and paste extracts of their dissertation thesis onto online message boards?




I'm posting ad hoc, would you prefer the dumbed down version?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> I don't believe a beauty pageant does
> 
> a) damage gender relationships
> b) change people's behaviour
> ...


Why don't you believe that it does any of those things?  Do you have any studies to back you up?

Interesting that you refer to grown women as "girls", incidentally.  I wonder if at a male event, you would refer to the participants as "boys".


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> I don't believe a beauty pageant does
> 
> a) damage gender relationships
> b) change people's behaviour
> ...



Incredible political debating ploy – reducing the debated subject to its mere physical attributes. An rich new epistemological standpoint that invites intriguing possibilities. 

Example – “walking through Alabama in white hoods and carrying burning crosses can no way be interpreted as an act of racist intimidation. Its merely some guys putting sheets over their heads and triggering a complex sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant in the form of a flaming crucafix. “Its less racist than an egg and spoon race” an expert commented.  

p.s moon23 - piss off you patronising shite


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2009)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Incredible political debating ploy – reducing the debated subject to its mere physical attributes. An rich new epistemological standpoint that invites intriguing possibilities.
> 
> Example – “walking through Alabama in white hoods and carrying burning crosses can no way be interpreted as an act of racist intimidation. Its merely some guys putting sheets over their heads and triggering a complex sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant in the form of a flaming crucafix. “Its less racist than an egg and spoon race” an expert commented.
> 
> p.s moon23 - piss off you patronising shite



Leave Egg and Spoon races alone, the PC brigade can't take them from me too!


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> How is it that you are able to conceptualize prostitution with no context at all, talking about it "in itself", and yet you aren't able to divorce the arguments about prostitution from the issues about portrayals of and consequent attitudes to women in wider society?


That's a very stupid comment, I'm afraid.

The folks who '_conceptualize prostitution with no context at all, talking about it "in itself"_' are exactly the neo-puritans, not their liberal opponents. It is the neo-puritans who tell  us that women selling sex is an evil in itself. It _is_ violence against women they tell us -- just that. No context.

But they are wrong.  Context matters.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

You were the one that referred to prostitution not being a problem "in itself" though, Jonti.  You.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

Well, it isn't.

As you say, context matters.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> I don't believe a beauty pageant does
> 
> a) damage gender relationships
> b) change people's behaviour
> ...



Yet again, the point eludes you.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> That's a very stupid comment, I'm afraid.
> 
> The folks who '_conceptualize prostitution with no context at all, talking about it "in itself"_' are exactly the neo-puritans, not their liberal opponents. It is the neo-puritans who tell  us that women selling sex is an evil in itself. It _is_ violence against women they tell us -- just that. No context.
> 
> But they are wrong.  Context matters.



Do you ever do anything apart from argue against straw men?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Well, it isn't.
> 
> As you say, context matters.


Well this really isn't a prostitution discussion, not by a very long shot indeed.  You're the only one who keeps on mentioning it at all.

But still, I have to point it out for the sake of the arguments about this issue elsewhere on the board.  If context does matter (and of course it does) then it is meaningless to talk of prostitution "in itself" and so it is a complete irrelevance to even mention it.

None of which, again, has any relevance to the fact that things like beauty pageants are both a symbol of ongoing inequalities and negative perceptions in society and serve to propogate those same inequalities and perceptions.  Really, no relevance at all.


----------



## madzone (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> I don't believe a beauty pageant does
> 
> a) damage gender relationships
> b) change people's behaviour
> ...


 
As reluctant as I am to get re-involved in this I'm really intereted to know why/how you think a beauty pageant is less damaging than a fashion show?


----------



## contadino (Feb 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Yet again, the point eludes you.



Well maybe I'm just more stupid than you, or maybe your point is so sodding warped and convoluted that you're the only one who understands it properly, and you're unable to communicate it to us lesser mortals.  Maybe that says something about you and your views, than about me.


----------



## contadino (Feb 17, 2009)

madzone said:


> As reluctant as I am to get re-involved in this I'm really intereted to know why/how you think a beauty pageant is less damaging than a fashion show?



Fashion shows make it into a broader range of media than beauty pageants (at least they do here).  Also, fashion shows generate significantly more direct and indirect revenue than pageants.


----------



## madzone (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> Fashion shows make it into a broader range of media than beauty pageants (at least they do here). Also, fashion shows generate significantly more direct and indirect revenue than pageants.


 I'm still confused. What has revenue got to do with it?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Well this really isn't a prostitution discussion, not by a very long shot indeed.  You're the only one who keeps on mentioning it at all...


Another blatant falsehood and distortion.  Look again at the protester's placard.







I take it you can read?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> Fashion shows make it into a broader range of media than beauty pageants (at least they do here).  Also, fashion shows generate significantly more direct and indirect revenue than pageants.



And football gets into more media and makes more money than fashion shows or beauty contests, so it must be _even worse_.


----------



## contadino (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Why don't you believe that it does any of those things?  Do you have any studies to back you up?
> 
> Interesting that you refer to grown women as "girls", incidentally.  I wonder if at a male event, you would refer to the participants as "boys".



I believe that common sense trumps all eventually, and common sense makes me believe that these pageants are just a bit of entertainment - nothing more sinister.  No.  No studies.  Just a bit of observation and deduction.

And yes, I would call contestants in male beauty pageants "boys."


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> common sense



Aka random opinions plucked out of your arse.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> If context does matter (and of course it does) then it is meaningless to talk of prostitution "in itself" and so it is a complete irrelevance to even mention it.


Quite. So tell that to the "prostitution _is_ violence against women" ideologues. 

Know your enemy.  I don't think it's Keelin Gavaghan, somehow.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> I believe that common sense trumps all eventually, and common sense makes me believe that these pageants are just a bit of entertainment - nothing more sinister.  No.  No studies.  Just a bit of observation and deduction.
> 
> And yes, I would call contestants in male beauty pageants "boys."


Yes, common sense has been wonderful at establishing all truths down the years.  No problems there at all.


----------



## contadino (Feb 17, 2009)

madzone said:


> I'm still confused. What has revenue got to do with it?



The two are linked.  Money and media exposure.  It's the media that are responsible for the increase in eating disorders and inequalities between genders.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Another blatant falsehood and distortion.  Look again at the protester's placard.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You think that "bodies for sale" can only be taken literally?


----------



## madzone (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> The two are linked. Money and media exposure. It's the media that are responsible for the increase in eating disorders and inequalities between genders.


 Errrr...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Know your enemy.  I don't think it's Keelin Gavaghan, somehow.



But it's _you_ that's been saying that she _is_.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Know your enemy.  I don't think it's Keelin Gavaghan, somehow.


My enemy is anyone that blindly contributes to the ongoing assault on society of constantly telling us that the chief worth of a woman is in the way that she looks.


----------



## contadino (Feb 17, 2009)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Aka random opinions plucked out of your arse.



I see.  So because I don't agree, it must be shit, right?  So because I don't agree, I couldn't have possibly thought about it and come to my own conclusions?  So because I haven't scoured academia for studies to back up my common sense beliefs, they're shit?

Maybe I just mull things over, come to a conclusion and get on with my life.  Maybe that opinion is as valid as yours.


Which is...?


----------



## madzone (Feb 17, 2009)

I just heard on Steve Wrights factoids that a study showed 77% of men questioned chose a beautiful woman over a wealthy one. Does that count as evidence?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

All opinions are not created equal.  Opinions based on research that shows that people's attitudes are affected by both the bombardment of media images and prevailing attitudes of their peers are not the same as opinions based on saying, "this is what I think and there is no reason for it other than I think it."


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 17, 2009)

madzone said:


> I just heard on Steve Wrights factoids that a study showed 77% of men questioned chose a beautiful woman over a wealthy one. Does that count as evidence?



did he then crack a lame joke which his 'posse' laughed at when nobody else in the history of everything would ever laugh at one of wrighty's gags?


----------



## contadino (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> My enemy is anyone that blindly contributes to the ongoing assault on society of constantly telling us that the chief worth of a woman is in the way that she looks.



FFS!  You've lost it!

Who's said that?  Who's suggested that the contestants have nothing in their lives more important than participating in pageants?  Who's suggesting they can't be intelligent, engaging people?


----------



## madzone (Feb 17, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> did he then crack a lame joke which his 'posse' laughed at when nobody else in the history of everything would ever laugh at one of wrighty's gags?


 Oh, I don't know, mr madz was blethering on about something at the time. I was cooking his lunch and trying to listen to that particular bit on the radio at the same time. I fail at multitasking yet again 

eta - I hate steve wright. I thought it was worth opening this post again just to mention that


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2009)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Aka random opinions plucked out of your arse.



Often when faced with a complex social/political or philosophical problem I sit back and think what does common sense tell us. Of course being educated I call it Occam's razor.


----------



## madzone (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> FFS! You've lost it!
> 
> Who's said that? Who's suggested that the contestants have nothing in their lives more important than participating in pageants? Who's suggesting they can't be intelligent, engaging people?


 What are they being judged on in the pageant?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> FFS!  You've lost it!
> 
> Who's said that?  Who's suggested that the contestants have nothing in their lives more important than participating in pageants?  Who's suggesting they can't be intelligent, engaging people?


Nobody has suggested that.  I think you're reading what you want to read.

The fact is that beauty pageants are about judging women purely based on their looks.  The further fact is that there is a wider context to beauty pageants that places the winners on a particular pedestal that is not accorded to other successful women.  The further further fact is that women everywhere are judged negatively both in gossip and in gossip columns when they do not conform to the beauty pageant ideal, in a way that men never are.

And there's your problem, in a nutshell.


----------



## contadino (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> All opinions are not created equal.  Opinions based on research that shows that people's attitudes are affected by both the bombardment of media images and prevailing attitudes of their peers are not the same as opinions based on saying, "this is what I think and there is no reason for it other than I think it."



Oh, so not only do I not have the right to partake in a beauty contest now, I also do not have the right to have an opinion about it.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Often when faced with a complex social/political or philosophical problem I sit back and think what does common sense tell us. Of course being educated I call it Occam's razor.


That's not Occam's razor.  Not even close.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> I don't believe a beauty pageant does
> 
> a) damage gender relationships
> b) change people's behaviour
> ...



What you *believe* is surely irrelevant when measured against reality?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> Oh, so not only do I not have the right to partake in a beauty contest now, I also do not have the right to have an opinion about it.


Everybody has the right to an opinion.  Everybody has the duty to be judged on their opinion as well.  And, in particular, the reasoning process they went through in forming that opinion.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> Oh, so not only do I not have the right to partake in a beauty contest now, I also do not have the right to have an opinion about it.



oh god it's like the nazis


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> I see.  So because I don't agree, it must be shit, right?  So because I don't agree, I couldn't have possibly thought about it and come to my own conclusions?  So because I haven't scoured academia for studies to back up my common sense beliefs, they're shit?
> 
> Maybe I just mull things over, come to a conclusion and get on with my life.  Maybe that opinion is as valid as yours.
> 
> ...



See post 454 for my opinion. 

I wasn't criticising you for not having based your opinion on any evidence but for trying to tie your opinion to the nebulous notion of "common sense". A wriggle out clause if ever there was one.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> I see.  So because I don't agree, it must be shit, right?  So because I don't agree, I couldn't have possibly thought about it and come to my own conclusions?  So because I haven't scoured academia for studies to back up my common sense beliefs, they're shit?
> 
> Maybe I just mull things over, come to a conclusion and get on with my life.  Maybe that opinion is as valid as yours.
> 
> ...




You say it yourself, they are your common sense *beliefs*.  We are trying to provide these things called *reasons* to back up our points of view. Reasons can be purely rationalistic and logical for instant like Descartes meditations or if you like scientific and empirical.

Having “mulled it over” doesn’t cut the mustard, nor do rhetorical devices such as “common sense”, “at the end of the day” etc.


----------



## contadino (Feb 17, 2009)

madzone said:


> What are they being judged on in the pageant?



I entered an art competition when I was 11.  Does that mean I spend the rest of my life being pigeon-holed as an artist?  Does that mean I'm no longer allowed to be an olive farmer now?  No.  It's just something people do.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> My enemy is anyone that blindly contributes to the ongoing assault on society of constantly telling us that the chief worth of a woman is in the way that she looks.


Keelin Gavaghan never told you that.  Me neither.

The way in which she chooses to enjoy herself in her spare time doesn't compromise her professional opportunities at all.  What is strange is that so many men posting to condemn her seems to think it does.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2009)

madzone said:


> As reluctant as I am to get re-involved in this I'm really intereted to know why/how you think a beauty pageant is less damaging than a fashion show?



Perhaps the poster sees a "beauty pageant" as an event that generically sexualises it's participants, whereas a "fashion show" sexualises participants in ways specific to the clothes designer?
Not that I'd agree with such a thesis.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> I entered an art competition when I was 11.  Does that mean I spend the rest of my life being pigeon-holed as an artist?  Does that mean I'm no longer allowed to be an olive farmer now?  No.  It's just something people do.


Are there magazines read by hundreds of thousands of people that dwell on the art mistakes of all of one sector of society?  Do members of that sector of society get raised onto a pedestal for having won an art contest?  Does that group also face systematic discrimination if they aren't any good at art?  Do people make bitchy comments about their poor art skills?  Do members of the group find it necessary to spend hours trying to cover up their inability at art, just to try to get through the day without feeling judged?

If not, I'd suggest that your analogy doesn't really work.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 17, 2009)

it really is the 70s again

"what's wrong with women wanting to look nice eh?"


----------



## madzone (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> I entered an art competition when I was 11. Does that mean I spend the rest of my life being pigeon-holed as an artist? Does that mean I'm no longer allowed to be an olive farmer now? No. It's just something people do.


 Do you feel like you have to be a good artist to be taken seriously as a person? Do people make value judgements on you based on how good an artist you are? Do people insult you because you're not a good artist? Do complete strangers feel able to pass comment ion how good an artist you are when you walk down the street?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> The way in which she chooses to enjoy herself in her spare time doesn't compromise her professional opportunities at all.  What is strange is that so many men posting to condemn her seems to think it does.


And yet you're the one telling me that wider context is important.  How strange.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

madzone said:


> Do you feel like you have to be a good artist to be taken seriously as a person? Do people make value judgements on you based on how good an artist you are? Do people insult you because you're not a good artist? Do complete strangers feel able to pass comment ion how good an artist you are when you walk down the street?


Blimey, that was like deja vu


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

Do you read many magazines like Cosmopolitan, Kabbes?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Do you read many magazines like Cosmopolitan, Kabbes?


Me?  No.

Not sure where you are going with that, but there you go.


----------



## madzone (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Blimey, that was like deja vu


 I know. It must stop  That's twice we've agreed now - there'll be talk


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> I believe that common sense trumps all eventually, and common sense makes me believe that these pageants are just a bit of entertainment - nothing more sinister.  No.  No studies.  Just a bit of observation and deduction.



Yeah, but as any 1st-year sociology student learns within their first month of study, "common sense" is meaningless, because it's infinitely variable from person to person. It may be seen as normative, but it actually isn't.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 17, 2009)

Oh, god bless you urban, this has been vintage chortles.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> Oh, so not only do I not have the right to partake in a beauty contest now, I also do not have the right to have an opinion about it.



What "right" are you talking about? You don't have one. Nobody does.

What you have is the freedom to voice your opinion. Others have the freedom to request that you substantiate it, or otherwise validate it, just as they have the freedom to dissect your opinion.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> And yet you're the one telling me that wider context is important.  How strange.


You're all over the place. 

You started off claiming I was "thinking about prostitution in a vacuum" when I was criticising the neo-puritan slogan "prostitution _is_ violence against women" for doing just that.  OK, so maybe that's just a careless misunderstanding  but it is one you've continued to make.

Again, wider context is important. That's why how Keelin chooses to enjoy herself in her spare time doesn't compromise her professional opportunities at all.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Me?  No.
> 
> Not sure where you are going with that, but there you go.


Try it sometime.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

Keelin's personal professional opportunities are irrelevant, except to the degree that they coincide with the professional opportunities of women generally and the effect thereof of things like this pageant.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Try it sometime.


No thank you.  I last read one about three years ago and I hated it just as much as when I'd previous read it several years prior to that.  I doubt that the bombardment of vacuous values over substantive authenticity has improved in the mean time.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

Keelin's personal professional opportunities are irrelevant, to those who think she's defined solely by her looks.

That's you, is it? Look at what you said!


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

You missed out the subordinate clause of that sentence.  It rather changes the meaning, in particular to render your interpretation of it simply wrong.

Anyway, why do you persist in talking about the handful of individuals involved in the pageant itself despite the 20-odd pages of people explaining that it is not about them at all?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> it really is the 70s again
> 
> "what's wrong with women wanting to look nice eh?"



Kind of reminds me of third-wave feminism and the rise of identity politics in the 1980s, and what a detour from reality a lot of it was.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

Because of the refusal of the ideologues to see individuals!


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

I see individuals.  Millions of them.  I don't see why this particular individual has relevance over the others though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Oh, god bless you urban, this has been vintage chortles.



You *know* we all exist only to amuse you, kyser.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti, since this has become rather bogged down, I'd rather like to start again with your position, which you've never really given, as you've instead relied mostly on single comments about other peoples' positions.

Do you think that beauty pageants have no effect on wider perceptions and attitudes towards women?  If not, how do they avoid doing so?  And if so, what effect do you think they have?


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Are there magazines read by hundreds of thousands of people that dwell on the art mistakes of all of one sector of society?



A beauty pageant does not focus on the negatives, though, does it? I agree that the mags you're discussing are pretty awful, but why lump what we're discussing in with them?

And I genuinely can't believe that you think such a niche activity as a beauty pageant has any measurable effect on attitudes to women. It's an insult to peoples' intelligence.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> I entered an art competition when I was 11.  Does that mean I spend the rest of my life being pigeon-holed as an artist?  Does that mean I'm no longer allowed to be an olive farmer now?  No.  It's just something people do.



Yes so long as people are made aware of the potential pitfalls of being judged publically on your looks then it's ultimatley their free choice to partake in it. 

I don't think people are pigeon holing all contestants though, or at least they shouldn't do. That wouldn't help to encourage them to make an informed choice.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 17, 2009)

*Agent Sparrow posting*


contadino said:


> The two are linked.  Money and media exposure.  It's the media that are responsible for the increase in eating disorders and inequalities between genders.


Um, inequality has been in existance way before the media. And beauty pagents admittedly, but both are just the modern day manifestation of values supporting unequal gender relationships that are centuries old.



contadino said:


> Maybe I just mull things over, come to a conclusion and get on with my life.  Maybe that opinion is as valid as yours.


Could I ask what gender you are out of interest? Of course you're welcome to your opinion, though I tend to find both men and women with your oinion tend to go through different routes to get it.



contadino said:


> Who's said that?  Who's suggested that the contestants have nothing in their lives more important than participating in pageants?  Who's suggesting they can't be intelligent, engaging people?


The point is that it's not just enough to be intelligent and engaging. If you're a woman, you have to be beautiful too. This is the idea that beauty pagents help maintain.

Btw, Jonti, why bring up Cosmo? Yes women's mags can be just as damaging to women as lad's mags, but then I thought we had moved beyond seeing patriarchy as something that men just did to women.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> A beauty pageant does not focus on the negatives, though, does it? I agree that the mags you're discussing are pretty awful, but why lump what we're discussing in with them?


Because judging people on their appearance is all of the same kidney.  It all springs from the same source and it all has the same ongoing effect.



> And I genuinely can't believe that you think such a niche activity as a beauty pageant has any measurable effect on attitudes to women. It's an insult to peoples' intelligence.


I can't believe that you don't believe that it has an effect.  We are social animals and our attitudes are demonstrably affected by what we think other people think about things.  There's even fascinating studies showing that people's estimates of the number of sweets in a jar can be massively dragged down if they think that other people have estimated stupidly low figures like "6".  I don't know why you think that contests that place women on a pedestal for the way that they look, when taken in the context of a society that has always judged women principally for the way that they look, would be immune from such an effect.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I see individuals.  Millions of them.  I don't see why this particular individual has relevance over the others though.


I honestly don't think you do.

I don't think the ideologues in discussions like this are ever prepared to see those they would criminalise as ordinary decent fellow citizens, with the same rights as themselves.

And again, the beauty pageant may be the ostensible cause of this neo-puritan mobilisation.  But the underlying aim of the neo-puritans is the criminalisation of all the sex industry (including but not limited to beauty pageants).


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> ... Jonti, why bring up Cosmo? Yes women's mags can be just as damaging to women as lad's mags, but then I thought we had moved beyond seeing patriarchy as something that men just did to women.


I'm not sure "we" have ... that's why I brought it up.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I honestly don't think you do.
> 
> I don't think the ideologues in discussions like this are ever prepared to see those they would criminalise as ordinary decent fellow citizens, with the same rights as themselves.
> 
> And again, the beauty pageant may be the ostensible cause of this neo-puritan mobilisation.  But the underlying aim of the neo-puritans is the criminalisation of the all the sex industry (including but not limited to beauty pageants).


Blimey, that's a lot of insults, labels and irrelevant side-tracks you've thrown at me there.  Well done you.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

So, you want to hound women for displays of sexuality, but get huffy when called on your anti-human posturing?

So cry me a river!


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 17, 2009)

So some peeps get to protest to stop it happening; some peeps get to turn up and enter the contest. There will however, be the following people leaving:

One bunch of peeps will go home sad that they didn't win; 
others will get nasty, bitter and twisted and spend time denouncing their fellows
Some people will think they've won a victory for principle
One person will actually be made of Win

Guess which group - contestants and protestors - will belong to which categories of outcome?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> So, you want to hound women for displays of sexuality, but get huffy when called on your anti-human posturing?
> 
> So cry me a river!


I'm not huffy, just pointing out that you haven't said anything for me to reply to.  And you still haven't.  Labels, insults and strawmen?  What can one say in response, really, except "well done you"?


----------



## Crispy (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I'm not sure "we" have ... that's why I brought it up.



*Sparrow posting*

Fair enough. 

I view patriarchy now as an attitude throughout society which both men and women play a part in maintaining, but which predominatly (but not always) benefits men or places women at a disadvantage. So yes, Cosmo is awful. But some women are pretty good at maintaining those old ideals, particularly if it benefits them in some way. The cosmetics and fashion industries has big stakes in keeping the status quo re: women and looks, and that is obviously where Cosmo gets most of their advertising money from. 

Think of that idea of female bitchy competition. It can be perceived as jostling for power in whatever way women can when their ways of doing so are more limited. Some women look each other up and down in a bitchy way precisely because of the idea that they need to be attractive is so predominant in our society - good looks have power, and those seen to lack them can be downtrodden. If you can use something to get ahead, why not?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

> you haven't said anything for me to reply to.


Funny, you seem to have spent quite a lot of time trying to do just that!

Inaccurately, and foolishly, maybe. But no-one could say you haven't tried.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

Crispy said:


> *Sparrow posting*
> ...
> If you can use something to get ahead, why not?


That's pretty much my attitude.  I feel very uneasy at men telling women they should not use their sexuality to get ahead in a man's world.

To my mind it comes down to the old problem that one may be in favour of freedom; but not how people use it.

So no, I'm not in favour of the commercialisation of sex.  But I am in favour of sexual freedom.  I can defend a woman's right to take part in beauty pageants, or to sell her pussy come to that, without actively approving of such practices.

Trouble is, there's precious little middle ground left on this one. The neo-puritans have made great inroads with their context-free sloganising "prostitution _is_ violence against women."  

Consequently, if one supports a woman's right to sell sex without legal harassment, one is likely to be denounced as a supporter of violence against women.  Of course it is the prohibitionists who are organising the violence, a lot of it to be dished out by state agencies, while pretending to be oh! so concerned about the greater good.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 17, 2009)

> Think of that idea of female bitchy competition. It can be perceived as jostling for power in whatever way women can when their ways of doing so are more limited. Some women look each other up and down in a bitchy way precisely because of the idea that they need to be attractive is so predominant in our society - good looks have power, and those seen to lack them can be downtrodden. If you can use something to get ahead, why not?



How do the few matriachal societies on the planet formalise the competition between women for male mates? Arguably that selfsame pattern happens in patriarchy as well, sexual selection being at the heart of the psychological element of patriachy (take mate selection away from the person who actually does the growing the new human bit, or make it a divisively competitive process and one that can be managed easily by physical dominance). 

Anyhoo...


----------



## Crispy (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> That's pretty much my attitude.  I feel very uneasy at men telling women they should not use their sexuality to get ahead in a man's world.


*AS*
See, because of that I would also feel very uneasy about the idea of banning things like beauty pagents, or insulting the women who take part. But it still does make me very sad that in 2009, they still go on. That we're still at this point.

Kyser - I think female bitchiness about looks has sexual selection at the core of it, but is often used in ways removed from it, e.g. to gain status in some female dominated environments.


----------



## Santino (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Of course it is the prohibitionists who are organising the violence, a lot of it to be dished out by state agencies, while pretending to be oh! so concerned about the greater good.


How much violence is created by people wanting to 'stamp out' prostitution, and how does that compare to the amount violence against sex workers? And indeed, any other form of violence you care to name?


----------



## pinkmonkey (Feb 17, 2009)

It pisses me off when a beauty pageant attaches itself to Universities, for many reasons, but I don't think direct action is the answer. I believe that feminisim is about womens rights to have choices and while I'm not happy about this choice, I don't see the point in trying to get it stopped.
I think us women are our own worst enemy - read Closer and Heat and you'll see the nasty articles about weight going up or down or picking this celebrity or that celebrity apart because they have cellulite or bad skin are all written by women. This is what I'm against more so than beauty pageants.  We really need to give ourselves a break and start valuing ourselves instead of ripping each other apart.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Because judging people on their appearance is all of the same kidney.  It all springs from the same source and it all has the same ongoing effect.



And yet we do it all the time. It is instinctive, and we are biologically conditioned to like a certain type of beauty. It's not entirely clear to me how much beauty pageants augment a phenomenon that is already quite evident. We also do a lot of officially sanctioned judging - in schools in the form of marking, in competitions more generally. The losers in these contests are always going to feel some of the pain - unless they can find something they are good at. 

I would urge you to consider the situation of a pretty girl who is massively outshone in class by her naturally brighter classmates. Why should she not have the chance to take part in a competition she feels she would excel at? 

And why should the hurt feelings of people who feel that society is too obsessed with beauty not be channelled into finding happiness through things they are good at, rather than restricting the freedoms of people who want to take part in activities that celebrate physical beauty?



kabbes said:


> I can't believe that you don't believe that it has an effect.  We are social animals and our attitudes are demonstrably affected by what we think other people think about things.  There's even fascinating studies showing that people's estimates of the number of sweets in a jar can be massively dragged down if they think that other people have estimated stupidly low figures like "6".  I don't know why you think that contests that place women on a pedestal for the way that they look, when taken in the context of a society that has always judged women principally for the way that they look, would be immune from such an effect.



I guess mainly because I find this kind of behaviour hard to see in myself. I don't find myself lusting after the classical ideals of beauty I see in magazines etc.  If I ever make a snap judgement on someone based on their beauty, it's likely to run the other way than might commonly be assumed.

While I broadly agree with your sketch of human nature I think that the only conclusion you can draw from it is that beauty pageants homogenise perceptions of beauty. It is IMO too strong to say that the extra status acts to hijack decision-making in other fields. I don't deny that there is a residual culture of preference for hiring pretty women, but I think this is hardwired rather than learnt.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 17, 2009)

pinkmonkey said:


> I think us women are our own worst enemy - read Closer and Heat and you'll see the nasty articles about weight going up or down or picking this celebrity or that celebrity apart because they have cellulite or bad skin are all written by women. This is what I'm against more so than beauty pageants.  *We really need to give ourselves a break and start valuing ourselves instead of ripping each other apart.*



*AS*
I agree. However, it almost seems to be a position we've been stuck in as social change has moved slower than legal change. The legal frameworks have been removed, but the mindsets are still there. And with less outside oppression, it shows more obviously from within. It's almost like an physically and emotionally abused person leaving their partner but then emotionally beating themselves up. 

And I don't think women are the only group to experience something similar in the process of overcoming oppression. But the problem is that whilst you focus on the infighting, the forces that are still oppressive on the outside get ignored.




			
				Wolveryeti said:
			
		

> And yet we do it all the time. It is instinctive, and we are biologically conditioned to like a certain type of beauty.


a) so why are looks judged much more for one gender than another?
b) how come the physical ideal changes in different cultures and time periods?


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 17, 2009)

Crispy said:


> *AS*
> I agree. However, it almost seems to be a position we've been stuck in as social change has moved slower than legal change. The legal frameworks have been removed, but the mindsets are still there. And with less outside oppression, it shows more obviously from within. It's almost like an physically and emotionally abused person leaving their partner but then emotionally beating themselves up.
> 
> And I don't think women are the only group to experience something similar in the process of overcoming oppression. But the problem is that whilst you focus on the infighting, the forces that are still oppressive on the outside get ignored.
> ...




Ms Sparrow.. what's the point in you being banned off on here on study days if you continue to post? 

*stern look*


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 17, 2009)

Crispy said:


> a) so why are looks judged much more for one gender than another?
> b) how come the physical ideal changes in different cultures and time periods?



I think you should be wary of assuming how widely fashions for a particular type of beauty have been adopted. But I was at any rate referring to things like the ratios which specify the arrangement of features on your face, or the bias towards symmetry. These are things that have been verified in scientific trials and which seem to be quite consistent.

Certainly it is the case that certain ideals for beauty can become homogeneous. The basic principle of favouring physical attractiveness, however, is not something I believe can be altered with education. My own suspicion is that men generally care more about physical beauty in a partner than women do, which is an answer to a) - Women are judged more because it matters more to men, and by extension to the women who care what men think.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 17, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> Ms Sparrow.. what's the point in you being banned off on here on study days if you continue to post?
> 
> *stern look*


*AS*
OK, I'm having a particularly bad afternoon.  Interestingly I am currently avoiding writing about feminist and psychosocial models of eating disorders. 



Wolveryeti said:


> I think you should be wary of assuming how widely fashions for a particular type of beauty have been adopted.




I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but certain weight and skin tone have changed a lot in how we interpret female beauty, and that's just in the UK.



> The basic principle of favouring physical attractiveness, however, is not something I believe can be altered with education.


Right. So not worth even discussing then?

And that's still not an argument for the objectification of one gender by another. 



> My own suspicion is that men generally care more about physical beauty in a partner than women do, which is an answer to a) - Women are judged more because it matters more to men, and by extension to the women who care what men think.



And so that common perception has nothing to do with society, right?


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 17, 2009)

Crispy said:


> And so that common perception has nothing to do with society, right?



No - I think it is biological, and largely to do with the bias evident in much of nature towards a younger female partner in the males of the species. Banning all the beauty pageants and magazines in the world would not change it.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> Well maybe I'm just more stupid than you,



I think that's it.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> I believe that common sense trumps all eventually, and common sense makes me believe



*insert something about idealogy and hegemony here*


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> The two are linked.  Money and media exposure.  It's the media that are responsible for the increase in eating disorders and inequalities between genders.



You're an expert in eating disorders now?


----------



## Crispy (Feb 17, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> No - I think it is biological, and largely to do with the bias evident in much of nature towards a younger female partner in the males of the species. Banning all the beauty pageants and magazines in the world would not change it.


*AS*
How on earth can you tell acurately after 1000s of years of unequal power relations?

Or are unequal power relations biological too?

And lets have some studies of multiple species of apes where males predominantly pick much younger females and ignore older ones (who are still fertile) to back up your point. Preferably ones that refer to methodology, given a lot of evo psych studies are flawed. Because when I think of that finding, I mainly think of human anthropology studies.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> You're all over the place.
> 
> You started off claiming I was "thinking about prostitution in a vacuum" when I was criticising the neo-puritan slogan "prostitution _is_ violence against women" for doing just that.  OK, so maybe that's just a careless misunderstanding  but it is one you've continued to make.
> 
> Again, wider context is important. That's why how Keelin chooses to enjoy herself in her spare time doesn't compromise her professional opportunities at all.



Do you ever read what you write back to yourself?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> And yet we do it all the time. It is instinctive, and we are biologically conditioned to like a certain type of beauty.




This is bollocks though.  We've already covered this in the thread.  Ideas of beauty are social and cultural.  Read some art history.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> This is bollocks though.  We've already covered this in the thread.  Ideas of beauty are social and cultural.  Read some art history.



It's biological too. Otherwise all men would be chasing the same women. Which they don't.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

Alex B said:


> How much violence is created by people wanting to 'stamp out' prostitution, and how does that compare to the amount violence against sex workers? And indeed, any other form of violence you care to name?


Pardon the rhetoric. I wanted to point out that legislation against sex workers tends to make them more vulnerable to violence.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

Crispy said:


> And lets have some studies of multiple species of apes where males predominantly pick much younger females and ignore older ones (who are still fertile) to back up your point.



You would equally have to demonstrate that all men (or a majority) also behave within those parameters.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 17, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> It's biological too. Otherwise all men would be chasing the same women. Which they don't.



I'd rank the biological aspect as significantly less of an influencer though.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I'd rank the biological aspect as significantly less of an influencer though.



Yeah, because we all date super-models, don't we?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

It hardly matters, does it?  People are creatures of understanding and so, to an extent, can transcend themselves.


----------



## madzone (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> It hardly matters, does it? People are creatures of understanding and so, to an extent, can transcend themselves.


 Only if they realise they have a conscious 'choice'


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> It hardly matters, does it?  People are creatures of understanding and so, to an extent, can transcend themselves.



In what respect?


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> It hardly matters, does it?  People are creatures of understanding and so, to an extent, can transcend themselves.



And how much we can transcend both our biological and social programming is a subject of _huge_ debate. And one that I think is still at the philosophy stage rather than the scientific stage, although there are some psychological and neuropsychological findings that can help inform that debate. 

Personally, the more I study and work witin psychology, the less free will (or true ability to transcend) I think we have. But I can see that certain experiences would increase the chance of transcending, or at least of changing the programming to something more ideal.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 17, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> Yeah, because we all date super-models, don't we?



Cras comparison really dude, if I take you literally we notice the paucity of supermodels to blokes. If I adress your subtler point I have to point out that most young hetero men lust after the sort of commodified beauty portrayed by mass media and take some growing up before they realise where they _really_ find beauty in females.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> This is bollocks though.  We've already covered this in the thread.  Ideas of beauty are social and cultural.  Read some art history.



Partially, yes. But the desire to demonstrate social class also plays a part - hence why being larger and paler was fashionable in the past. 

You should also consider how representative ideas proceeding from art are. Who bought art? Who wrote art history? You will find again that it was a particular class of people. I very much doubt everyone shared these ideas. 

And you will not be able to find any culture that has upheld an ideal of old women as beautiful.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 17, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> Partially, yes. But the desire to demonstrate social class also plays a part - hence why being larger and paler was fashionable in the past.


So class is one thing that determines what a culture finds beautiful. Not all biological then.



> And you will not be able to find any culture that has upheld an ideal of old women as beautiful.


The point is why should women have to meet an ideal that is beautiful whilst men do not?


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Cras comparison really dude, if I take you literally we notice the paucity of supermodels to blokes. If I adress your subtler point I have to point out that most young hetero men lust after the sort of commodified beauty portrayed by mass media and take some growing up before they realise where they _really_ find beauty in females.



So there must be a lot of single men and women out there, what, with all the young men going for what the media tells them to procreate with and the 99.9% of women who don't meet impossible standards left on the shelf.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 17, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> So there must be a lot of single men and women out there, what, with all the men going for what the media tells them to procreate with and the 99.9% of women who don't meet impossible standards left on the shelf.



pretty sure you didn't read the last part of my post.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 17, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> So there must be a lot of single men and women out there, what, with all the men going for what the media tells them to procreate with and the 99.9% of women who don't meet impossible standards left on the shelf.



Tbf, I have met a fair few people who have remained single for long periods of time because of their standards, both men and women. With men, IME it has tended to be often because of physical standards.

And of course trends don't have to apply to 99.9% of the population to still be trends.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Tbf, I have met a fair few people who have remained single for long periods of time because of their standards, both men and women. With men, IME it has tended to be more because of physical standards.
> 
> And of course trends don't have to apply to 99.9% of the population to still be trends.



I was talking about the 99.9% of women who won't end up air-brushed on the front cover of vogue.

Nor does an unreasonable proportion of men hold that up as some beacon of what to aspire to in terms of dating. Or not in the real world, they don't. (I'm thinking of people I actually know here and not what I imagine people I don't know to be like).


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> pretty sure you didn't read the last part of my post.



So we're talking of an adolescence problem then?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 17, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> So we're talking of an adolescence problem then?



thats not what I said C66. What I said was attempting to contextualise the degree that media and society portrayals of females affect emergent male sexuality by describing that effect on young male adolescents.

One line interpretations aren't going to cut it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> thats not what I said C66. What I said was attempting to contextualise the degree that media and society portrayals of females affect emergent male sexuality by describing that effect on young male adolescents.
> 
> One line interpretations aren't going to cut it.



But in the real world, people date real people and don't base their expectations upon the impossible-to-achieve images portrayed by the media of women.

Or would you disagree with that?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 17, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> But in the real world, people date real people and don't base their expectations upon the impossible-to-achieve images portrayed by the media of women.
> 
> Or would you disagree with that?



of course I wouldn't-grown up people don't base expectations on impossible media portrayals. That doesn't then mean that those portrayals didn't have a negatively distorting effect on the emergent sexuality of both genders.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> of course I wouldn't-grown up people don't base expectations on impossible media portrayals. That doesn't then mean that those portrayals didn't have a negatively distorting effect on the emergent sexuality of both genders.



Sorry, I wasn't defending media portrayals. I was still discussing attraction being largely biological.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 17, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> Nor does an unreasonable proportion of men hold that up as some beacon of what to aspire to in terms of dating. Or not in the real world, they don't. (I'm thinking of people I actually know here and not what I imagine people I don't know to be like).



Firstly, that may not a representative sample of the whole culture. The men and women I'm closest too are thankfully  similar. But from speaking to and knowing a wider range of people, I have come across men for whom stereotypical female physical ideals are very important. Likewise from knowing more girly, stereotypically attractive women, it seems that there are men who select based on that. 

Secondly and perhaps more importantly, I think "looks ideals" are more subtle than every woman being expected to look like a supermodel. Obviously the majority of men know that they won't get this, and the majority of women hopefully know they can't obtain it. But there are certain ideas that get through, that certain things are better, for example thinness. Whilst many men might not hold out for supermodels, they may hold out for the best they can get, and many women will thus pluck, starve, wax, totter, and feel they need to be as beautiful as can be to attract them.

Thirdly, perhaps the idea that women need to be beautiful is far more powerful than the actual reality.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> And how much we can transcend both our biological and social programming is a subject of _huge_ debate. And one that I think is still at the philosophy stage rather than the scientific stage, although there are some psychological and neuropsychological findings that can help inform that debate.
> 
> Personally, the more I study and work witin psychology, the less free will (or true ability to transcend) I think we have. But I can see that certain experiences would increase the chance of transcending, or at least of changing the programming to something more ideal.


Well ... what I'm getting at is that the meaning of events like this is something in which we all participate. 

Here's an interesting snippet from Emine Saner in The Guardian ...





> because of top-up fees, there are students who work in lap-dancing clubs. So having a beauty pageant is a natural progression


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 17, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> Sorry, I wasn't defending media portrayals. I was still discussing attraction being largely biological.



Don't recall anyone who wasn't media bombarded from a young age from my generation-but if you wish to believe that biological attraction is entirely free of societal influence, that the formation of sexual urges are created in a vacuum somehow entirely divorced from the society the former belongs to, then power to you.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Well ... what I'm getting at is that the meaning of events like this is something in which we all participate.
> 
> Here's an interesting snippet from Emine Saner in The Guardian ...


I liked this slogan from the protesters - "Soas is for education, not for your ejaculation!" 

I guess this is representative of the backlash of feminism, or possibly what other people would conceptualise as third wave feminism - a feminism of sexual liberation and exhibitionism, that celebrates the power to be "sexy". And  sexual liberation is great - surely if more women can pursue and achieve sexual satisfaction this is a good thing. But the way it is currently going does seem to be backwards in many ways. 

As Areal Levy says, there are countless ways to express sexuality. Why are so many women chosing to do it in this way which seems prescribed by patriarchy? Why does the new emancipation seem so much like the old oppression?


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Firstly, that may not a representative sample of the whole culture. The men and women I'm closest too are thankfully  similar. But from speaking to and knowing a wider range of people, I have come across men for whom stereotypical female physical ideals are very important. Likewise from knowing more girly, stereotypically attractive women, it seems that there are men who select based on that.
> 
> Secondly and perhaps more importantly, I think "looks ideals" are more subtle than every woman being expected to look like a supermodel. Obviously the majority of men know that they won't get this, and the majority of women hopefully know they can't obtain it. But there are certain ideas that get through, that certain things are better, for example thinness. Whilst many men might not hold out for supermodels, they may hold out for the best they can get, and many women will thus pluck, starve, wax, totter, and feel they need to be as beautiful as can be to attract them.
> 
> Thirdly, perhaps the idea that women need to be beautiful is far more powerful than the actual reality.



I may get flamed into oblivion here, but...

From my experience with exes who liked to preen, wax and totter, I can assure you it was never done for my benefit. They tend to hang about indoors in relaxing scruffs, you know, and the preening would be for a girls night out. Now, either they were off out trying to impress (pull?) other men or there's some other reason for it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Don't recall anyone who wasn't media bombarded from a young age from my generation-but if you wish to believe that biological attraction is entirely free of societal influence, that the formation of sexual urges are created in a vacuum somehow entirely divorced from the society the former belongs to, then power to you.



I didn't say it was entirely divorced from it. But neither is it completely governed by it.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> It's biological too. Otherwise all men would be chasing the same women. Which they don't.



What an absurd argument.  Unless you think we all have exactly the same experiences?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> Partially, yes. But the desire to demonstrate social class also plays a part - hence why being larger and paler was fashionable in the past.
> 
> You should also consider how representative ideas proceeding from art are. Who bought art? Who wrote art history? You will find again that it was a particular class of people. I very much doubt everyone shared these ideas.
> 
> And you will not be able to find any culture that has upheld an ideal of old women as beautiful.



You seem to have just argued against your own point.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> So there must be a lot of single men and women out there, what, with all the young men going for what the media tells them to procreate with and the 99.9% of women who don't meet impossible standards left on the shelf.



Hmmmm, yes because it's a simple causal direct relationship. Fucks sake.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> What an absurd argument.  Unless you think we all have exactly the same experiences?



Attraction is based upon experiences and there is no biological or genetic under-currents at all, are you saying?



Blagsta said:


> Hmmmm, yes because it's a simple causal direct relationship. Fucks sake.



We're exploring ideas blagsta, not comparing dick size.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 17, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> ... Why does the new emancipation seem so much like the old oppression?


Because it is the old financial oppression. Beauty Pageants are just part of the way things are when students work as pole dancers to meet their fees.  

Come to that, there's loads of USian cam-girls pointing webcams at their pussies to get through college as well.  And men pay to ogle.  Presumably in the judgment of the women involved that is better than relative poverty. 

The new emancipation at least hopes to allow adult choices without legal repressions.  One may not like it, but the consequences of legal repression are far worse.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 17, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> are you saying?



you are crap at the socratic method mate.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 17, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> I may get flamed into oblivion here, but...
> 
> From my experience with exes who liked to preen, wax and totter, I can assure you it was never done for my benefit. They tend to hang about indoors in relaxing scruffs, you know, and the preening would be for a girls night out. Now, either they were off out trying to impress (pull?) other men or there's some other reason for it.



I don't think it's that black and white. There is an societal expectation that women need to be beautiful - at least more than men need to be. That doesn't mean that they have to be beautiful every minute around a man they've already got. Though presumably if you had judged them more explicitly on their looks, those who stayed with you despite that judgement wouldn't have relaxed so much.

Ideals are internalised. If there is an idea of how a woman should look in society, that is perpetuated by those ideas being internalised by both men and women. Some obviously internalise ideas more than others - women may be more likely to internalise ideals about looks when they devalue other areas of themselves as ways to obtain self esteem.

And once ideas are internalised, they're also put out there again, and the cycle continues.   Both on a societal and family level.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 17, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Because it is the old financial oppression. Beauty Pageants are just part of the way things are when students work as pole dancers to meet their fees.
> 
> Come to that, there's loads of USian cam-girls pointing webcams at their pussies to get through college as well.  And men pay to ogle.  Presumably in the judgment of the women involved that is better than relative poverty.
> 
> The new emancipation at least hopes to allow adult choices without legal repressions.  One may not like it, but the consequences of legal repression are far worse.



So that's the financial incentive for those experiences (and they do pay better than tesco ) Presumably those experiences becoming more the norm is going to affect how people see the world, both the ones working in the sex industry and their peers. 

What's the incentive for entering a beauty pagent? There may be a small financial incentive for the winner, but it seems mainly about prestige in that old fashioned way, what a woman looks like. 

I wouldn't be surprised if the increase in students poll dancing is linked to these student beauty pagents, but it would seem to be more that poll dancing encourages the desire to be primarily valued as a beautiful/sexual object than the beauty pagents being a financial incentive in themselves.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> you are crap at the socratic method mate.



I'm not university educated DC, so you can keep whatever theory you're banging on about to yourself.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 17, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm not university educated DC, so you can keep whatever theory you're banging on about to yourself.



oh right, understanding of the socratic method is clearly imparted solely through universities. Cheers for that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I don't think it's that black and white. There is an societal expectation that women need to be beautiful - at least more than men need to be. That doesn't mean that they have to be beautiful every minute around a man they've already got. Though presumably if you had judged them more explicitly on their looks, those who stayed with you despite that judgement wouldn't have relaxed so much.
> 
> Ideals are internalised. If there is an idea of how a woman should look in society, that is perpetuated by those ideas being internalised by both men and women. Some obviously internalise ideas more than others - women may be more likely to internalise ideals about looks when they devalue other areas of themselves as ways to obtain self esteem.



But none of them were dolled up to the nines when I met them. It would always be a feature that would get introduced when it came to 'girls nights out'. I would have seen them like that initially if I'd met them in a club but I generally haven't met women I've dated in clubs. It's a mystery.


----------



## madzone (Feb 17, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm not university educated DC, so you can keep whatever theory you're banging on about to yourself.


 He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> oh right, understanding of the socratic method is clearly imparted solely through universities. Cheers for that.



Well I don't know what it is. So, presumably, It is allowable for me to be crap at something of which I have no understanding?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 17, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> Well I don't know what it is. So, presumably, It is allowable for me to be crap at something of which I have no understanding?



your doing it right fucking now


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 17, 2009)

look it up to observe how ironic questioning me to tease out inconsistencies in my post was.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 17, 2009)

Crispy said:


> *AS*
> How on earth can you tell acurately after 1000s of years of unequal power relations?
> 
> Or are unequal power relations biological too?
> ...



But fertility is the whole point! In a species of animals that don't have something as obvious as swollen naked red bums to demonstrate fertility, the visual proxy is youth. 

While we're demanding proof, let's have some justification for your side's ability to quantify the effect a beauty pageant has on the actions of a society of completely different people. I think your claim to be able to do that is vastly more controversial than using the behaviour of mammals to explain human behaviour. 



Agent Sparrow said:


> So class is one thing that determines what a culture finds beautiful. Not all biological then.


No, but largely biological, if you separate out the effects of wanting to demonstrate social status on appearance, (i.e. people wanting to prove that their paleness and corpulence was due to them being well off and not having to work in the fields). I will reiterate - you will find cultures that have at various points in time fetishised a variety of things as beautiful, but not one that has deemed this to be the case for old women.



Agent Sparrow said:


> The point is why should women have to meet an ideal that is beautiful whilst men do not?


They don't have to.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 17, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> But none of them were dolled up to the nines when I met them. It would always be a feature that would get introduced when it came to 'girls nights out'. I would have seen them like that initially if I'd met them in a club but I generally haven't met women I've dated in clubs. It's a mystery.


People not entirely consistent shocker. 

And I think what you're getting at is that they didn't need to do it for you to fancy them. Well, obviously you're a diamond C66! But just because you're not super orientated around that doesn't mean that others aren't. Your exes internalisations will have happened a long time before they met you, and they reflect the more general attitudes of society.

Tbh, I don't think the "I'm not sexist and therefore these problems don't exist" argument is a good one, if that is sort of the line you're going down. I'm not racist or homophobic, but racism and homophobia still sadly exist.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> your doing it right fucking now



 

(still don't know what it is, I'll have a google in a bit).


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Your exes internalisations will have happened a long time before they met you, and they reflect the more general attitudes of society.



One of them was brought up by strict muslim parents in the Gambia so heaven knows where her penchant for vastly over-priced cosmetics came from.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Tbh, I don't think the "I'm not sexist and therefore these problems don't exist" argument is a good one, if that is sort of the line you're going down. I'm not racist or homophobic, but racism and homophobia still sadly exist.



No, that isn't the line I'm going down. I know sexism exists. There's loads of strip clubs in the east end to remind us it exists. But I don't always think it's as clear cut as women 'internalising' attitudes that drive them to make themselves prettier. I think a fair chunk of them do it to compete with each other rather than attracting men and I also think they do so because they <gasp!> enjoy it.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 17, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> No, that isn't the line I'm going down. I know sexism exists. There's loads of strip clubs in the east end to remind us it exists. But I don't always think it's as clear cut as women 'internalising' attitudes that drive them to make themselves prettier. I think a fair chunk of them do it to compete with each other over attracting men and I also think they do so because they <gasp!> enjoy it.



The latter doesn't preclude the former. 

Why do you think they choose to compete over attracting men in that particular way?


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> The latter doesn't preclude the former.



I knew you'd say that, I should have worded it better.



> Why do you think they choose to compete over attracting men in that particular way?



I have no idea. It has actually been women who let me into that little secret rather than a conclusion I drew myself. Which is why it all made sense when exes would doll themselves up for 'girls night out' and not be particularly bothered going to that extreme when just out with me. Well it rang true in my mind, any road. Perhaps they were just teasing me?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Feb 17, 2009)

contadino said:


> Fine.  Stick that on your plackard and see where it gets you.


Why would I? Direct action is often far more effective than waving a fucking placard or walking up and down the embankment.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 17, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Why do you think they choose to compete over attracting men in that particular way?



I guess they go with what works. And probably have more fun than sitting at home analysing the socio-historic implications of it.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Feb 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> All opinions are not created equal.  Opinions based on research that shows that people's attitudes are affected by both the bombardment of media images and prevailing attitudes of their peers are not the same as opinions based on saying, "this is what I think and there is no reason for it other than I think it."


It does depend on what you would call "research", as well as asking why someone is using any particular piece of "research" for any particular reason as well imo.

It might not be quite as clear cut as either saying evidence-based or less reliable to a degree I suppose is what am saying. Subjective opinion shouldn't necessarily be dismissed out of hand.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 17, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> But fertility is the whole point! In a species of animals that don't have something as obvious as swollen naked red bums to demonstrate fertility, the visual proxy is youth.
> 
> While we're demanding proof, let's have some justification for your side's ability to quantify the effect a beauty pageant has on the actions of a society of completely different people. I think your claim to be able to do that is vastly more controversial than using the behaviour of mammals to explain human behaviour.


I wasn't the one who made such a bold claim that there is a "bias evident in much of nature towards a younger female partner in the males of the species", which is actually very different from saying that males will only go for females in the fertile zone. And actually the area of evolutionary psychology is full of assumptions that because one group of animals does x, y and z then it can be applied to explain human behaviour (whilst conveniently ignoring the animal evidence that contradicts it).

And you're right, it is difficult to "prove" that beauty pagents have a direct causal link to the subjugation of women, not least because it's social science and there are hundreds of variables out there. Which is incidentally why sociolology tends to use context rich qualitative methods (which do not claim to determine causality) rather than the more reductive quantitative methods of the natural sciences and much of psychology. But there is plenty of psychological and social literature out there on body image, looks discrimination, the impact of media images, eating disorders, unequal power dynamics, the sex industry etc. which all touch on why the culture of one gender needing to be beautiful is a bad thing. And beauty pagents both reflect that culture and continue it. What on earth else do they do? 

Further to that, unlike quite a few on this thread , I do actually have the lived experience of being a woman. In fact a woman who _did_ internalise a lot of these messages before managing to challenge most of them in my 20s. And I can say that in my lived experience, I have found that institutions that support the idea that women have to be beautiful are very damaging, particularly when you're young and impressionable. The experience of many friends would also support that. And most of the posters I've recognised as female have posted that they are saddened by this beauty pagent. Why do you think that might be?

Are you male or female? If you're female and have come to this conclusion, cool. I'd be interested to hear your experience of these messages and how you've come to an opposite conclusion to me. If you're male, I kinda resent your implication that we have gender equality and I shouldn't worry about this anymore, and that this has no chance of affecting my percpetion of femininity. As was said on one of the threads about another ism quite recently, it's not for the traditional ruling group to tell the oppressed when there isn't a problem anymore. 



> No, but largely biological, if you separate out the effects of wanting to demonstrate social status on appearance, (i.e. people wanting to prove that their paleness and corpulence was due to them being well off and not having to work in the fields). I will reiterate - you will find cultures that have at various points in time fetishised a variety of things as beautiful, but not one that has deemed this to be the case for old women.


Which tbf is actually irrelevant to whether it's a bad thing to objectify women. No I take that back - it goes against your argument that there is nothing wrong with objectifiction. If women are largely prized on their looks, why should older women suddenly lose status just because they're old? 



> They don't have to.


*facepalm*

And that is exactly why society prescribed objectification of women is a BAD THING. And why it is unequal and should be challenged.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 17, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> I guess they go with what works. And probably have more fun than sitting at home analysing the socio-historic implications of it.



*yawn*


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> Attraction is based upon experiences and there is no biological or genetic under-currents at all, are you saying?



No, I'm not saying that.



Citizen66 said:


> We're exploring ideas blagsta, not comparing dick size.



What an odd comment to make.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Further to that, unlike quite a few on this thread , I do actually have the lived experience of being a woman. In fact a woman who _did_ internalise a lot of these messages before managing to challenge most of them in my 20s. And I can say that in my lived experience, I have found that institutions that support the idea that women have to be beautiful are very damaging, particularly when you're young and impressionable. The experience of many friends would also support that. And most of the posters I've recognised as female have posted that they are saddened by this beauty pagent. Why do you think that might be?
> 
> Are you male or female? If you're female and have come to this conclusion, cool. I'd be interested to hear your experience of these messages and how you've come to an opposite conclusion to me. If you're male, I kinda resent your implication that we have gender equality and I shouldn't worry about this anymore, and that this has no chance of affecting my percpetion of femininity. As was said on one of the threads about another ism quite recently, it's not for the traditional ruling group to tell the oppressed when there isn't a problem anymore.



Without wanting to incur your wrath, isn't it largely women who are perpetuating the whole body image thing through publications such as cosmopolitan, which they actively write for and edit? 

I'm not saying that there isn't an oppressed gender (I know there is) but the blame for the current climate can't be placed entirely at the door of the historical oppressor.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 17, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> Without wanting to incur your wrath, isn't it largely women who are perpetuating the whole body image thing through publications such as cosmopolitan, which they actively write for and edit?
> 
> I'm not saying that there isn't an oppressed gender (I know there is) but the blame for the current climate can't be placed entirely at the door of the historical oppressor.



I've already explcitly said that it's perpetuated by men and women - see the definition of patriarchy I go by earlier in the thread. That is a different thing though to being irked when men tell me that there isn't a problem anymore, iyswim. It's women's place to decide that. And yes I know that there are conflicting opinions in the "sisterhood"; the whole issue of beauty pagents brings out many of those. But that's choice. And differing opinions keep the world interesting of course.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 17, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Why does the new emancipation seem so much like the old oppression?



The decline of any counterculture movement begins when ‘respect’ for individual ‘difference’ and ‘choice’ is placed above all other considerations. Group solidarity – the real source of strength for any group with liberationist goals – becomes subsumed beneath the unfettered self-determination of each individual actor. So if women want to enter these beauty pageants then that’s fine – it’s their own choice. Never mind if such events contribute to the objectification of women or the perpetuation of gender inequalities. Never mind if they make women who don’t fit their archetypal conception of beauty feel like shit. Never mind if more young women starve themselves, shove fingers down their throats or have their breasts sliced open and filled with poison so they can look beautiful. 

How sad – no doubt a product of three decades of neo-liberalism which has promoted the ideology of selfish individualism whilst surreptitiously created the levels of inequality that have structurally limited peoples choices. 

btw - Agent Sparrow, great posts. I don't know where you get the energy from although I have a sneaking suspicion that you have other work to do that you're putting off.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 17, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I've already explcitly said that it's perpetuated by men and women - see the definition of patriarchy I go by earlier in the thread. That is a different thing though to being irked when men tell me that there isn't a problem anymore, iyswim. It's women's place to decide that.



I completely agree. But when I dared to suggest earlier that I'd like to hear what women posters thought of the beauty pageant rather than chest-beating men, I got accused of trying to polarise the debate and then (more strangely) only saying it so I could get into someone's pants!

It's great here!


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 18, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> But there is plenty of psychological and social literature out there on body image, looks discrimination, the impact of media images, eating disorders, unequal power dynamics, the sex industry etc. which all touch on why the culture of one gender needing to be beautiful is a bad thing. And beauty pagents both reflect that culture and continue it. What on earth else do they do?



I don't have very much sympathy towards this approach. I think a big part of growing up is rising above the passive mindset that leads you to assume that these kinds of things constitute pressure to be a certain way. Part of this maturity also consists in respecting that other people whom you perceive to have succumbed to said pressures are not to be considered as brainwashed idiots.


Agent Sparrow said:


> Further to that, unlike quite a few on this thread , I do actually have the lived experience of being a woman. In fact a woman who _did_ internalise a lot of these messages before managing to challenge most of them in my 20s. And I can say that in my lived experience, I have found that institutions that support the idea that women have to be beautiful are very damaging, particularly when you're young and impressionable. The experience of many friends would also support that. And most of the posters I've recognised as female have posted that they are saddened by this beauty pagent. Why do you think that might be?



I too had my fair share of hangups when I was younger, and I'm pretty sure a few of these took inspiration from bogus stereotypes of masculinity that reached my mind in various forms. As per my earlier comment, rejecting them was a very important stage in my developmental process, and I certainly wouldn't wish them gone for the sake of other youths, if only for the reason that angst is an aid to introspection about one's role within society that I believe to be essential. If I hadn't done that thinking when I was young, I think it would have bit me on the ass later.


Agent Sparrow said:


> If you're male, I kinda resent your implication that we have gender equality and I shouldn't worry about this anymore, and that this has no chance of affecting my percpetion of femininity. As was said on one of the threads about another ism quite recently, it's not for the traditional ruling group to tell the oppressed when there isn't a problem anymore.



I don't think that, but I make no apologies for considering the rights of people to engage in this kind of behaviour to trump the rights of people to have a life that is less conflicted by their relationship to society. 



Agent Sparrow said:


> Which tbf is actually irrelevant to whether it's a bad thing to objectify women. No I take that back - it goes against your argument that there is nothing wrong with objectifiction. If women are largely prized on their looks, why should older women suddenly lose status just because they're old?



Wrong. People who read my argument properly would note I was actually claiming that beauty pageants have a negligible effect on male attitudes to beauty because I think so large a component of this is biological and based on youth. This is what drives the whole circus and beauty pageants and similar things do not affect this. What I am willing to admit they do is homogenise beliefs around what kind of thing is beautiful with the proviso that youth is involved.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Feb 18, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> Wrong. People who read my argument properly would note I was actually claiming that beauty pageants have a negligible effect on male attitudes to beauty because I think so large a component of this is biological and based on youth. This is what drives the whole circus and beauty pageants and similar things do not affect this. What I am willing to admit they do is homogenise beliefs around what kind of thing is beautiful with the proviso that youth is involved.


That's complete and utter bollocks I'm afraid my friend. Youth undermines your argument, it doesn't strengthen it. You're talking cobblers basically.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 18, 2009)

I find this implication that, just because I am male, I have a biological imperative to objectify women based on their apparent fertility somewhat offensive.

Well, actually I just find it plain bollocks  Partly because it's simply a lie, and partly because the whole point is not that good-looking/"fertile" women get certain preferential treatment anyway - oh yes, being attractive is _definitely_ a good route to your opinions being taken seriously, isn't it? Yeah, that works.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 18, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I find this implication that, just because I am male, I have a biological imperative to objectify women based on their apparent fertility somewhat offensive.



Lucky I didn't say that then. 



FridgeMagnet said:


> the whole point is not that good-looking/"fertile" women get certain preferential treatment anyway - oh yes, being attractive is _definitely_ a good route to your opinions being taken seriously, isn't it? Yeah, that works.


What is the point then? If 'beauty' doesn't affect how people treat you, where does the negative effect of this pressure to conform to an ideal of beauty manifest itself? Are you suggesting it is all in the mind? If so, that serves what I want to say very well.


----------



## xenon (Feb 18, 2009)

What a flatulaent thread.

Peple use their particular tallents, abilities or physical characteristics they're imbewed with, to mark themselves out. Indeed market themselves in any sphere of human competition. Whilst I'm not especially supportive of narrowly defined modes of competition and agrandisement. The ultimate problem lies in humanities imperative to compete. Patriaki, consumerism and vacuace celebration weren't invented. And beauty padgents, transparrently krass as they may be, are a convenient soft target. An insignifcant one at that. This isn't the 70's any more. 

But if peple get something out of railing against it, go ahead. Peple blessed with good looks can and will caplitise on them. As those with an aptitude for maths, football or creative disembling. I find it hard to give a monkies. We're all judged over something not of our own design anyway.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 18, 2009)

^^^ this


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 18, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> That's complete and utter bollocks I'm afraid my friend. Youth undermines your argument, it doesn't strengthen it. You're talking cobblers basically.



There are monkeys and there are more enlightened monkeys. The omnipresence of youth in different cultures' conceptions of beauty is not however, an anomaly.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 18, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> What is the point then? If 'beauty' doesn't affect how people treat you, where does the negative effect of this pressure to conform to an ideal of beauty manifest itself? Are you suggesting it is all in the mind? If so, that serves what I want to say very well.



It's good when people basically shout "yes you were right I didn't understand the point and even when you mention it I don't care". Well, overall, as far as the state of the universe goes, it isn't good of course, but personally at least it means I wasn't just imagining shit.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 18, 2009)

Yeah, cheers. It's been great.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 18, 2009)

bye


----------



## Jonti (Feb 18, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I liked this slogan from the protesters - "Soas is for education, not for your ejaculation!"
> 
> I guess this is representative of the backlash of feminism, or possibly what other people would conceptualise as third wave feminism - a feminism of sexual liberation and exhibitionism, that celebrates the power to be "sexy". And  sexual liberation is great - surely if more women can pursue and achieve sexual satisfaction this is a good thing. But the way it is currently going does seem to be backwards in many ways.
> 
> As Areal Levy says, there are countless ways to express sexuality. Why are so many women chosing to do it in this way which seems prescribed by patriarchy? Why does the new emancipation seem so much like the old oppression?


According to Why So Slow? By Virginia Valian, good-looking women have trouble being taken seriously. Can't say I see it myself, mind, but maybe she's right.  Attractive femininity is seen as incompatible with competence.

If she is right, the women in the pageant are challenging a damaging stereotype!


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 18, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> I don't have very much sympathy towards this approach. I think a big part of growing up is rising above the passive mindset that leads you to assume that these kinds of things constitute pressure to be a certain way. Part of this maturity also consists in respecting that other people whom you perceive to have succumbed to said pressures are not to be considered as brainwashed idiots.


Well, a lot reductionists think that way. It doesn't mean you're right by any standards. There are problems with research in social sciences that doen't exist in, say, physics (for a start, how can you clearly define constructs that aren't tangible), but what, are you saying that social sciences shouldn't be researched because you don't have much sympathy with the approach? That would suit you, wouldn't isn't? Only flaw is superimposing qualitative methodologies and assumptions onto psychological biological studies has a hell of a lot of flaws to it too.

And "brainwashed" - nice and emotive there. So you think society has no bearing on people and they can overcome it? I suspect that's not acually a position held by anyone apart from the most extreme sociobiologists. The biopsychosocial approach is increasingly the accepted in psychology, and recognises that society has a massive impact in combination with a genetic starting point and individual psychological characteristics (which in themselves are shaped by environment).

Believe me, there is a _lot_ of evidence out there that environment shapes people one way or another.



> I too had my fair share of hangups when I was younger
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 18, 2009)

xenon said:


> What a flatulaent thread.
> 
> Peple use their particular tallents, abilities or physical characteristics they're imbewed with, to mark themselves out. Indeed market themselves in any sphere of human competition. Whilst I'm not especially supportive of narrowly defined modes of competition and agrandisement. The ultimate problem lies in humanities imperative to compete. Patriaki, consumerism and vacuace celebration weren't invented. And beauty padgents, transparrently krass as they may be, are a convenient soft target. An insignifcant one at that. This isn't the 70's any more.
> 
> But if peple get something out of railing against it, go ahead. Peple blessed with good looks can and will caplitise on them. As those with an aptitude for maths, football or creative disembling. I find it hard to give a monkies. We're all judged over something not of our own design anyway.



*insert something about ideology and hegemony here*


----------



## brix (Feb 18, 2009)

Jeff Robinson said:


> btw - Agent Sparrow, great posts.



Completely agree with JR here, your posts are fantastic.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 18, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> ... if a woman finds it difficult to be taken seriously because she is so attractive, if she wants to "challenge" stereotypes, then surely it would be best done in different ways, like appearing competent for example. Surely entering a beauty pagent is just reinforcing them.


In this case, the women already appear to be competent, do they not? They are well on their way to collecting their University Degrees.  The fact they entered the pageant doesn't alter that!

So we have indubitably competent women saying, yes, even (?!) attractive women can be competent. Just 'cos a woman's pretty doesn't mean she's a fluffy head.

But this is not the sort of thing the Modern Woman should do, it appears!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Feb 18, 2009)

Koshka said:


> Applications are underway for the Miss University London Cattle market/Beauty Pageant.  The final os on the 10th march at a swanky club in Mayfair. (www.missuniversitylondon.com)
> 
> Beauty contests are ridiculous and demeaning. This pageant should not be happening, and should be disrupted all the way.
> 
> ...


why though... 

if women want to take part surely it's up to them not up to others to tell them what they can and can't do with their bodies... 

or are they all too silly and confused to make up their own pretty little heads... 

you know there's still people dying in gaza right... in terms of priorities... you know you might like to find some...


----------



## kabbes (Feb 18, 2009)

Jonti said:


> So we have indubitably competent women saying, yes, even (?!) attractive women can be competent. Just 'cos a woman's pretty doesn't mean she's a fluffy head.
> 
> But this is not the sort of thing the Modern Woman should do, it appears!


It comes down to considering which is the more likely, I suppose.  That this pageant will challenge a stereotype that being an attractive woman (within the parameters laid out by a homogenised set of social rules) means that you are incompetent.  Or that this pageant will reinforce the attitude that if you are a woman then being attractive (within the parameters laid out by a homogenised set of social rules) is very important.  It simply seems to me that the latter is by far the predominant effect and that this effect is damaging to all women, not just the ones taking part in the competition.  And given that to be true, then no, it's not the sort of thing that a socially conscious woman who cares about the effects of her actions on others should do.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 18, 2009)

I doubt  the contestants see things that way. 

The pageant does challenge the stereotype that being an attractive woman means you are incompetent.  

I suggest that's what is important to these particular women; it's not in their interests to reinforce the attitude that if you are a woman then being attractive is very important.   It's in their interests to undermine the sexist message that an attractive woman cannot also be competent; that women cannot be trusted to decide for themselves how to use their charisma and sex appeal.

Of course, some folks will see foolish women acting against their own interests.  Many posters here have taken that kind of line. But I doubt the contestants see things that way.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 18, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I doubt  the contestants see things that way.


Yes, I doubt they do.  So what?  They can be wrong, you know. 



> The pageant does challenge the stereotype that being an attractive woman means you are incompetent.


Yes it does.



> I suggest that's what is important to these particular women; it's not in their interests to reinforce the attitude that if you are a woman then being attractive is very important.   It's in their interests to undermine the sexist message that an attractive woman cannot also be competent; that women cannot be trusted to decide for themselves how to use their charisma and sex appeal.


I suggest that although it might be what is important to these particular women, it is still an action that has an overall negative effect.  Now, just to remind you, I'm not saying that they should be banned from doing so, or anything like that.  I'm just saying that I think that it is sad that such pageants still have a place in society and that overall, I believe their impact to be harmful to society.



> Of course, some folks will see foolish women acting against their own interests.  Many posters here have taken that kind of line. But I doubt the contestants see things that way.


Have I ever suggested that they are acting against their own personal interests?  Every time I take a flight to Edinburgh, I am acting in my personal interests.  Every time I leave a laptop on all day just so that I don't have to wait for it to switch off and on again, I'm acting in my own interests.  Every time I buy a flat to rent it out, I'm acting in my own interests.  Every time I help my company extract capital from its insurance subsidiaries, I am acting in my own interests.  It can be convincingly argued, however, that none of these things are in society's interests.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 18, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> I guess they go with what works. And probably have more fun than sitting at home analysing the socio-historic implications of it.



Yes but they would be more interesting to talk to if they stayed at homey analysing the socio-historic implications.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 18, 2009)

Now I'm being told that an event that challenges the perception that attractive women cannot also be competent nevertheless has an overall negative effect!

Truly, a woman's place is in the wrong 

But seriously, there's nothing inevitable about how the event is portrayed, interpreted and reported in the wider media. The responsibility for that lies with the Paul Dacres and Rebecca Wades of the world.  The event actually means nothing in itself (except, possibly, that some young women like to dress up and show off to an admiring audience).  

What I mean is that if most reports take the line "Oh! look at those foolish women re-enforcing stereotypes that beauty is the most important thing", then you'd be right.

But if reports take the line "Oooh, lookie. Beautiful and clever, awesome!" that is rather different.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 18, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Now I'm being told that an event that challenges the perception that attractive women cannot also be competent nevertheless has an overall negative effect!


Yes.  Why is this so bewildering to you?  Something can have both positive and negative effects and yet have the negatives outweigh the positives.



> But seriously, there's nothing inevitable about how the event is portrayed, interpreted and reported in the wider media. The responsibility for that lies with the Paul Dacres and Rebecca Wades of the world.  The event actually means nothing in itself (except, possibly, that some young women like to dress up and show off to an admiring audience).


A context-free event, eh?  The event is not harmful "in itself", once again. 



> What I mean is that if most reports take the line "Oh! look at those foolish women re-enforcing stereotypes that beauty is the most important thing", then you'd be right.
> 
> But if reports take the line "Oooh, lookie. Beautiful and clever, awesome!" that is rather different.


I suspect that most reports of the event -- both official and personal -- will simply take the line of "phwoar, look at those hotties".  Which is rather the problem.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 18, 2009)

You seem to be deliberately distorting what I say.  The observation is that_ these events mean nothing apart from their context_.  Yet you are claiming that's the same as "these events are context free".  

The two are diametrically opposed. Obviously.

Look, there is nothing inevitable about how the event is portrayed, interpreted and reported in the wider media. The responsibility for that lies with the Paul Dacres and Rebecca Wades of the world. It is not context free.

That means the event actually means nothing in itself (except, possibly, that some young women like to dress up and show off to an admiring audience) _*it gets its meaning from its context*_ -- particularly how it is reported.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 18, 2009)

And what if you can have a pretty damned certain guess about how it will be reported (and interpreted by the receivers of the report) prior to the event?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 18, 2009)

These foolish women should ask for your kind guidance, that's what.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 18, 2009)

Jonti said:


> These foolish women should ask for your kind guidance, that's what.


Lucky, then, that I am giving it, eh?

I'll be interested to see you find anywhere on the thread where I've called them foolish, though.  Selfish would be closer to my view on the matter.  Or at least self-interested.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 18, 2009)

Jonti said:


> You seem to be deliberately distorting what I say.  The observation is that_ these events mean nothing apart from their context_.  Yet you are claiming that's the same as "these events are context free".
> 
> The two are diametrically opposed. Obviously.
> 
> ...




Aha, because the media exist context free too.

Massive


----------



## becky p (Feb 18, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> why though...
> 
> if women want to take part surely it's up to them not up to others to tell them what they can and can't do with their bodies...
> 
> ...



People who are dying in Gaza must be delighted that you are not being distracted Garfield. Fortunately they can rely on your unwavering and diligent support.

Mind you if Israelis want to take part in attacks on Gaza who are you to tell them what they can do with their bodies...

or are they too silly and confused to make up their own preety little heads...


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 18, 2009)

I think the bottom line is if you interpret beauty pageants and magazines as 'pressure' to be a certain way, you need to get over yourself. The problem isn't in the magazines.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 18, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> I think the bottom line is if you interpret beauty pageants and magazines as 'pressure' to be a certain way, you need to get over yourself. The problem isn't in the magazines.



I think the bottom line is that you're a bit simple minded


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 18, 2009)

Tell me, Blagsta, does being such a massive tool ever get to you on a personal level?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 18, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> Tell me, Blagsta, does me being such a massive tool ever get to you on a personal level?



I'm OK with you being a massive tool, yes.

I'm OK with me having a massive tool.

Happiness all round.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 18, 2009)

Crispy said:


> *AS*
> How on earth can you tell acurately after 1000s of years of unequal power relations?
> 
> Or are unequal power relations biological too?
> ...



I may be a little bit behind the times in terms of anthropology, but isn't it still most often the case in primate society that younger females *aren't* top of the list, and that females of proven fertility generally occupy that position?
It's certainly the case that for vast swathes of human history this has held true. Even the Puritans held to the practice of "bundling".


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 18, 2009)

Jonti said:


> In this case, the women already appear to be competent, do they not? They are well on their way to collecting their University Degrees.  The fact they entered the pageant doesn't alter that!
> 
> So we have indubitably competent women saying, yes, even (?!) attractive women can be competent. Just 'cos a woman's pretty doesn't mean she's a fluffy head.
> 
> But this is not the sort of thing the Modern Woman should do, it appears!


Hang on, being at a university automatically makes you competent? When was the last time you visited a university? 

Seriously, IMO within this culture it has another difficult, more powerful message. That whilst being a competent woman is great, being an attractive competent woman, and more specifically one that embraces that attractiveness in a traditional patriarchal way, is better. But then I guess there will be differing opinions of this. I would actually be quite interested to speak to some of the women taking part - at a guess some of the women in this competition have probably thought through the issues more deeply than others. 

I would think however that the best way of being respected as an attractive, competent woman is to just be attractive and competent, and to stand up for yourself when someone is trying to patronise you. I just think that whilst I'm sure some of these women may feel that they're standing up for themselves in this way, I'm not sure if that is the message that will come across to the majority of the audience. I don't think their intelligence of competence will really come into it. Also, I doubt that the contestants between them will make up all the "most attractive" women at their respective universities, rather they will be attractive woman who just want to be judged on those terms. 



ViolentPanda said:


> I may be a little bit behind the times in terms of anthropology, but isn't it still most often the case in primate society that younger females *aren't* top of the list, and that females of proven fertility generally occupy that position?


Yup, quite. Anyway, I've been thinking about the youth argument, and it's a total red herring. We're not actually talking about women being judged and valued on youth or fertility alone, but rather women being judged on how much they live up to cultural standards of beauty, which also happens to coincide with youth. It seems that women are most discriminated between on the basis of looks when they are young. 



moon23 said:


> Yes but they would be more interesting to talk to if they stayed at homey analysing the socio-historic implications.





*flutters eyelashes* 

Btw, cheers Brix and Jeff Robinson!


----------



## Jonti (Feb 18, 2009)

becky p said:


> ...
> 
> or are they too silly and confused to make up their own preety little heads...


Your sneers would be better directed elsewhere;  Garfield has been consistently saying that _it_ is up to them.  

And of course grownups have the right to such silly little contests.  Not, however, to commit genocide.

hth


----------



## Jonti (Feb 18, 2009)

Yes, it is interesting to get the views of the women involved.  I'm uneasy at the easy portrayal of the contestants as dupes, or as somehow acting foolishly. To my mind, that's the unmistakable chorus of patriarchy.

Not to say that it's a great choice for smart university women to make, but, it is their choice, yes, even if they do want to sell their body, or more accurately, rent out a bit of it for a while.   I understand why a neo-puritan may wave a banner at the pageant in protest to assert "our bodies are not for sale".  Because, yes, beauty pageants do seamlessly meld into the issue of how easy it is, comparatively speaking, to monetise female sexuality.   

This is not _necessarily_ to the disadvantage of women; and nor is it _necessarily_ the fruit of patriarchy.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 18, 2009)

I'm not sure where "neo-puritanism" comes into this. Most of us can pop down to our town centres any night of the week and see women wearing little more than two teabags and a serviette. The thought of the pageantiers parading up and down a stage in frilly frocks exposing their bare ankles doesn’t leave me wanting to call the local Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice – although I can’t speak for other posters. I would have thought though that it’s the patriarchal nature of the contest rather than its excesses of  arm and ankle flesh that they are objecting to.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 18, 2009)

@ Jonti

You can criticise the sex industry without being a neo-puritan though. If the industry was much safer for the workers within it and there were proper avenues available to help them leave if/when they wanted to, I'd still argue that it's a sad state of affairs when the mainstream sex industry is largely one gender servicing another.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 18, 2009)

To a large extent, I think working women can look after themselves if the law got off their back. Women should be allowed to work together in brothels, for example. And so on, and on. I'm sure you're familiar with the litany of laws that can be used against anyone in a prostitute's life. 

Yes, there's a lot to criticise in the sex industry, one doesn't have to be censorious about the notion of sex-for-favours to see that.  What marks the neo-puritan is the desire for legal penalities, rather than protections, for the persons involved.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 18, 2009)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I'm not sure where "neo-puritanism" comes into this.



It doesn't.  It's in Jonti's head.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 18, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Your sneers would be better directed elsewhere;  Garfield has been consistently saying that _it_ is up to them.



Let's face it, if he said any different, teeps would chop his bollocks off and wear them for earrings.


----------



## pk (Feb 19, 2009)

Koshka said:


> Applications are underway for the Miss University London Cattle market/Beauty Pageant.  The final os on the 10th march at a swanky club in Mayfair. (www.missuniversitylondon.com)
> 
> Beauty contests are ridiculous and demeaning. This pageant should not be happening, and should be disrupted all the way.
> 
> ...



Get a grip.


----------



## Koshka (Mar 11, 2009)

WHAT WE DID:


“Now I know why my mother’s generation did what they did in the 60s.  I feel amazing.  Tonight we did what we said we would – we smashed Miss University London!”

-       Martina Pasonaria, 30, Musician



At 1.30am this morning a group calling themselves SMASH MISS CONTEST infiltrated Miss University London and caused disruption throughout the event with stink bombs and personal alarms, culminating with a stage invasion bringing the show to a halt during the announcement of the winner.  A questionnaire and open letter to participants were scattered to the audience, contestants and compere.



Miss University London re-emerged two years ago amongst widespread controversy.  Set up by 121entertainment, led by Christian Emile, the event drew in three different protest groups.  Miss-Ogyny, a group specifically set up to resist the pageant’s presence on campus, rallied opposite the entrance.  They were joined by The Space Hijackers who handed out tissues to men queuing for the pageant.



“They couldn’t hide what the event was – a crass judgement of women based on their looks, all so that they could make money.”

-       Helen Bradshaw, 21, Student

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please see our blog www.smashmisscontest.wordpress.com for the full texts that we distributed through the contest.

If you are still confused as to why it is worth protesting please read it. And JOIN THE DOTS.

XXXXXXX

also see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ty-London-beauty-pageant-set-stink-bombs.html

http://galleries.thelondonpaper.com/miss-university-of-london-beauty-pageant-feminist-protest/3

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/03/423949.html

and the others: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/03/423930.html


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 11, 2009)

_Because if you think there’s only one way to be sexy, you’re clearly shit in bed._

made me smile.


----------



## isitme (Mar 11, 2009)

Koshka said:


> WHAT WE DID:
> 
> 
> “Now I know why my mother’s generation did what they did in the 60s.  I feel amazing.  Tonight we did what we said we would – we smashed Miss University London!”
> ...



you sound like a bunch of dodgy nutters


----------



## Wolveryeti (Mar 11, 2009)

Koshka said:


> WHAT WE DID:


First-class fascism. Well done.

Small tip: Next time remember to beat the contestants up a bit. Then they'll really know not to subvert the Cause.


----------



## Koshka (Mar 11, 2009)

Maybe ill beat you up a bit.

Sure i could knock some systemic critique into you. Would that help you to understand the subtle dynamics of cultural and social politics? 

*We have a right to resist what oppresses us. *

xxx


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 11, 2009)

> *Because we are not going to patronize you,* although its sad you need this external approval. You’ve made your choices but it’s not just about you; what you’re participating in affects women outside this club as well as inside; it’s a degradation and an insult and you’re complicit in the fucked up system it’s perpetuating.



Having just spent the previous 2 pages doing exactly that, and then going on to do it in that paragraph.

Congrats - you've set the brand of feminism back (again), while giving ammunition to all those who think feminists are bra-burning, man-hating killjoys. A truly successful 'action' by the standards of much activism - feeds the egos of those taking part, achieves no wider awareness raising goals and alienates those who may have offered tacit or open support. Well done.

Incidentally - 'Prizes', not 'prices', from the not-remotely patronising questionaire.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Mar 11, 2009)

Koshka said:


> Maybe ill beat you up a bit.
> 
> Sure i could knock some systemic critique into you. Would that help you to understand the subtle dynamics of cultural and social politics?
> 
> xxx



Sounds hawt. Where do we meet?


----------



## Bristly Pioneer (Mar 11, 2009)

Well this being the first feminist action I've ever been on I thought it was great.

I was with the Space Hijacker boys running a "voting" booth

Our "voting" booth went down well (or at least it was suitably offensive). 

We asked men from the queue to go into the tent and "vote" over pictures of the girls (we provided kleenex). Then we kept a tally of the girls who brought the guys over the edge. Obviously this was to help 'empower' the girls by 'educating them' on who was the prettiest. 

We also campaigned for the return of the swimwear round. 

alas lots of the boys in the queue were rather disturbed by a bunch of men protesting outside and attempted to rip apart our pictures and booth. 

My favourite quotes were: 

"you're worse than the feminists, it's disgusting" 

"What so you want people to wank in the booth, over the girls and judge them, how's that any different from the competition?" 
erm exactly... 

and not forgetting 

"I don't know what they're protesting about, it's not even animal cruelty, they must be jealous"


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 11, 2009)

Now that sounds funny


----------



## fogbat (Mar 11, 2009)

There was a wank booth available? 

Buggrit, I missed it


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 11, 2009)

isitme said:


> you sound like a bunch of dodgy nutters



^^THis

I mean seriously, is this all you have to worry about? women having a laugh entering a beauty contest? did anyone force them into it? 

I bet all the female students complaining about it are a bunch of fucking mingers anyway 

*Scarpers*


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 11, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> First-class fascism. Well done.



You might want to find out what fascism is btw.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 11, 2009)

The wank booth sounds like fun, might pop along after work and knock one out.

Dunno why everyone's getting their keks in a twist over women choosing to do something of their own free will.

If the situation was the the one in China, well...

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article...inequality&in_article_id=572229&in_page_id=34


> International Women's Day was marked in China with complaints over sexist university admissions.
> 
> Women wanting to study art or fashion have to pose in underwear to earn a place at the Wuhan Science and Technology Institute.


----------



## Koshka (Mar 11, 2009)

It is all connected


----------



## Bristly Pioneer (Mar 11, 2009)

exactly, 

loads of the boys were coming to use giving us the "isn't feminism about being able to choose" line, what's the problem.

The problem is that it reinforces stereotypes which affect people who didn't choose to be in the competition.

Plus I find it a bit odd that girls are lined up and then judged from beautiful to mingers by a bunch of guys and it's called entertainment.

Surely if anything the parents should be given the awards for picking good mates to breed with, and producing good looking offspring.  The girls actually had fuck all to do with it.  Well done on being born love.


----------



## isitme (Mar 11, 2009)

you sound like well dodgy nutters


----------



## isitme (Mar 11, 2009)

to be honest i think you do more harm than good with your pointless shit masquerading as something important


----------



## audiotech (Mar 11, 2009)

Keep subverting.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 11, 2009)

Totalitarian feminism, whoohoo! 

Very progressive, I'm sure.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 11, 2009)

Koshka said:


> Maybe ill beat you up a bit.
> 
> Sure i could knock some systemic critique into you. Would that help you to understand the subtle dynamics of cultural and social politics?
> 
> ...


What about your own moralistic posturing and flaunting of violent and oppressive attitudes?   

Do others have a right to "resist" your attempts to control and oppress?

Serious question.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> First-class fascism. Well done.
> 
> Small tip: Next time remember to beat the contestants up a bit. Then they'll really know not to subvert the Cause.



You don't actually know what you're talking about, if you quantify a bit of non-violent direct action as "fascism".

Get yourself a sense of perspective or shut up, there's a good halfwit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You might want to find out what fascism is btw.


DapperTwat "find out" something?

That'd be a first.


----------



## Bristly Pioneer (Mar 11, 2009)

Jonti said:


> What about your own moralistic posturing and flaunting of violent and oppressive attitudes?
> 
> Do others have a right to "resist" your attempts to control and oppress?
> 
> Serious question.



Voilent? 

Erm? they gave out some leaflets and shouted some chants.

Oppressive? 

I kind of think the oppression is rather weighted on the side of the beauty industry and social norms as opposed to the few girls who have had enough of all that.

---

Christ, I can't believe urban75 posters dickhead attitudes are turning me into a feminist? I'm off to have a wank.


----------



## cesare (Mar 11, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Now that sounds funny




Yep


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 11, 2009)

Well at least the protest has pissed off all the usual scum - that's something. 

Speaking of which check out these preening cocks:







Marketing students I'd bet and probably all thick twats as well. The bloke second to right blinging it up by drinking his pinot grigio straight out the bottle!

Worra sad bunch of tossers.


----------



## cesare (Mar 11, 2009)

"How dare you have a wank booth outside "


----------



## brix (Mar 11, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Now that sounds funny



Yep, excellent stuff


----------



## Geri (Mar 11, 2009)

I think it sounds like a good laugh.

It might not be the most important thing in the world, but so what?

Fair play to the protestors, at least they are showing some spirit.


----------



## cesare (Mar 11, 2009)

The funny ones have more effect. You take more notice of them.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 11, 2009)

Geri said:


> I think it sounds like a good laugh.
> 
> It might not be the most important thing in the world, but so what?
> 
> Fair play to the protestors, at least they are showing some spirit.


indeed.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 11, 2009)

Geri said:


> I think it sounds like a good laugh.
> 
> It might not be the most important thing in the world, but so what?
> 
> Fair play to the protestors, at least they are showing some spirit.



this basically. i don't agree with the protest but feminist stuff in general seems to bring out a really angry/hateful side of some people ...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 11, 2009)

I'm all for it personally, the wanking booths, the stage invasion, the whole lot. Good on 'em. (The wanking booths are still the funniest though  )

Mind you, I'm an official nazi.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 11, 2009)

Bristly Pioneer said:


> Voilent?
> 
> Erm? they gave out some leaflets and shouted some chants.
> 
> ...


There's nothing wrong with being a feminist, y'dickhead.

But enjoy your wank anyway.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 11, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I'm all for it personally, the wanking booths, the stage invasion, the whole lot. Good on 'em. (The wanking booths are still the funniest though  )
> 
> Mind you, I'm an official nazi.


Either that, or you haven't thought it through.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 11, 2009)

No, I've thought it through, and I think it's good.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 11, 2009)

Feminism for wankers, then.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 11, 2009)

wadical ain't ya jonti?


----------



## cesare (Mar 11, 2009)

Well the way I see it, is that beauty contests are crap, but if the contestants want to do it, fine, ain't no big deal.

But there are bigger issues, course, about stereotyping, objectivisation etc

So if people manage to take the piss out of the blokes that propogate it - that's funny.

Would have been even funnier if the contestants had decided to come outside and encourage the blokes to look at them and then go into the wanking booths


----------



## Wolveryeti (Mar 11, 2009)

Or if the guys in the wanking booths had started giving the punters scores out of 10 and wanking over them


----------



## cesare (Mar 11, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> Or if the guys in the wanking booths had started giving the punters scores out of 10 and wanking over them



erm ... exactly lol

unless you're imagining the contestant audience turning the tables on the male demonstrators and suggesting they go in the wanking booths

ever decreasing possibilities of men jerking off


----------



## Wolveryeti (Mar 11, 2009)

I think the moral of the story is: "It's ok to disrupt events that are none of your business and take the piss, as long as it's funny"


----------



## cesare (Mar 11, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> I think the moral of the story is: "It's ok to disrupt events that are none of your business and take the piss, as long as it's funny"



lol, were you that bloke pointing in Jeff's pic?


----------



## Wolveryeti (Mar 11, 2009)

I'm actually serious.


----------



## cesare (Mar 11, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> I'm actually serious.



I know


----------



## Jonti (Mar 12, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> wadical ain't ya jonti?


I try not to be a posturing, moralistic tosser, if that's what you mean.

Each to their own, I guess.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 12, 2009)

Well, we have two sides, both of whom claim the other furthers specific stereotypes; both of whom argue that the other involves some kind of oppression - ironically, both sides are right about each other! 

I mean the feminists are right - pageants do maintain and reinforce stereotypes about female beauty, the role and status of women in society and are an antedeluvian concept.

However, by disrupting the event, the feminists are trying to prevent people from making a choice to take part in said event and using a 'violent' and oppressive means to do so.

In both cases, stereotypes are reinforced; the fems still think the women who take part are airheads (as a reading of the subtext of the 'questionaire' reveals) and the audience are tossers; the contestants and audience get to have their prejudices about feminists being 'killjoys' and ultimately that left wingers want to stop people having 'fun'.

So everyone gets to feel good about themselves! How often does that happen?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Mar 12, 2009)

i have reached a conclusion - the protestors are far better looking than the competitors. On this basis, Miss University fails on both right-on *and* sexist grounds.

The discussion....

is over!


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 12, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> i have reached a conclusion - the protestors are far better looking than the competitors. On this basis, Miss University fails on both right-on *and* sexist grounds.
> 
> The discssion....
> 
> is over!



I think the accordian was a bad idea tho, but that's more my dislike of accordians than a political statement


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Mar 12, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> I mean the feminists are right - pageants do maintain and reinforce stereotypes about female beauty, the role and status of women in society and are an antedeluvian concept.
> 
> However, by disrupting the event, the feminists are trying to prevent people from making a choice to take part in said event and using a 'violent' and oppressive means to do so.


what do you suggest they do? We* were going to raid it in drag but then the 'stupid idea' fairy visited us in the night and we decided a room full of beered up cunts and 5 london bouncers was not worth it for an event we didn't even think was significant (we're more about http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/03/423988.html ). I'm more than happy with the path chosen by the protestors who did attend - what's wrong with that? Its so much better than a static 'boo hoo' picket alone that really would have reinforced feminists as moany twats. At least the lock on and the disruption said 'fuck you' a bit more.

If you believe:


> pageants do maintain and reinforce stereotypes about female beauty, the role and status of women in society and are an antedeluvian concept


what do you want women to do about them? Its all perfectly legal and totally the individuals choice etc etc, so what is it that you think can be done? 



> In both cases, stereotypes are reinforced


Oh no, what are we going to do. What next, CEO's fear reds would confiscate their money and possibly kill some of them? Trade unionists not sure management have workers best interests at heart? lol

* we = the anarchist studes i knock about with. The locked on people are from my university feminist group, the protest was largely their work 
No idea who it was that went inside but i thought their communique was fucking brilliant, the sexa and the city bit was genius.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Mar 12, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> I think the accordian was a bad idea tho, but that's more my dislike of accordians than a political statement


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 12, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> what do you suggest they do? We* were going to raid it in drag but then the 'stupid idea' fairy visited us in the night and we decided a room full of beered up cunts and 5 london bouncers was not worth it for an event we didn't even think was significant (we're more about http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/03/423988.html ). I'm more than happy with the path chosen by the protestors who did attend - what's wrong with that? Its so much better than a static 'boo hoo' picket alone that really would have reinforced feminists as moany twats. At least the lock on and the disruption said 'fuck you' a bit more.
> 
> If you believe:
> 
> ...



I was merely pointing to the multiplicity of ironies and contradictions of the whole evening - personally I agree with the protestors wrt pageants.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Mar 12, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> Um, far be it for me to throw a spanner in the works, but what about those women who actually like doing this sort of contest? They do exist, you know.



God what a great thread this has been


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2009)

Bristly Pioneer said:


> Voilent?



Is that, like, getting aggressive with net curtains?


----------



## Koshka (Mar 12, 2009)

Check out the video:

 

x


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 12, 2009)

Koshka said:


> Check out the video:
> 
> 
> 
> x


 class

_i mean, how embarassing for me...._


----------



## cesare (Mar 12, 2009)

That video is excrutiating


----------



## Bristly Pioneer (Mar 13, 2009)

the video's amazing, top marks.

What a horrible horrible place


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 13, 2009)

That's what *fascism* looks like


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2009)

fascion innit


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 13, 2009)

Koshka said:


> Check out the video:
> 
> 
> 
> x




Yeah that'll show 'em, let off a stink bomb and throw some paper at people. Yeah! Take that you filthy, stereotype enforcing fascists. YEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Apr 20, 2009)

Smoky said:


> Yeah that'll show 'em, let off a stink bomb and throw some paper at people. Yeah! Take that you filthy, stereotype enforcing fascists. YEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!



...the event was fucked. Indeed, that *will* show them.

No one called anyone a fascist.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 20, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> ...the event was fucked. Indeed, that *will* show them.
> 
> No one called anyone a fascist.



Based on that video evidence the event was far from being fucked.


----------



## dylans (Apr 21, 2009)

Why is it always "smash" this and "smash" that with you people. Why can't it be "break" or "crack" or "chip" or "fracture" or "slightly damage" ? Noooooo, it has to be "smash," so aggressive and negative. Anyway it didn't look particularly "smashed" to me. Perhaps it could have been "mildly interrupt with childish pranks and throw paper around in an annoying manner and generally behave like irritating patronising intolerant brats who think we know what's best for all women the Miss University contest" That has a good ring to it.


----------



## jæd (Apr 21, 2009)

dylans said:


> Why is it always "smash" this and "smash" that with you people. Why can't it be "break" or "crack" or "chip" or "fracture" or "slightly damage" ? Noooooo, it has to be "smash," so aggressive and negative. Anyway it didn't look particularly "smashed" to me. Perhaps it could have been "mildly interrupt with childish pranks and throw paper around in an annoying manner and generally behave like irritating patronising intolerant brats who think we know what's best for all women the Miss University contest" That has a good ring to it.



Because its always easier to smash and break stuff, rather than providing a (realistic) alternative. Anyhow, people shouldn't be allowed to have fun or be pretty or nuffink. Or think they are better than anyone. They should all conform to regulation body shape derived by Committee and any one better looking should wear a bag over their head.

Another sterling protest that has changed people's attitudes...!


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 21, 2009)

jæd said:


> Because its always easier to smash and break stuff, rather than providing a (realistic) alternative. *Anyhow, people shouldn't be allowed to have fun or be pretty or nuffink*. Or think they are better than anyone. They should all conform to regulation body shape derived by Committee and any one better looking should wear a bag over their head.
> 
> Another sterling protest that has changed people's attitudes...!



I love it when people give an opinion without knowing the arguments.


----------



## fogbat (Apr 21, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I love it when people give an opinion without knowing the arguments.



Hi! Welcome to Urban


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 21, 2009)

Where's my hobnob


----------



## purplex (Apr 21, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I love it when people give an opinion without knowing the arguments.



I suppose these people oppose the taliban too, what is a lady to do? Go shopping and sod the lot of them. Thats what. Dont forget daddys Amex.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 21, 2009)

Where's my fucking hobnob you cunts.


----------



## brasicritique (Apr 21, 2009)

Everthing that is wrong with radical politics can be seen in that stupid video 'Smash' And all the ' pro feminist men' on this thread or ' men pretending to really like yknow support feminists , in a totally 100% neutral way...' as it were  a solitary stink bomb


----------



## albionism (Apr 22, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


>



That looks like the most poorly attended squat party ever.


----------



## Riklet (Apr 22, 2009)

Sounds like shitting on someone's parade to be honest; there are better ways to get the point across than fucking with their event like that.  It seems very puerile.

Yes, blah blah reinforced stereotypes blah blah patriarchal oppression.  I see why it's controversial, and personally i'm not really in favour of such events, but that doesn't change much.  There are more needy causes in the world IMO..... maybe protest about the Saudi Arabian government's treatment of women or something?


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 22, 2009)

what is this rubbish?


----------



## cesare (Apr 22, 2009)

Riklet said:


> Sounds like shitting on someone's parade to be honest; there are better ways to get the point across than fucking with their event like that.  It seems very puerile.
> 
> Yes, blah blah reinforced stereotypes blah blah patriarchal oppression.  I see why it's controversial, and personally i'm not really in favour of such events, but that doesn't change much.  There are more needy causes in the world IMO..... maybe protest about the Saudi Arabian government's treatment of women or something?



Oh, do give over with that Bono shit. Bunch of girls want to give it large on a stage. Bunch of other people want to take the piss. Whoever takes the piss best, wins. It's not that hard.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 22, 2009)

dylans said:


> Why is it always "smash" this and "smash" that with you people. Why can't it be "break" or "crack" or "chip" or "fracture" or "slightly damage" ? Noooooo, it has to be "smash," so aggressive and negative. Anyway it didn't look particularly "smashed" to me. Perhaps it could have been "mildly interrupt with childish pranks and throw paper around in an annoying manner and generally behave like irritating patronising intolerant brats who think we know what's best for all women the Miss University contest" That has a good ring to it.




I've PM'd a mod suggesting the title be amended to the more accurate "mildly interrupt with childish pranks and throw paper around in an annoying manner and generally behave like irritating patronising intolerant brats who think we know what's best for all women the Miss University contest" 

But I've a feeling my entirely reasonable request will be ignored.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I've PM'd a mod suggesting the title be amended to the more accurate "mildly interrupt with childish pranks and throw paper around in an annoying manner and generally behave like irritating patronising intolerant brats who think we know what's best for all women the Miss University contest"
> 
> But I've a feeling my entirely reasonable request will be ignored.



Preach not, good priest.


----------



## Bristly Pioneer (Apr 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I've PM'd a mod suggesting the title be amended to the more accurate "mildly interrupt with childish pranks and throw paper around in an annoying manner and generally behave like irritating patronising intolerant brats who think we know what's best for all women the Miss University contest"
> 
> But I've a feeling my entirely reasonable request will be ignored.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 22, 2009)

Bristly Pioneer said:


>



He's not joking either.  He really did PM a mod.  There swings the weathercock.


----------



## dylans (Apr 22, 2009)

I want credit for the new title


----------



## sam/phallocrat (Apr 23, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> He's not joking either.  He really did PM a mod.  There swings the weathercock.



'kin 'ell Phil, is there _anything_ you *don't* know?????


----------



## Jonti (Apr 23, 2009)

One thing I know for sure is that phildwyer is a fantasist, creep and liar 

A plagiarist too


----------



## Jonti (Apr 23, 2009)

I think the idea of wanking and ejaculating over pics of the contestants was an especially mature and well-thought out challenge to patriarchal values. 

Well done _Bristly Pioneer_ and all you other Wankers for Feminism!


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 23, 2009)

dylans said:


> Why is it always "smash" this and "smash" that with you people.



Smash the system!


----------



## _float_ (Apr 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Wankers for Feminism!


Where do I sign up?


----------



## Riklet (Apr 25, 2009)

cesare said:


> Oh, do give over with that Bono shit. Bunch of girls want to give it large on a stage. Bunch of other people want to take the piss. Whoever takes the piss best, wins. It's not that hard.



 Sorry for summoning up an image of Bono in your mind! 

Fair enough, clearly it was EPIC LULZ disrupting teh snooty girls' bullshit, pats on the back all 'round.  

Just cos the lady haw-hawing about "her moment" is a right bint doesn't change my view that whilst I find such stuff kinda questionable and a bit objectionable, I don't think forcing others to think the same _for their own good_ is any better.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 25, 2009)

Riklet said:


> I don't think forcing others to think the same _for their own good_ is any better.



oh what, you mean the fascists on here? I agree.

Everyone goes around bleating about that word, they wanna look in the fuckin mirror.


----------



## pk (Apr 26, 2009)

Koshka said:


> Maybe ill beat you up a bit.
> 
> Sure i could knock some systemic critique into you. Would that help you to understand the subtle dynamics of cultural and social politics?
> 
> ...



Fucks sake, you're no more being "oppressed" by a student beauty pageant than I'm being "oppressed" by Gok Wan on TV.

I despise the concept of the pageant, it's American crap that has no place in the UK so I don't give a toss about it, but you should maybe look at the bigger picture and choose your targets slightly more intelligently next time.


----------



## Koshka (Apr 28, 2009)

Why not read this article we wrote about the action:

http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2009/04/stink_bombing_t


----------



## jæd (Apr 28, 2009)

Koshka said:


> Why not read this article we wrote about the action:
> 
> http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2009/04/stink_bombing_t



Because its full of wishy-washy pseudo-feminist bollocks...?  Its almost classic A student guff.

"The ‘choice’ to take part in a beauty pageant is rooted in a historical and social context, and the individual decision made by contestants to enter is not just a personal one. It justifies and perpetuates a culture which demeans women by limiting their power to a superficial, subjective and transient appeal. "

I'd be interested how people are forced to enter beauty contests.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Apr 28, 2009)

I am going to find the people who did 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' and throw stink bombs at them because I am being OPPRESSED by the systemic gayification of fashion. They present this heinous activity as 'free choice' but why should I have to wear tank tops and fitted shirts just so they can get cheap thrills out of 'tsjuzjing' my style? I resist the systemic objectification of straight men as unstylish losers. I dream of a future in which teh gays will never be able to tell me what to wear. When all straight men will be able to choose to wear socks with sandals and clashing belt-shoe combos. REVOLUTION NOW


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 28, 2009)

jæd said:


> Because its full of wishy-washy pseudo-feminist bollocks...?  Its almost classic A student guff.
> 
> "The ‘choice’ to take part in a beauty pageant is rooted in a historical and social context, and the individual decision made by contestants to enter is not just a personal one. It justifies and perpetuates a culture which demeans women by limiting their power to a superficial, subjective and transient appeal. "
> 
> I'd be interested how *people are forced to enter beauty contests*.



Does the article say that people are forced?


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 28, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> I am going to find the people who did 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' and throw stink bombs at them because I am being OPPRESSED by the systemic gayification of fashion. They present this heinous activity as 'free choice' but why should I have to wear tank tops and fitted shirts just so they can get cheap thrills out of 'tsjuzjing' my style? I resist the systemic objectification of straight men as unstylish losers. I dream of a future in which teh gays will never be able to tell me what to wear. When all straight men will be able to choose to wear socks with sandals and clashing belt-shoe combos. REVOLUTION NOW



Are you this much of a prick in real life?


----------



## Wolveryeti (Apr 28, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Are you this much of a prick in real life?



E2A: I just can't help myself. The po-faced histrionics in that article are just too funny.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 28, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> E2A: I just can't help myself.



You said it.


----------



## purplex (Apr 29, 2009)

Koshka said:


> Why not read this article we wrote about the action:
> 
> http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2009/04/stink_bombing_t





> Until we can choose not to be sleazed over while we are young and pretty
> 
> until we can choose not to be ignored if we are old or unattractive,
> 
> until we can choose not to be told we are ugly and jealous when we question this



There are women are in virtually every field you care to mention that are really very highly respected, where they are valued for their contribution not their looks, young and old. Its talent and ability that shine through. 

You are saying that to enter a beauty competition is to pander to a patriarchal society, maybe so or may its because the women "themselves" wish to feel beautiful or "popular". Its rather arrogant to assume their reason for entering on their behalf. 

That women are chosing to take part in this competition themselves is the issue that imo is most pertinent, you appear to be wanting to restrict their freedom of choice. Thats really rather repressive, invasive and unfair. 

Its quite rude to assume that anyone challenging you is judging you for your beauty in return. I doubt they are, its that your arguments in the modern age and in this society dont ring true to many people.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2009)

Koshka said:


> Why not read this article we wrote about the action:
> 
> http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2009/04/stink_bombing_t



This is a call to overturn real life condtions for everyone.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2009)

purplex said:


> You are saying that to enter a beauty competition is to pander to a patriarchal society, maybe so or may its because the women "themselves" wish to feel beautiful or "popular"



You are the thickest poster on these boards right now.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 29, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> You are the thickest poster on these boards right now.


length or girth?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2009)

Actually, badco (i don't think monkey chanting is racist) wins this one.


----------



## purplex (Apr 29, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> You are the thickest poster on these boards right now.



maybe, but your the most abusive, abuse is your stock response to anyone with a differing opinion.  its boring.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2009)

Another west country insight. ta


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 29, 2009)

purplex said:


> There are women are in virtually every field you care to mention that are really very highly respected, where they are valued for their contribution not their looks, young and old. Its talent and ability that shine through.
> 
> You are saying that to enter a beauty competition is to pander to a patriarchal society, maybe so or may its because the women "themselves" wish to feel beautiful or "popular". Its rather arrogant to assume their reason for entering on their behalf.
> 
> ...



What if your choices are only such because they're the choices your culture has socially constructed as being acceptable?
To put it more simply, what if part of the reason a woman might wish to feel "popular" or "beautiful" is because her society and culture hold popularity and beauty as more valid determinants of worth for women than, for example, intelligence? Why should anyone have to exist in a world where talent and ability aren't enough, where one also needs to "look the part"?


----------



## Koshka (Apr 29, 2009)

For those of you who are repeating the same arguments about free choice and questioning our right to impose our views upon others, you might find it interesting to hear from other women who have felt oppressed in the same way we have, and who therefore appreciate and understand the action we took. 

The confrontational nature of the action has obviously ruffled some feathers. Maybe it is necessary to do this so people can get some sense of the pressures women are under, by the daily demonstrations of the kind of sexism which is normalised by the pageant and through the media and interactions with people in public spaces.  

And ( although this has been said before) we are not "retro" to respond to old-fashioned sexism. Women's struggles are not a trend which can go out of style, and there will be women challenging patriarchal bullshit as long as it exists.  Would you criticise the Visteon workers for being out of step with modernity because the workers are once again being screwed over by their bosses? 

Here is a selection of comments from women who have written to us about the action and the recent article. Hopefully this will help you to see that there are a lot of women (and some men as well) who know what we mean.

"I have both read your article here on The F Word as well as taken a look
at your website, and I'm glad to see firm action being taken! I also often
find that I'm made to feel as though it's somehow unacceptable and 'square'
to openly speak up against the objectification and sexualisation of women
in these ways, as though I'm the one who is not understanding or accepting
of this modern 'freedom' that women have in choosing to be judged by their
looks.

I found the response to the 'desert island' question particularly
cringing. The whole bimbo and air-headed feel of the pageant completely
undermines the fact that these women are meant to be university students:
using their brains and not their bodies to get ahead in this world. It's
things like this that really makes me sometimes sigh in despondency - is
this all we get, after generations of fighting for women's liberation? But
of course it's not all doom and gloom because there are still people
willing to put energy and effort into standing up against it.

So a huge well done and congratulations on your successful protest! I
really hope it has opened people's eyes."

"I love the fact that you disrupted the pagaent, and I think the article
shows why we need to keep repeating ourselves, over and over again, on why
events like this need to go and the culture driving them needs to change. I
cant believe the participants seriously thought it was empowering. I find
it really disheartening that so many people - men AND women - seem to
support stuff like this, and drone on about jealous protestors. It seems
like we havent moved on at all since the 70s! What makes the situation
worse is that marketing departments and advertisers have cottoned on to the
fact that men's insecurities can be exploited as profitably as women's, and
the beauty industry is increasingly aiming to make money from them. You can
see it in the higher number of billboards with pictures of men with
rippling six packs!! and the growing number of products for them. This
doesnt help women, and it's starting to suck men into the situation that
women have been in for generations. It's like we're going backwards."


"o Hoo, Just read about the cattle market protest (sorry, beauty contest)
Excellent! Glad that you got some messages across but pretty apalled (but
sadly believing it ) about the way the "gentlemen" there treated you. Am
sick to the back teeth of seeing things in the media like the question,
directed at an objectified woman "Hot or Not?" Who gives a fudge, is she a
nice person or not. Well done again."

"Hi,

I don't know if I'm emailing the right place, but I just wanted to say
well fucking done. The more intelligent people around me blither on
about how raunch culture and these type of events are 'liberating' or
'harmless' or 'natural', the more alone I feel in seeing the damage it
does. The majority of people's complacency in shrugging feminism off
as a battle won is desperately infuriating. I get tired of fighting my
corner and being jovially known in circles as 'the feminist' - where
is the support??

So, I thank you."

I put these comments up to add voices to the debate (and to cheer up anyone who is reading this thread and feeling depressed about the reaction from some of the posters.)

Also, as the free choice question seems so stubborn, check out this article about it.  It very interestingly unpicks the argument and clarifies a lot about the difficulties of the liberal position of "freedom". It takes a lot from Susan Griffin's distinction between Liberty and Liberation, which I think is pertinent also.

http://www.giantleap.org/envision/choice.htm


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 29, 2009)

But those aren't the only choices, are they? Maybe 20/30 years ago, but to say that the only way a woman can demonstrate her worth now is via a beauty contest, and that this is the _only_ choice they have is bollocks.

I've watched this thread with interest, and it's basically gone round the same point time after time, restarting about 20 or so posts ago. As I said earlier, everyone comes out of this happy. The protest team are happy because they got to disrupt the night, the men attending get to be happy because all the popular prejudices they have about feminists have been met...in fact, the only person who didn't have a happy night is the winner.

So much like the G20 protest where everyone, except for Ian Tomlinson's family, got what they wanted.


----------



## purplex (Apr 29, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> What if your choices are only such because they're the choices your culture has socially constructed as being acceptable?
> To put it more simply, what if part of the reason a woman might wish to feel "popular" or "beautiful" is because her society and culture hold popularity and beauty as more valid determinants of worth for women than, for example, intelligence? Why should anyone have to exist in a world where talent and ability aren't enough, where one also needs to "look the part"?



We are talking about highly intelligent, educated women, this wasnt a bunch of bimbos who have only their beauty to fall back on, who got their places in university on the back of the length of their skirts, and the strightness of their fringes, quite the opposite. These are women who will go on and achieve a successful career regardless of their looks and despite a patriarchal culture.
The assumption being made is women are valued more highly for their "external beauty" than any other attributes and that anyone without those attributes is disregarded. Thats rubbish IMO. Its not a society I recognise.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Apr 29, 2009)

purplex said:


> We are talking about highly intelligent, educated women



That kinda makes it sadder in a way*. 

And women are still so judged on their looks, much more than their male counterparts anyway.

*by this I mean that a woman who is recognised as having a lot of other things going for her still is, and still wants to be primarily defined for her looks in a certain context beyond initial mate attraction/casual sex

edit: and bimbo?


----------



## XR75 (Apr 29, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> You are the thickest poster on these boards right now.



Ah yes the old someone doesn't agree with the nonsense in this thread so obviously they're an idiot.




			
				Agent Sparrow said:
			
		

> And women are still so judged on their looks, much more than their male counterparts anyway.



They can also exploit their looks more than man.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 30, 2009)

XR75 said:


> They can also exploit their looks more than man.



let me get this straight, I must be thick or something. In a male dominant society females can and do 'exploit' the traits most advantageous to them as defined by male approval? Wow, that's deep

Mirror, mirror, on the wall


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 30, 2009)

XR75 said:


> Ah yes the old someone doesn't agree with the nonsense in this thread so obviously they're an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> They can also exploit their looks more than man.



Oh look, U75’s resident misogynist drops into the thread like a tiny piece of bird crap falling out of sky on a cloudy day. Go on, do your “feminazi” routine so you can get back to your other hobby of masturbating furiously over Max Hardcore films whilst sobbing about living under the tyranny of the matriarch.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2009)

purplex said:


> We are talking about highly intelligent, educated women....


I think you're missing my point, which is that if you are socially conditioned into assuming particular roles are suitable to a particular gender, than even if society has attempted to mitigate or erase the outward signs of this and it's effects, that conditioning is still internalised into the identity of individual women, whatever their intelligence and educational attainment.
That isn't to say that such conditioning *will* have a bad effect on the individual, but it's certainly fair to say that it *could* have an effect. 


> ...this wasnt a bunch of bimbos who have only their beauty to fall back on, who got their places in university on the back of the length of their skirts, and the strightness of their fringes, quite the opposite. These are women who will go on and achieve a successful career regardless of their looks and despite a patriarchal culture.


I disagree. These are women who *may* go on to achieve a successful career, in some cases, *in spite of* a patriarchal culture, in spite of workplace sexism and in spite of the still highly-visible under-representation of women in senior workplace positions.


> The assumption being made is women are valued more highly for their "external beauty" than any other attributes and that anyone without those attributes is disregarded. Thats rubbish IMO. Its not a society I recognise.


Except that no-one has actually made that assumption.


----------



## purplex (Apr 30, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> let me get this straight, I must be thick or something. In a male dominant society females can and do 'exploit' the traits most advantageous to them as defined by male approval? Wow, that's deep
> 
> Mirror, mirror, on the wall



http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090430/tpl-kenyan-women-to-sex-starve-men-for-p-fad63c7.html

Women's activist groups in Kenya have called for a seven-day sex ban on the country's men in an attempt to shock the political class into overcoming bitter feuds and working together. 

Ida Odinga has given her backing to the seven-day sex ban Enlarge photo

"This is a national boycott to show that the women of this country have resolved to push for reforms," Rukia Subow of Maendeleo ya Wanawake of the G10 umbrella of Kenyan women's organisations said late Wednesday.

The activists argued that the country's egocentric male leaders should have no time for matters of the flesh when the east African nation is ensnared in economic and political trouble.

The grouping even said it would pay prostitutes to join the strike.

"We want an urgent solution to the political problems facing this country," Subow said, urging the wives of quarrelling coalition partners President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga to support the movement.

The premier's wife, Ida Odinga, said she supported the strike body and soul.

"This should not be seen as a punishment to men, it is a measure that is aimed at drawing their attention to the real issues," she told AFP.

Patricia Nyaudi, executive director of the Federation of Women Lawyers, argued the initiative was more than just a media stunt and was aimed at promoting a stronger sense of sacrifice.

"Let people not end up trivialising this issue. It is a serious one and needs attention. The idea is to deny ourselves what we consider essential for the good of our country," she said.

Raila accused Kibaki of stealing the December 2007 presidential election, prompting protests that spiralled into a cycle of tribal violence and killed around 1,500 people.

The two rivals were pressured into a power-sharing deal by an international mediation but lingering tensions, petty disputes and individual appetites have crippled the coalition government and fuelled wide popular discontent.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 30, 2009)

I don't get too excited by beauty contests now, it is not as if they are pervasive and as long as the people that engage with them know what they are doing it seems little skin of my nose. 

I certainly do not get excited enough about it to protest. 

I get much more excited about the prevalence of womens images in mens and womens mags which are at the moment growing like topsy. Someone mentioned that men are now being targetted by the beauty mafia and while this is true, the majority of images in mens and womens mags are of women NOT of men. And they are all of a type, slim, sometimes overly so.


----------



## jæd (Apr 30, 2009)

Koshka said:


> The confrontational nature of the action has obviously ruffled some feathers. Maybe it is necessary to do this so people can get some sense of the pressures women are under, by the daily demonstrations of the kind of sexism which is normalised by the pageant and through the media and interactions with people in public spaces.



What are you going to do next...? Occupy the offices of OK! until they stop publishing pictures of pretty women...? 



Koshka said:


> Here is a selection of comments from women who have written to us about the action and the recent article. Hopefully this will help you to see that there are a lot of women (and some men as well) who know what we mean.



A self-selecting group of people off the Internet agreed with you. Well done...!


----------



## dylans (Apr 30, 2009)

Lets look at what the issue really is here. This is not about whether you like or hate beauty contests. This argument is not about the oppressive nature of these events. It is about whether it is ok to disrupt one. 

I don't particularly like these events. I find them dull as dishwater. 

However,  It seems reasonable to me to say that If you don't like these events, don't go. Tell everyone it is crap if you want. That is one thing, but disrupt it? Why? You don't like beauty contests .They do. You think they are offensive. They don't. You think they are symptomatic of patriarchal oppression blah blah. They don't agree with you. Why should your view imposed? Why do you think it's Ok for the event to be banned because you say so? because you don't like it? Are you so arrogant that you truly believe that your view is the only one possible. So true that it should be imposed on others. This is what disrupting an event you disagree with amounts to. You dislike it so it shouldn't be allowed. It should be "smashed!"

No! you don't have the right to impose your view like that. Whatever the rights and wrongs of beauty contests. We live in a society that should celebrate a plurality of  lifestyles and choices.Even if we don't like some of them.  Both you and the beauty contest people are entitled to your opinions but neither has the right to interfere in the activities of the other. You can dislike it but you don't have the right to stop that event happening just because you don't like it.

If the beauty contest people came and disrupted your weekly "smash male oppression" meetings, you would be the first to scream that you are being denied your rights. 

Is it an arms fair or a BNP rally? No, it's a dumb beauty contest. I think you should lighten up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2009)

XR75 said:


> Ah yes the old someone doesn't agree with the nonsense in this thread so obviously they're an idiot.


Except that he hasn't made that argument at all.


> They can also exploit their looks more than man.


And why is that, do you think?
Could it have anything to do with patriarchy, with sexism and with the objectification of women? Would women be able to "exploit their looks" to the degree you're insinuating if they *weren't* being at least partly judged on their looks?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2009)

jæd said:


> What are you going to do next...? Occupy the offices of OK! until they stop publishing pictures of pretty women...?
> 
> 
> 
> A self-selecting group of people off the Internet agreed with you. Well done...!



Good old jaed. Always with your piercing insight and observations. 

And your  smilies, of course.


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

Koshka, you have failed to answer a simple question  and posting the views of a few other people who agree with you doesn't change that. The simple question is Why do you think that you being offended by this event is cause enough for you to disrupt it. (or "smash it in your words?) You can  be offended, you can disagree with the event, you can argue against the event you can try and persuade people to no attend. You can even demonstrate about it. I have no problem with you doing any of that. However why do you think, that disagreeiing with this event or disliking this event or being offended by this event gives you just cause to disrupt it? 
Isn't this an appallingly arrogant assumption? to assume that because you dislike something noone has the right to enjoy it? 
So can I disrupt every event that I dislike or find offensive? Am I entitled to disrupt movies I dislike or destroy books that offend me or "smash political meetings by those who I disagree with? 
Am I entitled to disrupt meetings of your student feminist group because I disagree with you? Can I come to your uni and "smash" your events?

I would really like to hear an answer to this question. I am not here debating the rights or wrongs of the event itself, just your assumption that because you feel it is offensive that you have carte blanche right to disrupt it or to stop those who don't agree with you to enjoy the event. 

Oh and I read your link about choice. I fail to see where that provides a justification for disruptinig an event that you decide to be offensive.


----------



## Koshka (May 1, 2009)

The reason we felt it was “justified” is because we believe in direct action as a tactic; one among many, but a particularly effective one. Often it is the provocative, confrontational actions such as the direct action of the suffragettes and the queer rights movements, which serve to push forward an issue in a challenging way, and actually get people talking about it. It is about looking for ways to speak which might actually be heard. Protesting obediently in a manner approved by the council and the police, being careful not to step out of line, is very easy to ignore. This is proved time and time again and has happened a lot throughout recent history. 

The point of disrupting an event like this one is not merely to ruin someone’s evening in a dog in the manger type way, but rather hoping to do these things:

Draw attention to something, open dialogue about something, bring issues to the forefront. 

Make a symbolic point. The beauty contest is a tangible symbol of other subtle cultural dynamics which we experience every day. We are looking for ways to challenge that, and one of the ways we have chosen is to physically disrupt a physical expression of it.  The beauty contest is symptomatic of a certain kind of attitude and cultural pattern which is dangerous in lots of ways, and affects and denigrates women whether they are accepted as sexy looking or not. And we think that those modalities which this sort of thing feeds into are connected to rape, domestic violence, the pay gap. 

Demonstrate to the organisers and contestants that there is dissent to the accepted mainstream beauty myth which they are attempting to normalise and monetise.  And the reason we chose the word “smash” (as well as the attempted wry-ness of which obviously went over most people’s heads, ) was to express some of the strength of the feeling which arises from, amongst other things, the cumulative pressures that we get from being judged incessantly on the street, in public, work and social spaces, and a building up of rage at this disrespect and subtle intimidation and assertion of power. 

Cause problems for the organisers of the event, who are making money out of the social inequalities of our society (which are more subtle than a woman being physically forced to enter a beauty contest, and are about social contexts and expectations as some other poster have mentioned.)


Im sorry you didn’t see the connection with the article; what I found interesting in relation to this issue is 
"The paradigm of free speech is an absolutist one, championing a cause based on the street corner radical, inveighing from her soapbox unhindered by police authorities. Their paradigm is also obsolete, and increasingly conservative, since the impact of individuals like street corner radicals on the arena of public discourse have been totally eclipsed by the corporate media, cable TV, and the fetishized privacy of the VCR generation. Practically speaking, most people today cannot afford to produce the kind of media that impacts public discourse. The free speech -- the "liberty" -- of corporations like NBC and the New York Times are hardly equal, either in frequency or quantity, to the free speech of most individuals, whether the latter yell at the top of their lungs from a street corner or not.”

The connection is that the voices from the public arena which support the kind of atmosphere of the beauty contest are so much stronger than ours, so we feel that to sit back and protest over the road while we are ignored and written off as ugly and stupid ( as we heard people saying in the queue to get in the club about the protesters picketing the contest) will not ultimately be as effective as making our voices louder with the force of our actions and doing something they do not expect.

We are not arrogantly forcefully declaring our way or the highway; we are merely adding our voices to those overwhelmingly loud norms which are shouting us down everyday.

Just as you can’t blow up a social relationship, you can’t “smash” patriarchy just by disrupting a beauty pageant, but it’s a good place to start, because the main  way to effect actual change in this area is to hope people talk to each other and start to think in different ways about gender and power relationships in their own lives. Discussions like this one and others which have been prompted by the action, go some way to keeping that dialogue going, and to develop solidarity and communication between women and men to keep the energy up for this sometimes infuriating struggle. And that’s why we wanted to do something controversial, to bring up the issues behind it.

Also, the disruption of a beauty pageant is a clear reference to the protests in the late sixties and early seventies who targeted them as symbols of women’s oppression. By disrupting and attempting to sabotage the contest, we are pointing to that struggle in order to question the post-feminist assumption that it’s all fine now. I agree with those womens rights to disrupt the pageant then, and with ours to do the same now. I also think it is acceptable to disrupt  AGMs for arms companies, award ceremonies for BP and SHELL CEOs and other vile companies, I think it is acceptable to attempt to blockade weapons factories and WTO summits, even if it means inconveniencing someone else for a little while.  

I also disagree with your hierarchy of struggle – through your inferring that arms traders and the bnp are “more worthy” of protest that something related to womens rights.

Also, we like misbehaving women, there aren’t enough of them.

Also, don’t assume that we are a “student feminist group”. 

Also, we would actually love it if someone from the beauty contest approached us, and would not “scream that we were being denied our rights” (Your wording reminds me unfortunately of the tendency within the white male monolith of dismissing women as hysterical and impractical when they stand up for themselves or attempt anything other than total compliance) In fact if anyone knows any of the contestants do get in touch as we would like to invite them to an event on feminism which we are participating in.
 Also, we don’t need to lighten up, that’s another assumption. Another thing about direct action is that it can be fun and exciting to get a sense that you can actually effect things sometimes, even in a small way.

And if you are feel like us being feminists is adding to the social pressures that you feel in your life, and you have the desire to disrupt our process, then by all means welcome to have a cup of tea with us and we can talk it through. We won’t scream or anything.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 1, 2009)

weltweit said:


> I get much more excited about the prevalence of womens images in mens and womens mags which are at the moment growing like topsy. Someone mentioned that men are now being targetted by the beauty mafia and while this is true, the majority of images in mens and womens mags are of women NOT of men. And they are all of a type, slim, sometimes overly so.



True dat. Or in mens mags they're slim with big boobs, a figure not many women have naturally. Photoshop makes the ideal even more unattainable.

As for disrupting a beauty contest, I dunno. I wouldn't want to ban them because I don't really want to ban things unless absolutely necessary, but I also think that it's important to have a discourse about them that at least partly involves a critique of them. Disruption makes that critique a bit more out there than arguing on a BB, but I'm not sure I'd so it myself.


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

Ok, thanks for the reply. So disrupting the event was simply a stunt to ignite a debate (such as this one?) But what are you saying strategicaly about such an event.Are you saying they should be forbidden, made illegal? 

_"Beauty contests are ridiculous and demeaning. This pageant should not be happening, and should be disrupted all the way."_

In your opinion. Your opinion, beauty contests should not be happening? Who are you to decide what should or should not be happening? You don't have a mandate to speak for all women. 

If your strategic aim is not to have beauty contests forbidden, made illegal, banned etc,  then the disruption of a perfectly legal event, in which the participants were consenting adults taking part of their own free will, was simply to get yourselves heard? And throwing stink bombs etc is a reasonable way of getting yourselves heard In your opinion?

You say you would love it if someone from the beauty contest approached you. But its not a question of approach is it? Would you love it if they came to a meeting of yours and threw stink bombs, heckled the speaker on the podium and then stormed the stage? Are you saying that you feel that would be a reasonable way for the beauty contest organisers to get your attention?  that you would love it, if they did that? I think not. 

As i said, I have no problem with you opposing the contest, putting forward your point of view etc.I have a problem with the assumption that because you felt the event was offensive and demeaning that you have the right to "smash" the event ot to impose by force your view that the event "shouldn't be happening"

This raises serious and important questions about freedom of speech and concepts of tolerance and liberty that shouldn't be lightly disregarded for all our sakes. Because if you can disrupt an event that, in your and only your opinion, is offensive then where does this stop? Am I also entitled to disrupt events that I politically oppose? Am I entitled to throw stink bombs in the cinemas where movies I find offensive are been shown or bookshops that sell books whose viewpoint i find offensive? If so who decides what is an acceptable subject for disruption? You?

And no, I do not think the paradigm of free speech is obsolete. I think that is an appallingly smug and dangerous view for people to hold. 
 On the contrary, a defence of  freedom of speech, belief, assembly and lifestyle is  more essential than ever. Perhaps it is inadequate but it is all we have to safeguard all our views all our activities and all our beliefs from the tyranny of those who disagree and would rather we didn't hold them. Give those (like you) who would decide what is best for us power and you can kiss all our freedoms goodbye. And that includes your freedoms too. It is only by tolerating, indeed celebrating a diversity of beliefs, lifestyles and opinions that we can all be free to explore and express our own. 
 I would oppose the actions of your political opponents if they sought to disrupt an event organised by you in the same way that I oppose the way you disrupted this event.

Finally., I don't think I really need to comment on your ridiculous claim that something related to an arms fair or the BNP is of no more importance than a beauty contest. I think the absurdity of that statement speaks volumes about you frankly.


----------



## purplex (May 1, 2009)

The direct action was pretty harmless and a little bit silly, while I dont agree with the basis of some of your arguments, I do respect the right for you to defend what you believe in, however Im personally more inspired by the creative and artistic methods of demonstrating such beliefs, such as the anti-fur campaign. Present someone with imagery that they have to question and you may get people to start challenging their own beliefs.


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

purplex said:


> The direct action was pretty harmless and a little bit silly, while I dont agree with the basis of some of your arguments, I do respect the right for you to defend what you believe in, however Im personally more inspired by the creative and artistic methods of demonstrating such beliefs, such as the anti-fur campaign. Present someone with imagery that they have to question and you may get people to start challenging their own beliefs.



Yes. I agree with that. I have no problem with you demonstrating creatively for what you believe. I have a problem with actions that either in practice or symbolically send a message that  says "I find A offensive therefore it shouldn't happen"

Personally, as a liberal defender of Millsian liberty I find _that _view offensive. Can I throw stink bombs at your next meeting?


----------



## XR75 (May 1, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> And why is that, do you think?
> Could it have anything to do with patriarchy, with sexism and with the objectification of women? Would women be able to "exploit their looks" to the degree you're insinuating if they *weren't* being at least partly judged on their looks?



Women are so oppressed because men like to look at pretty girls, is that what your trying to say? 



Agent Sparrow said:


> True dat. Or in mens mags they're slim with big boobs, a figure not many women have naturally. Photoshop makes the ideal even more unattainable.



Obviously the pictures should be vetted by a panel of people like the protesters so they can impose _their_ standards on the rest of us.


----------



## Blagsta (May 1, 2009)

XR75 said:


> Women are so oppressed because men like to look at pretty girls, is that what your trying to say?
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the pictures should be vetted by a panel of people like the protesters so they can impose _their_ standards on the rest of us.



fuckin'ell, you're an idiot


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> fuckin'ell, you're an idiot



I have come to the conclusion that you're the most unpleasant, obnoxious and just plain nasty person on this site. I have yet to see a single post by you that doesn't reek of arrogance and condescension. Do you think acting like a poisonous twat makes your arguments any more powerful?


----------



## Blagsta (May 1, 2009)

dylans said:


> I have come to the conclusion that you're the most unpleasant, obnoxious and just plain nasty person on this site. I have yet to see a single post by you that doesn't reek of arrogance and condescension. Do you think acting like a poisonous twat makes your arguments any more powerful?



LOL!  Just because you refused to answer my posts on the other thread!

Precious ain't the word.


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> LOL!  Just because you refused to answer my posts on the other thread!
> 
> Precious ain't the word.



No, it's just true. Have a look back on your previous posts and see what the abuse to serious argument ratio is. There is barely a post by you that doesn't include some kind of abuse or personal insult. I just think its sad that you can't make a point without insulting someone or behaving like a nob.

Go on. Have a look at your own posts......You might shock yourself......but I doubt it, mate!


----------



## Blagsta (May 1, 2009)

dylans said:


> No, it's just true. Have a look back on your previous posts and see what the abuse to serious argument ratio is. There is barely a post by you that doesn't include some kind of abuse or personal insult. I just think its sad that you can't make a point without insulting someone or behaving like a nob.
> 
> Go on. Have a look at your own posts......You might shock yourself......but I doubt it, mate!



Get over yourself mate.  Just because you didn't want to respond to my comments on the other thread, doesn't mean you have to resort to abuse.

btw, you might want to look at your own posts?  Just a thought, like.


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Get over yourself mate.  Just because you didn't want to respond to my comments on the other thread, doesn't mean you have to resort to abuse.
> 
> btw, you might want to look at your own posts?  Just a thought, like.


Bollocks (irony intended)


----------



## Blagsta (May 1, 2009)

dylans said:


> Bollocks (irony intended)



I just looked at my last 25 posts.  One insult.  Deserved IMO. 

You need to look at yourself.  Mate


----------



## Blagsta (May 1, 2009)

I just looked at your last 25 posts.  4 insults or personal slurs.

Case rests m'lud.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 1, 2009)

dylans said:


> in practice or symbolically send a message that  says "I find A offensive therefore it shouldn't happen"



Except that isn't what's being said.

It never is actually; not even the most barking group would ever say "this should be stopped because we don't like it", they have a reason why they don't like it and say it should be stopped because of that reason.


----------



## weltweit (May 1, 2009)

Re demonstrating against beauty pagents .. 

Are there really not more important things to do?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 1, 2009)

Argument for never doing anything #12390120...


----------



## cesare (May 1, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Except that isn't what's being said.
> 
> It never is actually; not even the most barking group would ever say "this should be stopped because we don't like it", they have a reason why they don't like it and say it should be stopped because of that reason.



Reasonable freedom to carry out an event, reasonable freedom to respond to it.

Can't see what the fuss is about.

I'm not keen on beauty pageants but I don't feel strongly enough to protest about them (unless I happened to be walking past, and thought the direct action was a bit of a laugh, like). Those that do feel strongly about them will obviously make more of an effort.


----------



## weltweit (May 1, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Argument for never doing anything #12390120...



Well perhaps ..

But I mean there is climate change, the war in Iraq, MPs hands in the till, Tibet, the Gurkhas, etc .. 

It just seems to my way of thinking there are plenty of other things I might be moved to protest about before I disrupted a few young women and their hangers on who are having a beauty pagent. 

Its my view that if they want to do it they are not harming me in the slightest so they should be permitted.


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

Blagsta. A snapshot of a few of your recent posts which demonstrate your perceptive and erudite analysis and thought

"Fuckin'ell, you're an idiot

"im not gonna bother talking to u anymore!"

"Are you this much of a prick in real life?"

"Oh well, fuck 'em then, the workshy losers."

"Are you single perchance?"

"In that case I think you're crazy."

I rest my case.


----------



## Blagsta (May 1, 2009)

dylans said:


> Blagsta. A snapshot of a few of your recent posts which demonstrate your perceptive and erudite analysis and thought
> 
> "Fuckin'ell, you're an idiot
> 
> ...




An inability to spot irony in at least one of those posts!

I can go through your posts and do the same if you like?  However, I think I'll just put you on ignore instead.

Have fun!


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Except that isn't what's being said.
> 
> It never is actually; not even the most barking group would ever say "this should be stopped because we don't like it", they have a reason why they don't like it and say it should be stopped because of that reason.



Yes of course they give their reasons. People wanting to stop, ban, forbid, disrupt and of course, "smash" things always have reasons.

The fundamentalists that wanted to ban Satanic Verses  had their reasons

The christian fundamentalists who picketed "Life if Brian" had their reasons

The moralists who tried to prosecute gay times and the play "The Romans in Britain " had their reasons

the people who picketed "Romper Stomper" had their reasons.

And the people who want to "smash" this beauty contest have their reasons too. 

They are all very different reasons but it comes down to the same thing. We know better than you. We can't trust you to watch, read. listen or attend these things because we don't trust you to think for yourselves and make up your own mind. Our particular offence is so significant that you must bow to it and sacrifice your democratic rights before it.

There is always a reason to want something banned but it comes down to "we don't agree with it because...........(add cause here) The point is they are all right. The offence is very real. Muslims were outraged by Satanic Verses. Christians were mortified by Life of Brian. Gay Times printed a gay love poem to Jesus. "The Romans In Britain" had a gay orgy scene". "Romper Stomper" depicted fascists beating up Vietnamese kids. . All the people who wanted these banned were genuinely and truthfully offended. To which the democratic answer must be TOUGH!! Be offended. You have that right.You don't have the right to demand that I share your outrage. 
You don't have the right to extrapolate from that offence to the idea that because it is offensive it shouldn't be allowed. . Noone has the right to forbid others to speak, perform, write or believe anything on the basis of it not fitting into their world view. There are bigger issues at stake here. The right to offend being one of them. 
As I said before, is it acceptable for me disrupt one of their meetings, take over their microphone and throw stink bombs because I find their view offensive. No  it is not.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 1, 2009)

weltweit said:


> It just seems to my way of thinking there are plenty of other things I might be moved to protest about before I disrupted a few young women and their hangers on who are having a beauty pagent.



I guess the people who object enough to protest see the meaning and impact of beauty pagents as more than the actual event. You mentioned lad mags before - really it's all part of the same thing, the idea that women should be judged on their looks in a way that men aren't.

Edit: talking about the wider picture, one of the things that really pisses me off is we've still got a popular national newspaper with a woman with her tits out on page 3.


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I guess the people who object enough to protest see the meaning and impact of beauty pagents as more than the actual event. You mentioned lad mags before - really it's all part of the same thing, the idea that women should be judged on their looks in a way that men aren't.
> 
> Edit: talking about the wider picture, one of the things that really pisses me off is we've still got a popular national newspaper with a woman with her tits out on page 3.



I find it deeply offensive. It should be banned.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 1, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I guess the people who object enough to protest see the meaning and impact of beauty pagents as more than the actual event. You mentioned lad mags before - really it's all part of the same thing, the idea that women should be judged on their looks in a way that men aren't.
> 
> Edit: talking about the wider picture, one of the things that really pisses me off is we've still got a popular national newspaper with a woman with her tits out on page 3.



The Sun: 'NONCES! NONCEEES!' then on page three, kirsty, just eighteen etc


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 1, 2009)

dylans said:


> I find it deeply offensive. It should be banned.



Are you being sarcastic/making a point in light of your previous posts? 

As I said before, I really don't want things banned unless it's really necessary. However, it would be nice if society changed enough so that there wouldn't be a demand for a woman with her tits out on page 3 of a popular newspaper, or it was just considered socially unacceptable. I guess with all the identity rights movements, legal change has happened a lot quicker than social attitude change.


----------



## weltweit (May 1, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> ... Edit: talking about the wider picture, one of the things that really pisses me off is we've still got a popular national newspaper with a woman with her tits out on page 3.



I find it embarrasing. 

My solution is to make page 4 the mens page and have a semi naked man on there.


----------



## cesare (May 1, 2009)

dylans said:


> There is always a reason to want something banned but it comes down to "we don't agree with it because...........(add cause here) The point is they are all right. The offence is very real. Muslims were outraged by Satanic Verses. Christians were mortified by Life of Brian. Gay Times printed a gay love poem to Jesus. "The Romans In Britain" had a gay orgy scene". "Romper Stomper" depicted fascists beating up Vietnamese kids. . All the people who wanted these banned were genuinely and truthfully offended. To which the democratic answer must be TOUGH!! Be offended. You have that right.You don't have the right to demand that I share your outrage.
> *You don't have the right to extrapolate from that offence to the idea that because it is offensive it shouldn't be allowed. . Noone has the right to forbid others to speak, perform, write or believe anything on the basis of it not fitting into their world view.* There are bigger issues at stake here. The right to offend being one of them.
> As I said before, is it acceptable for me disrupt one of their meetings, take over their microphone and throw stink bombs because I find their view offensive. No  it is not.



Exactly. Which is why any responses to that are just as valid. Let them have their beauty pageant. Let them have their response. You want people to have the freedom to have a beauty pageant (and the arguments as to why beauty pageants are a bad thing maaaaaan are more than adequately explained) so why not allow the freedom of a response?  You just want one-way freedom of expression y/n?


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

cesare said:


> Exactly. Which is why any responses to that are just as valid. Let them have their beauty pageant. Let them have their response. You want people to have the freedom to have a beauty pageant (and the arguments as to why beauty pageants are a bad thing maaaaaan are more than adequately explained) so why not allow the freedom of a response?  You just want one-way freedom of expression y/n?



Absolutely .Read my post. i have said again and again I respect their right to oppose the beauty contest, demonstrate, argue, write, picket, explain. People have the right to be offended. They do not however have the right to disrupt the event, throw stink bombs, seize the stage, grab the microphone or otherwise "smash" the event.


----------



## cesare (May 1, 2009)

dylans said:


> Absolutely .Read my post. i have said again and again I respect their right to oppose the beauty contest, demonstrate, argue, write, picket, explain. People have the right to be offended. They do not however have the right to disrupt the event, throw stink bombs, seize the stage, grab the microphone or otherwise "smash" the event.



What is the particular disruption that you're complaining about?

The wanking booth?


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Are you being sarcastic/making a point in light of your previous posts?
> 
> As I said before, I really don't want things banned unless it's really necessary. However, it would be nice if society changed enough so that there wouldn't be a demand for a woman with her tits out on page 3 of a popular newspaper, or it was just considered socially unacceptable. I guess with all the identity rights movements, legal change has happened a lot quicker than social attitude change.



I completely agree with that. And yes, of course, I was being sarcastic. Personally I would rather drive nails through my feet than read that despicable rag of shit. I wouldn't wipe my backside with it.


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

cesare said:


> What is the particular disruption that you're complaining about?
> 
> The wanking booth?


Sorry? I must be dense. I have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## cesare (May 1, 2009)

dylans said:


> Sorry? I must be dense. I have no idea what you are talking about.




You are objecting to the disruption. Any direct action involves disruption. What particular aspect of the disruption are you objecting to? Or are you saying that all response is disruptive and shouldn't be allowed?


----------



## Greenfish (May 1, 2009)

edited because my comment was _shit_


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

cesare said:


> You are objecting to the disruption. Any direct action involves disruption. What particular aspect of the disruption are you objecting to? Or are you saying that all response is disruptive and shouldn't be allowed?



I;m saying that throwing stink bombs, jumping on the stage, grabbing the microphone is disruption intended to stop the event from taking place. I think that is out of order yes. I think that interferes with the liberty of those who disagree with them.
I have already said that I agree with their right to respond by arguing, demonstrating, writing, picketing the event etc. My argument is with their self proclaimed intention to "smash" the event.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 1, 2009)

dylans said:


> You don't have the right to extrapolate from that offence to the idea that because it is offensive it shouldn't be allowed. . Noone has the right to forbid others to speak, perform, write or believe anything on the basis of it not fitting into their world view. There are bigger issues at stake here. The right to offend being one of them.




Wait - nobody's allowed to interfere with anyone else trying to say or perform etc anything?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 1, 2009)

If anyone dares quote Voltaire at this point it is the equivalent of Godwins


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 1, 2009)

I'm pushing the Godwin envelope a bit actually. I lack entertainment sometimes you know.


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Wait - nobody's allowed to interfere with anyone else trying to say or perform etc anything?



Are you seriously trying to compare a beauty contest with a BNP rally?  Ok, for the sake of argument i will indulge you. The BNP use free speech in order to build a movement intended to take away mine. They use rallies, meetings etc as a weapon to deprive me of my liberty. Disrupting a BNP rally is an act of self defence. 
Disrupting a beauty contest because someone finds it offensive is not the same at all. A beauty contest isn't a rallying call for my enemies to organise for the elimination of freedom and liberty. 

As for the black and white minstrels .No I would oppose disrupting an event like that .I find it offensive and I would oppose such an event by arguing against it, picketing it and explaining to the patrons why I find it offensive. But I wouldn't call for such an event to be banned and i wouldn't rush in and throw stink bombs.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 1, 2009)

It can certainly be argued that beauty contests affect other people not involved. That's the whole point.


----------



## weltweit (May 1, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It can certainly be argued that beauty contests affect other people not involved. That's the whole point.



Perhaps, but in truth I am hardly even aware that they go on these days. I dont go to them, I dont read about them, I dont see them on the telly. 

They are almost an underground movement at the moment and I cannot really say that they affect me at all.


----------



## cesare (May 1, 2009)

I think I'm missing something on this 'stink bomb' thing. Where did all that go down then?


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It can certainly be argued that beauty contests affect other people not involved. That's the whole point.



I think you are on very thin ice here and i think you know it


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 1, 2009)

dylans said:


> I think you are on very thin ice here and i think you know it



Nope, not in the slightest.


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Nope, not in the slightest.



ok. affecting people. upsetting people. offending people is a necessary and inevitable part  of a pluralistic democratic society. We have to indulge activities, views beliefs and lifestyles that we don't like or that offend us because everyone's idea of what is acceptable and what isn't is different. 
Because if we don't then we all lose. 

This thread is a good example. Some people here are horrified by a beauty contest, some think the whole thing is absurd. In a democracy we need to balance both of these views, because they are both valid opinions. How do we do that? By allowing for the beauty contest to take place and for its opponents to demonstrate their opposition to it.That seems to me to be an eminently reasonable and necessary compromise if we wish to live in a society where we enjoy a plurality of views, activities and lifestyles. 

However, When one party (the protestors in this case) attempt to disrupt that event .To smash it. To claim that the event should not take place because their offence is so great. Then they cross the line, break the necessary compromises and tolerances which are essential for a functioning democracy and we are on a slippery slide to tyranny where everything that someone may find offensive is banned.I don't want to live in a society like that
 If we do decide that we can disrupt or ban activity that we dislike, who is to decide what is acceptable and what isn't. You ? Me? The protestors? No-one has a monopoly on truth. The only truth is the principle of celebrating a plurality of ideas. Because that principle protects us all. Its not perfect, there will always be problems , such as the BNP etc but this principle is all we have.
Freedom of speech is a necessary but admittedly inadequate weapon against tyranny.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 1, 2009)

Given your ultra-literal definition of freedom, is NAMBLA an organisation you would allow to exist?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 1, 2009)

> We have to indulge activities, views beliefs and lifestyles that we don't like or that offend us because everyone's idea of what is acceptable and what isn't is different.


You know what, though - we don't. Some aspects of behaviour are irrelevant and objecting to them is stupid or bigoted or whatever. Some are really actively harmful.

If you think the point here is that "some people don't like beauty contests" and that's it, you really do need to look again at the arguments being presented. There are loads of books if you like.


----------



## Wolveryeti (May 1, 2009)

A lot of people are very convinced about some very bonkers things. I don't like the prospect of them drawing the conclusion that society's failure to engage with their ideas warrants periodic assaults on other peoples' freedoms. 

It's too convenient to argue that as a rationale for militancy, a cultural deus ex machina is both:

a) Oppressing you.
b) Stifling any discourse on the matter.

This is standard conspiraloon material. 

Yes people who go to beauty pageants are tossers. I am not shedding any tears on their behalf. But how about Koshka's gang putting clear water between themselves and the tin-foil-hat brigade by, you know, actually justifying the linkages she posits between beauty contests and domestic violence/rape etc. At the moment they are jargon-heavy and substance-lite.


----------



## Greenfish (May 1, 2009)

Dylan - imagine men were up there doing it?  Grinning, posing, showing all their teeth, flexing their muscles-  up there posing and getting praised for it and everyone judging them on how they _really_ look - as if it's their soul reason de etre etc.  What if society really valued them as nothing more than posing, good looking, card-board cut-out men.  what if these men 'perfect' men where everywhere, in all the magazines, billboards, films etc - known only by how well they pose and look.

I think if I was a man, and I was surrounded by that shit, I would want rid of it too. some of that shit does include men (boy bands ect), but, as people have said, the gender playing field is severly tilted and it thus means less.


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Given your ultra-literal definition of freedom, is NAMBLA an organisation you would allow to exist?


Again a straw man. We are talking about a beauty contest involving consenting adults. Throwing child abuse into the mix is just emotive nonsense. I don't think my definition of freedom is particularly ultra literal. I do however think the principle of free speech is an absolutely necessary principle of freedom and one that far too many people are prepared to jettison when something comes along that is offensive to them


----------



## Greenfish (May 1, 2009)

...though not sure banning it is the right way forward...but certainly people should say, and say with confidence without ridicule or called facists, "I think that behaviour is wrong, for x, y, z, reasons and I think we should move away from it as a society".

init.


----------



## weltweit (May 1, 2009)

Greenfish said:


> Dylan - imagine men where up there doing it?  Grinning, posing, showing all their teeth, flexing their muscles-



Have you never heard of bodybuilders?

And they offend me not one iota.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 1, 2009)

dylans said:


> Again a straw man. We are talking about a beauty contest involving consenting adults. Throwing child abuse into the mix is just emotive nonsense. I don't think my definition of freedom is particularly ultra literal. I do however think the principle of free speech is an absolutely necessary principle of freedom and one that far too many people are prepared to jettison when something comes along that is offensive to them



What straw man? you talk about a pluralistic democracy where any view must be tolerated and yet suddenly get intolerant on groups endorsing child abuse.

I think you are a little confused about how freedom works tbf.


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> What straw man? you talk about a pluralistic democracy where any view must be tolerated and yet suddenly get intolerant on groups endorsing child abuse.
> 
> I think you are a little confused about how freedom works tbf.



I think throwing child abuse into this argument is an example of how bankrupt your argument really is. People always do this when they have no arguments left. Porn. Child abuse. Prostitution. Child abuse. Drug legalisation. Child abuse. 
Its a red herring and you know it. We are talking about the activities beliefs and lifestyles of consenting adults not child rapists. To compare a beauty contest with child rape is pretty low and 
you really do your argument no service with this kind of cheap shot


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 1, 2009)

It's an indication that your "freedom of speech" position is based on partiality and basically meaningless.


----------



## Greenfish (May 1, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> No I don't think so. I don't like beauty contests and I would protest against them because I think they are demeaning to women and upholding a stereotype which I don't. However I  would in no way put myself 'above' any women who wants to take part in a beauty contest but rather try to explain to them why I feel the way I do. I hope that doesn't make me seem arrogant
> 
> Oh and I wouldn't _ban _them but I would protest against them



that sounds about right.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 1, 2009)

dylans said:


> I think throwing child abuse into this argument is an example of how bankrupt your argument really is. People always do this when they have no arguments left. Porn. Child abuse. Prostitution. Child abuse. Drug legalisation. Child abuse.
> Its a red herring and you know it. We are talking about the activities beliefs and lifestyles of consenting adults not child rapists. To compare a beauty contest with child rape is pretty low and
> you really do your argument no service with this kind of cheap shot






No, you where talking about voltaire style absolutes and want to wave your hands and cry 'straw man' when someone muddies your high minded clarion call to freedom with actual realities. 

Well I am sorry but if you want to appeal to the freedom is absolute highground in critique of an action then you are forced to acknowledge the flaw in your absolutist stance. Regardless of the subject in hand you have set up on the 'freedom is all' highground. It's a bit cheap to try and smear me as a sensationalist for simply pointing out the failure of your rhetoric.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2009)

XR75 said:


> Women are so oppressed because men like to look at pretty girls, is that what your trying to say?


I'm not trying to say that at all, but if it makes you feel more existentially secure to interpret what I've written that way, then be my guest. I understand that for the likes of you it's far easier to sneer than to make a constructive point.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2009)

dylans said:


> I have come to the conclusion that you're the most unpleasant, obnoxious and just plain nasty person on this site. I have yet to see a single post by you that doesn't reek of arrogance and condescension. Do you think acting like a poisonous twat makes your arguments any more powerful?



You're hardly a paragon of meekness and equanimity yourself.


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> No, you where talking about voltaire style absolutes and want to wave your hands and cry 'straw man' when someone muddies your high minded clarion call to freedom with actual realities.
> 
> Well I am sorry but if you want to appeal to the freedom is absolute highground in critique of an action then you are forced to acknowledge the flaw in your absolutist stance. Regardless of the subject in hand you have set up on the 'freedom is all' highground. It's a bit cheap to try and smear me as a sensationalist for simply pointing out the failure of your rhetoric.



But I accept that the principle is flawed. I have already said it is a necessary but inadequate weapon but an essential one nevertheless. I understand it will cause debate as to where free speech ends and unacceptable intrusion into the liberty of others begins. I don't think it is cut and dried at all. However, i find it disturbing that so many people who enjoy those liberties in the here and now are so eager to throw them out when faced with actions they find offensive such as a beauty contest.
So answer me one question. Who decides? If offence is reason enough for an event such as a beauty contest to be "smashed" then where is the line drawn? 
Satanic Verses? Romper Stomper?  Life of Brian. Who decides? Oh... I get it. You do. No thanks


----------



## dylans (May 1, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're hardly a paragon of meekness and equanimity yourself.


Perhaps i haven't but my arguments have been reasoned and considered,I don't recall screaming abuse at you during this discussion
and why you wish to jump to the defence of a negative, abusive little cretin as Blagsta is beyond me


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Re demonstrating against beauty pagents ..
> 
> Are there really not more important things to do?



Depends on how you look at the world, I suppose.
Where do *you* think any *local* efforts to challenge sexism, challenge patriarchy and it's effects should be targetted? I'd say that a local beauty pageant is as good a place as any, especially in terms of representing some of the issues in a concrete way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Well perhaps ..
> 
> But I mean there is climate change, the war in Iraq, MPs hands in the till, Tibet, the Gurkhas, etc ..



So?

Does the existence of some issues mean you should disregard others?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 2, 2009)

Yeah, I have clearly set myself up as the decider on what is and is not acceptable in our society- oh wait, no I haven't it's just you claiming that everything is acceptable under a pluralist democracy and yet refusing to acknowledge the path such absolutist ideals of freedom would take.

I call for debate and healthy expressions of democratic objections. You want to set up freedom of expression as some absolute. You want to condemn legitimate and non violent objections to an event under your magic cloak of freedom without even bothering to engage with the level of consideration necessary to think about rights and freedoms.


----------



## weltweit (May 2, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Depends on how you look at the world, I suppose.
> Where do *you* think any *local* efforts to challenge sexism, challenge patriarchy and it's effects should be targetted? I'd say that a local beauty pageant is as good a place as any, especially in terms of representing some of the issues in a concrete way.




Just that the issue does not bother me greatly. If people want to participate in pagents I say let em, if others want to protest I also say let em. Its just not something I would protest against myself. 

To suggest men are not judged on appearance is disengenious, well dressed attractive men generally have more success in careers than ugly badly dressed men.

eta Plus there are bodybuilding competitions mainly for men, why not protest at those too?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Have you never heard of bodybuilders?
> 
> And they offend me not one iota.



But they're predominantly male, "performing" for audiences that are predominantly of the same sex as they are, the same being true of female bodybuilders. They're not "performing" for an audience that's predominantly of another sex, as is mostly the case with "beauty pageants".


----------



## dylans (May 2, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Yeah, I have clearly set myself up as the decider on what is and is not acceptable in our society- oh wait, no I haven't it's just you claiming that everything is acceptable under a pluralist democracy and yet refusing to acknowledge the path such absolutist ideals of freedom would take.
> 
> I call for debate and healthy expressions of democratic objections. You want to set up freedom of expression as some absolute. You want to condemn legitimate and non violent objections to an event under your magic cloak of freedom without even bothering to engage with the level of consideration necessary to think about rights and freedoms.



Yes good idea. completely ignore everthing i have written. Have i condemned objections to this beauty contest? I condemn the tactic of "smashing" the event, of disrupting it etc but i also said it is perfectly legitimate to picket it, argue, give out flyers etc. I condemn calls to ban the event yes because there is no basis on which it should be banned, The objections of some people do not justify the event being banned
And you haven't answered the question. If it is ok to disrupt this particular event. is it ok to disrupt every event that someone finds offensive? Where do you draw the line?
Healthy expressions of democratic objections? Throwing stink bombs and attempting to disrupt the event. Calling for the banning of such events. Is that what you call healthy?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2009)

dylans said:


> I think throwing child abuse into this argument is an example of how bankrupt your argument really is. People always do this when they have no arguments left. Porn. Child abuse. Prostitution. Child abuse. Drug legalisation. Child abuse.
> Its a red herring and you know it. We are talking about the activities beliefs and lifestyles of consenting adults not child rapists. To compare a beauty contest with child rape is pretty low and
> you really do your argument no service with this kind of cheap shot



Freedom is a spectrum. Dotty's point is a valid one. If you allow "_insert whatever example you wish_" to take place under the rubric of freedom, at some point you will need to "draw a line" and say "enough freedom and no further", so Dotty's just asking you where you'd draw your line, as obviously, for most people, it'd be well before allowing child rape, but for some...


----------



## DotCommunist (May 2, 2009)

I haven't taken the 'every freedom is permissible under a pluralistic democracy' line. You have. It is up to you to defend that position (and good luck with that).


----------



## weltweit (May 2, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> But they're predominantly male, "performing" for audiences that are predominantly of the same sex as they are, the same being true of female bodybuilders. They're not "performing" for an audience that's predominantly of another sex, as is mostly the case with "beauty pageants".



I am not sure that is true.

eta: I am sure when they used to televise miss world there used to be women on the panels of judges!


----------



## dylans (May 2, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I haven't taken the 'every freedom is permissible under a pluralistic democracy' line. You have. It is up to you to defend that position (and good luck with that).



No you have taken the "We reserve the right to disrupt, wreck, smash and ban those freedoms, defined by us, that we decide are offensive." line


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2009)

dylans said:


> Perhaps i haven't but my arguments have been reasoned and considered...


Perhaps.
I found them to be rather stilted and moralistic, myself.


> I don't recall screaming abuse at you during this discussion


I don't recall claiming that you had.


> and why you wish to jump to the defence of a negative, abusive little cretin as Blagsta is beyond me


I find it rather amusing that you edit your post that mentions abuse to add some abuse about another poster.

Perhaps you're not as "reasoned" as you like to think?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 2, 2009)

dylans said:


> No you have taken the "We reserve the right to disrupt, wreck, smash and ban those freedoms, defined by us, that we decide are offensive." line



I'm sure you have the quotes of me saying those things don't you? cos I have you parroting ludicrous outdated voltarian bollocks but scant pages previous.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Just that the issue does not bother me greatly. If people want to participate in pagents I say let em, if others want to protest I also say let em. Its just not something I would protest against myself.
> 
> To suggest men are not judged on appearance is disengenious, well dressed attractive men generally have more success in careers than ugly badly dressed men.


Which would be why I haven't suggested anything of the kind.

Oh, and you've obviously never been to a techie convention. Plenty of successful badly-dressed ugs at them


> eta Plus there are bodybuilding competitions mainly for men, why not protest at those too?


Bodybuilding competitions are about physical development. The "beauty" of a contestant isn't what's judged, what *is* judged is whether and how far they've developed their musculature to a particular codified ideal. I wouldn't protest at a male or female bodybuilding contest because they're "performing" for themselves and the minority of others who share their ideal, whereas contestants in a pageant are "performing" in a representation of a female "ideal type" that *does not* represent most women, but rather the projections of the sponsors of the pageant.
Ever wondered why cosmetics sponsorship of pageants has historically been high? Surely nothing to do with women viewers, having seen the "perfect" women on the screen subconsciously worrying about their less than perfect skin, short eyelashes etc?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2009)

weltweit said:


> I am not sure that is true.


I am, and I've been to a good few such events over the years.


> eta: I am sure when they used to televise miss world there used to be women on the panels of judges!


Usually one, and it was generally Julia Morley, wife of the chap who ran the competition.


----------



## weltweit (May 2, 2009)

I would be more likely to protest at page three (as was mentioned a page back I think) there is something perhaps more disturbing about middle aged men oogling topless pictures of girls young enough to be their daughters, that this irks me more than beauty pagents. 

If I were however at the Sun, I would simply instigate a page 4 for scantily dressed male models and I would expect with the current ladette culture to pick up a whole raft of new female readers. In fact that is such a good idea I am amazed that they have not done it.


----------



## weltweit (May 2, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bodybuilding competitions are about physical development. The "beauty" of a contestant isn't what's judged, what *is* judged is whether and how far they've developed their musculature to a particular codified ideal. I wouldn't protest at a male or female bodybuilding contest because they're "performing" for themselves and the minority of others who share their ideal, whereas contestants in a pageant are "performing" in a representation of a female "ideal type" that *does not* represent most women, but rather the projections of the sponsors of the pageant.
> Ever wondered why cosmetics sponsorship of pageants has historically been high? Surely nothing to do with women viewers, having seen the "perfect" women on the screen subconsciously worrying about their less than perfect skin, short eyelashes etc?



I don't accept that. 

tbh I think you are splitting hairs. 

Body building and beauty pagents are both about "idealised appearances". If you conform to the expectations you will do well. 

Both are about appearance why otherwise do bodybuilders slap on the fake tan by the gallon? because that tan is what is expected. 

The idea that because one might be judged by people of another sex, as if that made a difference I also find hard to fathom.


----------



## Greenfish (May 2, 2009)

weltweit said:


> I don't accept that.
> 
> tbh I think you are splitting hairs.
> 
> ...




you think that body building and beauty shows are the same? that their contexts of meaning are roughly the same?


----------



## dylans (May 2, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm sure you have the quotes of me saying those things don't you? cos I have you parroting ludicrous outdated voltarian bollocks but scant pages previous.



Well that "ludicrous outdated Voltarian bollocks" is all that stands between you and the thought police kicking your door in and dragging you off to room 101. 
Oh but you don't need to worry, they will be working for you won't they Commissar?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 2, 2009)

Morning chuck, I'll take that as a no then? Still, continue to paint me as some mad dictator and attribute views you've made up in your head to me, it's funny to watch you wriggle.


----------



## dylans (May 2, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Morning chuck, I'll take that as a no then? Still, continue to paint me as some mad dictator and attribute views you've made up in your head to me, it's funny to watch you wriggle.



Morning. 
Well if the cap fits. The point is you think it is acceptable to deny free speech to those who you disagree with. Clearly you do otherwise you wouldn't be bending over backwards defending the frankly outrageous tactics of those who attempted to disrupt a legal, harmless (if stupid) event attended by consenting adults. If it is acceptable to disrupt that event, it is acceptable to disrupt every event that YOU disagree with. 

I will give you an example. This is true and I remember it well. 

Years ago I was in the queue at the cinema waiting to watch Romper Stomper, the Russell Crowe flick. Outside the cinema some lefty group or another were handing out flyers and picketing the event.
Someone handed me a flyer, it read "Boycott this racist movie"
I called the guy over and asked him what the demonstration was about
"We are calling on people to boycott this movie because it's racist," he said
"How do you know?" I asked
Oh, I've seen it" he said

Say no more


----------



## DotCommunist (May 2, 2009)

There are limits to freedom. It's not for me to define them, nor for you to decide which limits are or are not acceptable. We leave that to the will of the majority. But even you must acknowledge that my freedom to walk down the road without being murdered trumps your freedom to walk around on a stabbing spree.

I'm not bending over backwards to defend anything, merely pointing out the flaw in your position. There is a spectrum to freedoms, and the interplay of rights, freedoms and responsibilities is a complex thing. You can't wave a magic wand and declare everything free just because you wish it to be so.


----------



## dylans (May 2, 2009)

Its a bit early for this. I am going to have breakfast and coffee. I will reply when I've woken up and fed my kid.


----------



## weltweit (May 2, 2009)

Greenfish said:


> you think that body building and beauty shows are the same? that their contexts of meaning are roughly the same?



Yes, they are both about idealised appearance in the minds of the judges.


----------



## Greenfish (May 2, 2009)

literal interpretation.

it's like when someone says, normally a racist, "Oh but we can't call them the n word", but "there allowed to call us whitey".

totally ignoring the historical, the economical, the cultural context of words and behaviour.  judgements in a vacum.  

if you can't see why some people see these pagants as disgraceful, then we'll never agree.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 2, 2009)

Anyone seen this:

http://amw.andrewlogan.com/

Looks like Gok Wan on methamphetamines.


----------



## Greenfish (May 2, 2009)

I play football with Rod Liddle sometimes.

I disagree with almost everything he writes, but a cunt he ain't.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 2, 2009)

Greenfish said:


> I play football with Rod Liddle sometimes.
> 
> I disagree with almost everything he writes, but a cunt he ain't.



I'd like to play football with Rod Liddle too. Literally with him, using his head as the ball. 

btw - why do you assume i think Liddle's a cunt? I actually think he's a cock.


----------



## Greenfish (May 2, 2009)

Not a lot really I can say to that.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 2, 2009)

Have you seen Liddle's tackle?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 2, 2009)

surly the answer isn't to ban these activities but to  fully educate people  so they realise that they are but  celebrations of  nothingness

as disturbing as some beauty shows are  the idea  you can ban an activity between consenting adults  is even more disturbing

yeah i'm sure this has been said before  but it's a strong point,  if  people agree to do these things it is  up to them  even if  it  is  something you disagree with  

i would however put an minimum age limit on these things... children's beauty pageants can be fucking disturbing


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2009)

weltweit said:


> I don't accept that.
> 
> tbh I think you are splitting hairs.
> 
> ...



You've missed my main point, which is that bodybuilders only do it for themselves and other bodybuilders. They're attempting to match an "ideal type" that's been constructed by a *tiny* minority in society.
Fake tan has fuck all to do with anything except to highlight "ripped" musculature better than fish-belly white skin.

Beauty pageants are all about conformity to an "ideal type" that's supposed to be a cross-cultural "standard" of female beauty and femininity, but is in fact an arbitrary creation of those who sponsor beauty pageants *projected onto* women across cultures. It's not about women doing it for their own pleasure or conforming to an ideal type that they've *chosen* to accept and aspire to, it's about people attempting to conform to an "impossible dream" that has a direct effect on women's feelings of self-worth.


> The idea that because one might be judged by people of another sex, as if that made a difference I also find hard to fathom.


Perhaps because you don't have the capacity or desire to fathom it?
It's fairly simple IMHO. Women judging women and men judging men are less likely to objectify those being judged, more likely to view them in the light of "that could be me or someone I know", people judging those of another sex are more likely to objectify those being judged because rather than identifying with *the person*, they're more likely to identify with the physical characteristics of the body of the person.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2009)

Greenfish said:


> you think that body building and beauty shows are the same? that their contexts of meaning are roughly the same?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2009)

dylans said:


> Well that "ludicrous outdated Voltarian bollocks" is all that stands between you and the thought police kicking your door in and dragging you off to room 101.


Well, not quite. What *actually* stands in the way of that happening are constitutional protections and the fact that there's no such organisation as the "thought police".


> Oh but you don't need to worry, they will be working for you won't they Commissar?


Tut tut. More of that abuse you so abhor.


----------



## weltweit (May 2, 2009)

Greenfish said:


> ... if you can't see why some people see these pagants as disgraceful, then we'll never agree.



I do see why some find these pagents disgraceful, I just don't really share their view is all.


----------



## weltweit (May 2, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> ... Perhaps because you don't have the capacity or desire to fathom it?
> It's fairly simple IMHO. Women judging women and men judging men are less likely to objectify those being judged, more likely to view them in the light of "that could be me or someone I know", people judging those of another sex are more likely to objectify those being judged because rather than identifying with *the person*, they're more likely to identify with the physical characteristics of the body of the person.



When you say "less likely to objectify those being judged" I simply don't know what you mean by "objectify".
Please explain.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 2, 2009)

Greenfish said:


> Dylan - imagine men were up there doing it?  Grinning, posing, showing all their teeth, flexing their muscles-  up there posing and getting praised for it and everyone judging them on how they _really_ look - as if it's their soul reason de etre etc.  What if society really valued them as nothing more than posing, good looking, card-board cut-out men.  what if these men 'perfect' men where everywhere, in all the magazines, billboards, films etc - known only by how well they pose and look.
> 
> I think if I was a man, and I was surrounded by that shit, I would want rid of it too. some of that shit does include men (boy bands ect), but, as people have said, the gender playing field is severly tilted and it thus means less.





Greenfish said:


> ...though not sure banning it is the right way forward...but certainly people should say, and say with confidence without ridicule or called facists, "I think that behaviour is wrong, for x, y, z, reasons and I think we should move away from it as a society".
> 
> init.


Good posts  Also VP has spoken a lot of sense. 

In re: to the second post, it is pretty depressing how suggesting that beauty pagents have wider consequences in society can often get you called a feminazi. 

Also, whilst it may be taken to the extreme for effect, greenfish's first post reminds me of Steinman's If Men Had Periods 



weltweit said:


> If I were however at the Sun, I would simply instigate a page 4 for scantily dressed male models and I would expect with the current ladette culture to pick up a whole raft of new female readers. In fact that is such a good idea I am amazed that they have not done it.


See, I'm really not sure that increasing the pressure to be beautiful rather than decreasing it is the way forward. On another thread there has been an argument about whether or not social work is badly or well paid - page 4 almost seems like suggesting social workers should be paid less because nurses are more poorly paid (rather than suggesting nurses get improved wages).


----------



## weltweit (May 2, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> ... See, I'm really not sure that increasing the pressure to be beautiful rather than decreasing it is the way forward. On another thread there has been an argument about whether or not social work is badly or well paid - page 4 almost seems like suggesting social workers should be paid less because nurses are more poorly paid (rather than suggesting nurses get improved wages).



Oh, I was not saying the Sun should put in a pg4 for men would be a good thing for society. It would not. But it could be a good thing for the sales of the sun!!


----------



## dylans (May 2, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, not quite. What *actually* stands in the way of that happening are constitutional protections and the fact that there's no such organisation as the "thought police".
> 
> Tut tut. More of that abuse you so abhor.



Erm... first of all we don't have a constitution. But you are naive. The defence of liberty comes from us, not the state. Us, standing up and actively opposing a police state and that starts by opposing this idea that the state, or any group or individual for that matter knows what is best for us. No you don't.  

I don't think it is abuse to question the worrying tendency of people to want to regulate what I see, read, hear, watch or attend. I will make my own mind up thank you. I have enough respect for people to allow them to make educated decisions for themselves and I find it offensive and dangerous that people so are so easily prepared to jettison free speech when faced with issues they dislike
Remember what this debate is about. It is about the legitimacy or otherwise of a self selected group to attempt to disrupt an event because they believe it shouldn't be allowed. It should be smashed. The rights and wrongs of the cohntest itself is a valid issue and worthy of debate but not actually the issue
here. 
It is my argument that by attempting to disrupt or stop an event on the basis of its offence is the slippery slope to tyranny. The same laws that would be used to ban a beauty contest would soon be used to ban everything that is deemed offensive.

No there is no thought police....yet. But if we give in to those who scream "smjash it" whenever they are faced with something they find offensive, there soon will be.


----------



## Wolveryeti (May 2, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's fairly simple IMHO. Women judging women and men judging men are less likely to objectify those being judged, more likely to view them in the light of "that could be me or someone I know", people judging those of another sex are more likely to objectify those being judged because rather than identifying with *the person*, they're more likely to identify with the physical characteristics of the body of the person.



What an absurdly reductionist view of human behaviour.


----------



## dylans (May 2, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> There are limits to freedom. It's not for me to define them, nor for you to decide which limits are or are not acceptable. We leave that to the will of the majority. But even you must acknowledge that my freedom to walk down the road without being murdered trumps your freedom to walk around on a stabbing spree.
> 
> I'm not bending over backwards to defend anything, merely pointing out the flaw in your position. There is a spectrum to freedoms, and the interplay of rights, freedoms and responsibilities is a complex thing. You can't wave a magic wand and declare everything free just because you wish it to be so.




Despite the claim that i have an ultra liberty concept of freedom, I do see that there are flaws in the argument. I have argued in past posts that the concept of liberty is a necessary but *insufficient* weapon but an essential one nevertheless. It stands as a banner or  a marker by which to anchor the debate. A weapon in the hands of individuals to defend their freedom. The essential priniciple is that in a free society the individual should be free to do, do, say, write and think whatever they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on the liberty of others. The onus is on those who wish to ban, disrupt or otherwise curtail free speech to show that the said liberty does indeed impose on the liberty of others not on the defenders of free speech to show that it doesn't. And for sure, simply finding something offensive is never a basis for the censure of free speech

As has been pointed out the question of where one freedom infringes on another is by no means cut and dry, I accept that. That is where the debate begins. The principle of liberty doesn't end the debate, it starts it and it frames it. It is a standard that sets parameters by which to judge the  liberty of one against the liberty of another. It is imperfect but it is all we have.

As has been pointed out there are examples of those who would use free speech to end the freedom of others ie the BNP Or those who wish to use free speech in order to abuse the innocent as in NAMBLA. There are not neat and tidy answers to all these dilemmas. I accept that. Nevertheless the debate would simply be impossible without such principles as Mills principle of liberty. 

Dotcommunist you say

_There are limits to freedom. It's not for me to define them, nor for you to decide which limits are or are not acceptable. We leave that to the will of the majority._

Well I think this begs the question. What happens when the will of the majority is to deny the freedoms of a minority? What happens when the majority say decide that gay people should be persecuted? Or communists? Or Gypsies? Or Jews?

Anyway even by this, admittedly shaky standard, you are not seriously claiming that the group who disrupted the beauty contest speak for the majority of the population are you? 

I am really not sure where you stand on the issue of the beauty contest now. I would genuinely like to know so please answer me one simple question. Do you think it is acceptable for a group of individuals to decide for themselves that a beauty concert should not take place? To impose their view by disrupting the event?  

And if it is then is it not also acceptable for Muslims to wreck bookshops that sell Satanic Verses? Or for my Romper Stomper picketers to drop stink bombs in the theatre? Or for Christians to disrupt "The Life Of Brian.?"
You see, the principle I defend so passionately protects everyone, the Muslim has the right to be offended, the writer has the right to publish, the guy who thought Romper Stomper was racist has the right to picket the cinema, I have the right to watch it. The OP has the right to oppose the beauty contest . The contestants have the right to enjoy their event. The alternative is that everything that offends (and lets face it, something always does) will be outlawed and that would be a sad day for all of us


----------



## DotCommunist (May 2, 2009)

Well it is highly subjective isn't it? Do a group of University students have the right to mock and disrupt what they see as patriarchal meat-parade nonsense when it takes place in a seat of learning that as recently as my grandmothers time was near on 99% male dominated?

Yeah, I think they have a point-as you might have a point if you went along to defend the right of the pageanteers. No one has actually smashed or banned anything either way.

But the point was made and I am all for freedom of expression.

As for the will of the majority, well of course there are SOME things in which that absolute is, well, not. The death penalty for instance. I'm willing to bet that if there was a referendum on the issue a majority would vote for capital punishment. 

'Ban everything' is not the only alternative to 'let some protest if they feel they have reason'. You will keep conflating thought police fascism with legitimate dissent, but then capital L libertarians tend to do that as a matter of course.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 2, 2009)

Re: the weight lifter/beauty pagent comparison, I think there's another difference other than the "who judges" question, which is that weight training (to the degree where people enter competitions) is a minority pursuit - a subculture if you will. Yes the more mainstream attitudes of society will affect it (i.e. that to a point, muscular men are seen as an ideal), but it also represents a splitting off of the mainstream ideal. However, the ideal of female beauty in beauty contests is the mainstream ideal of female beauty in wider society - it's very much tied in with mainstream values, even if only a minority of women take part. And IMO, it thus has wider implications for all women.

On top of that, the similarities are interesting (as there are some similarities). For example, just as there is a higher proportion of women with eating disorder than men, and many more women who are unhappy about their shape, bodybuilders can have similar problems. Whilst it is common for a person with an eating disorder to see themselves as larger than they are, many bodybuilders have been shown to think they are smaller than they are, which can cause comparable levels of distress and related self harm behaviours (e.g. steriod use).


----------



## dylans (May 2, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Well it is highly subjective isn't it? Do a group of University students have the right to mock and disrupt what they see as patriarchal meat-parade nonsense when it takes place in a seat of learning that as recently as my grandmothers time was near on 99% male dominated?
> 
> Yeah, I think they have a point-as you might have a point if you went along to defend the right of the pageanteers. No one has actually smashed or banned anything either way.
> 
> ...


But I don't. I have said time and time and time again that I believe people have the right to be offended. People have the right to protest. People have the right to oppose the thing they find offensive. They don't have the right to  censure the thing they find offensive. 
But at least I know where you stand. Thank you for a straight answer. So you think that the protestors offence at this event gives them a mandate to attempt to disrupt it. To throw stink bombs, seize the microphone, storm the stage. The disruption wasn't legitimate protest. It was clearly stated that it was an attempt to stop the event taking place.To "smash it" The fact that they failed in their goal is neither here nor there. 
Why? Because you sympathise with the protestors? Do then Muslims have the right to disrupt bookfares that have Satanic Verses on the shelves . Do I have the right to disrupt events because I find them offensive?
 If not what is the difference? That you sympathise with one action and not the other?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2009)

dylans said:


> Erm... first of all we don't have a constitution.


Yes we do. 
What we don't have is a *written* constitution. We have a constitution based on legal precedent and on documents such as _Magna Carta_


> But you are naive. The defence of liberty comes from us, not the state. Us, standing up and actively opposing a police state and that starts by opposing this idea that the state, or any group or individual for that matter knows what is best for us. No you don't.


Conversely, neither do you, and yet you're eager to lecture, aren't you?


> I don't think it is abuse to question the worrying tendency of people to want to regulate what I see, read, hear, watch or attend. I will make my own mind up thank you.


Except, of course, that with reference to Blagsta, he hasn't tried to regulate you, he's merely made plain that he finds your thinking rather up its' own arse. 


> I have enough respect for people to allow them to make educated decisions for themselves and I find it offensive and dangerous that people so are so easily prepared to jettison free speech when faced with issues they dislike


You appear to be reading into posts, things which are not contained in them.


> Remember what this debate is about. It is about the legitimacy or otherwise of a self selected group to attempt to disrupt an event because they believe it shouldn't be allowed. It should be smashed. The rights and wrongs of the cohntest itself is a valid issue and worthy of debate but not actually the issue
> here.


You do realise that "smash" has a metaphorical meaning as well as a literal one, don't you?


> It is my argument that by attempting to disrupt or stop an event on the basis of its offence is the slippery slope to tyranny. The same laws that would be used to ban a beauty contest would soon be used to ban everything that is deemed offensive.


How would the "same laws" be used for that?
I ask this from a purely legislative perspective, as I can't think of a single piece of legislation that would be loosely-worded enough to have the effect you mention being passed in the last 50 years.


> No there is no thought police....yet. But if we give in to those who scream "smjash it" whenever they are faced with something they find offensive, there soon will be.


And you reach this conclusion...how exactly?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 2, 2009)

dylans said:


> But I don't. I have said time and time and time again that I believe people have the right to be offended. People have the right to protest. People have the right to oppose the thing they find offensive. They don't have the right to  censure the thing they find offensive.
> But at least I know where you stand. Thank you for a straight answer. So you think that the protestors offence at this event gives them a mandate to attempt to disrupt it. To throw stink bombs, seize the microphone, storm the stage. The disruption wasn't legitimate protest. It was clearly stated that it was an attempt to stop the event taking place.To "smash it" The fact that they failed in their goal is neither here nor there.
> Why? Because you sympathise with the protestors? Do then Muslims have the right to disrupt bookfares that have Satanic Verses on the shelves . Do I have the right to disrupt events because I find them offensive?
> If not what is the difference? That you sympathise with one action and not the other?




Legitimate protest is not censure dylans and the reason you take two paragraphs to answer my every line is because you are constantly seeking to call legitimate protest censure. Of course you have boldly claimed that this is not legitimate protest. I'm sure whoever made you god of what is and isn't legitimate protest knew what they were doing

You harp on about 'smash it', now we both know the language of the left leans towards such grandiose and combative language. In reality nothing and nobody were smashed, there was mockery and disruption.

You seize on smash because it's the only way you can cry 'MY FREEDOM IS MORE IMPORTANT'.

Wafer thin, my friend, wafer thin.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2009)

weltweit said:


> When you say "less likely to objectify those being judged" I simply don't know what you mean by "objectify".
> Please explain.



Objectification is where you view someone on the basis of their physical attributes (looks etc) rather than viewing them as the sum of their physical and mental attributes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> What an absurdly reductionist view of human behaviour.



Not if you take it in context of being confined to a certain sector of human behaviour,, rather than the entirety of human behaviour.

try harder, ddd.


----------



## dylans (May 2, 2009)

Violent Panda. A simple question. Do you think beauty contests should be banned or not?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Re: the weight lifter/beauty pagent comparison, I think there's another difference other than the "who judges" question, which is that weight training (to the degree where people enter competitions) is a minority pursuit - a subculture if you will. Yes the more mainstream attitudes of society will affect it (i.e. that to a point, muscular men are seen as an ideal), but it also represents a splitting off of the mainstream ideal. However, the ideal of female beauty in beauty contests is the mainstream ideal of female beauty in wider society - it's very much tied in with mainstream values, even if only a minority of women take part. And IMO, it thus has wider implications for all women.



Yep, I've mentioned the "minority pursuit" nature of bodybuilding in my replies to weltweit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2009)

dylans said:


> Violent Panda. A simple question. Do you think beauty contests should be banned or not?


Disingenuous. It isn't a "simple question". What you mean is that you'd like a simple "ye or no" answer.


----------



## Wolveryeti (May 2, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not if you take it in context of being confined to a certain sector of human behaviour,, rather than the entirety of human behaviour.
> 
> try harder, ddd.



So where's the linkage and how do you quantify it, i.e. where are you pulling this from, besides the obvious?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 2, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Disingenuous. It isn't a "simple question". What you mean is that you'd like a simple "ye or no" answer.



You could give a specific answer about the pageant in question but it'll be interpreted as either yes/no about all pageants unfortunately.


----------



## dylans (May 2, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Legitimate protest is not censure dylans and the reason you take two paragraphs to answer my every line is because you are constantly seeking to call legitimate protest censure. Of course you have boldly claimed that this is not legitimate protest. I'm sure whoever made you god of what is and isn't legitimate protest knew what they were doing
> 
> You harp on about 'smash it', now we both know the language of the left leans towards such grandiose and combative language. In reality nothing and nobody were smashed, there was mockery and disruption.
> 
> ...



The OP states quite clearly that beauty contests should not be allowed to take place
_"Beauty contests are ridiculous and demeaning. *This pageant should not be happening, and should be disrupted all the way."*_ 

The protestors then proudly attempted to do exactly that. Throwing a stink bomb and seizing the microphone clearly is an attempt to stop the event from happening.
No this is not legitimate protest.This is an attempt to  forcefully impose their view on everyone else. This is what  I object to, not the protestors right to protest
The comparison would be if my Romper stomper picketer threw a stink bomb in the cinema and stopped me from watching the movie. He is perfectly entitled to picket the cinema and hand me a leaflet. He is not entitled to stop me from enjoying the movie. The demonstrators are entitled to protest, they are not entitled to disrupt the event.


----------



## weltweit (May 2, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Objectification is where you view someone on the basis of their physical attributes (looks etc) rather than viewing them as the sum of their physical and mental attributes.



In that case I think it is unfair to think that men cannot judge women as in a pagent context in a non objective way. Surely they can do this just as easily as women can. In fact it is sexist to suggest they cannot.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 2, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep, I've mentioned the "minority pursuit" nature of bodybuilding in my replies to weltweit.



Ah apologies, am somewhat skim reading as should be working. 

Tbh, as I mentioned, I also think the similarities are also interesting. Basically, when a group is defined/starts defining themselves on their appearance and how they conform (or not) to an ideal, there is an increase in psychological problems associated with that.


----------



## dylans (May 2, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Disingenuous. It isn't a "simple question". What you mean is that you'd like a simple "ye or no" answer.



No its a simple question.  Do you think that beauty contests should be illegal or not?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 2, 2009)

dylans said:


> The OP states quite clearly that beauty contests should not be allowed to take place
> _"Beauty contests are ridiculous and demeaning. *This pageant should not be happening, and should be disrupted all the way."*_
> 
> The protestors then proudly attempted to do exactly that. Throwing a stink bomb and seizing the microphone clearly is an attempt to stop the event from happening.
> ...




Everyone else? or the small section of uni students attending and taking part in the paegant? The event happened, the vocal minority made their point and no-one got 'smashed'.

If you think a  stink bomb and a microphone seizure count as fascistic thought control then, really, you should move to burma and learn about real repression. Context, dylans. You keep abstracting because it suits your argument, then when it doesn't you return to circumstances, then back to abstracts again.


----------



## dylans (May 2, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Disingenuous. It isn't a "simple question". What you mean is that you'd like a simple "ye or no" answer.



ok let me put it another way.
If the demonstrators had been successful in closing the event down completely. If everyone had been so sickened by the stink bombs for example that they all fled out of the nearest exit and went home, do you feel that would have been a success?


----------



## dylans (May 2, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Everyone else? or the small section of uni students attending and taking part in the paegant? The event happened, the vocal minority made their point and no-one got 'smashed'.
> 
> If you think a  stink bomb and a microphone seizure count as fascistic thought control then, really, you should move to burma and learn about real repression. Context, dylans. You keep abstracting because it suits your argument, then when it doesn't you return to circumstances, then back to abstracts again.



Even if it were the liberty of one person that was denied it would be wrong. The number of people is irrelevant.
The point about the stink bomb etc is intention. Was it the intention of the demonstrators to protest, get their point across etc or was the intention to deny the rights of other people (however small a group) 

If the former, fine. I have said time and again, I defend the protestors right to legitimate protests as much as  do the beauty contestants right to their contest. 
However, it is not the former is it?  The clear stated intention of the protestors was to disrupt the event and they  did their damnedest to achieve that goal. 
If the event had been abandoned because of the protest the protesters would have considered that a victory. They would have celebrated it. 

 That is an assault on the liberty of others and is not legitimate protest, no matter how you writhe and twist it. It was an attempt to deny the legitimate rights of people who disagree with them to participate in their event.

And that. is a disgrace.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> No its a simple question.  Do you think that beauty contests should be illegal or not?


no, simply accepted as socially unacceptable by any right minded individual, a bit like you.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> no, simply accepted as socially unacceptable by any right minded individual, a bit like you.




Socially unacceptable?

Who elected you the arbiter of what is and isn't socially acceptable ?

Who are you to decide what constitutes a "right minded" individual?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> So where's the linkage and how do you quantify it, i.e. where are you pulling this from, besides the obvious?



If you're going to attempt to be snide, at least have the courage to be blatant about it, dapper.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

weltweit said:


> In that case I think it is unfair to think that men cannot judge women as in a pagent context in a non objective way. Surely they can do this just as easily as women can. In fact it is sexist to suggest they cannot.


A reasonable answer, but one that totally misses the point that in a society that is "patriarchal", objectification is the default position from which many men proceed. 
I haven't, by the way, said that men *cannot* judge women (or that women cannot judge men, for that matter) without objectifying, what I actually said was:
"...people judging those of another sex are *more likely to* objectify those being judged because rather than identifying with the person, they're *more likely to* identify with the physical characteristics of the body of the person." (my emphases).
Do you see the difference? Do you see how most of your post collapses in on itself because you've based your reply around something I haven't actually said?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> You could give a specific answer about the pageant in question but it'll be interpreted as either yes/no about all pageants unfortunately.



Indeed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> No its a simple question.  Do you think that beauty contests should be illegal or not?


Please keep your disingenuous questions consistent. First you talk of "banning", now you're talking about whether they should be illegal. There *is* a slight (legislative) difference, you know.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> The OP states quite clearly that beauty contests should not be allowed to take place
> _"Beauty contests are ridiculous and demeaning. *This pageant should not be happening, and should be disrupted all the way."*_



So the excerpt you post to support your position actually refutes it. You claim that "The OP states quite clearly that *beauty contests* should not be allowed to take place" (my emphasis).
Yet the quote you post actually states:
"Beauty contests are ridiculous and demeaning. *This pageant* should not be happening, and should be disrupted all the way."(my emphasis)
Any way you care to slice it, the OP opens with the opinion that "beauty contests" *in general* are demeaning, but only states that *"this pageant"* should not take place.

If you can't produce a coherent argument that *accurately* represents your opponent's view, may I suggest that you don't bother?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> Socially unacceptable?
> 
> Who elected you the arbiter of what is and isn't socially acceptable ?
> 
> Who are you to decide what constitutes a "right minded" individual?



He hasn't claimed to be anyone, or to be an arbiter of what is "socially acceptable", (that's a straw man on your part, unsurprisingly). He's merely airing his own opinion, just as you have done.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (May 3, 2009)

If we don't like something, can't we use humour to lampoon it rather than the usual "Smash the [insert thing we don't like]" sort of shouting match that puts people off?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2009)

Prince Rhyus said:


> If we don't like something, can't we use humour to lampoon it rather than the usual "Smash the [insert thing we don't like]" sort of shouting match that puts people off?



I thought setting up a wanking booth was pretty fucking funny tbh


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

Prince Rhyus said:


> If we don't like something, can't we use humour to lampoon it rather than the usual "Smash the [insert thing we don't like]" sort of shouting match that puts people off?



Perhaps, as creatures prone to the dictates of human nature, we use whatever we find appropriate to the situation and to our personal feelings on the matter?


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> So the excerpt you post to support your position actually refutes it. You claim that "The OP states quite clearly that *beauty contests* should not be allowed to take place" (my emphasis).
> Yet the quote you post actually states:
> "Beauty contests are ridiculous and demeaning. *This pageant* should not be happening, and should be disrupted all the way."(my emphasis)
> Any way you care to slice it, the OP opens with the opinion that "beauty contests" *in general* are demeaning, but only states that *"this pageant"* should not take place.
> ...



I am sure you would like that given your clear inability to  answer a simple question. You are hopping from foot to foot like a politician trying to wriggle out of a clear answer. What is so difficult about the question I asked?

Let me ask a different question then if I may. 

Is it ok for people to disrupt events that they don't approve of, as in this case? 
 Can you answer this simple question or am I being disingenuous again?

As for the OPs intentions, I'm sorry I am confused now. Are you saying that the people who disrupted this event were not making a statement about beauty contests in general, just this particular event? Is it ok by them for people to hold beauty contests in general just not this one? Is that what you are saying? If so why? What is so special about this particular event that deems it worthy of being disrupted


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I thought setting up a wanking booth was pretty fucking funny tbh



Yep me too. I much prefer satire and parody. 

I've never been a great fan of "SMASH the [whatever]" rhetoric, mainly because it does seem to provoke the  that dylans' responses are an example of.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> I am sure you would like that given your clear inability to  answer a simple question. You are hopping from foot to foot like a politician trying to wriggle out of a clear answer. What is so difficult about the question I asked?


I don't have an "inability" to answer your question, I have a disinclination to, given that the question is (despite your claim otherwise) disingenuous. 


> Let me ask a different question then if I may.
> 
> Is it ok for people to disrupt events that they don't approve of, as in this case?


Yes, it's perfectly okay for people to disrupt events they don't approve of, within the law.


> Can you answer this simple question or am I being disingenuous again?


No, just boring.


> As for the OPs intentions, I'm sorry I am confused now. Are you saying that the people who disrupted this event were not making a statement about beauty contests in general, just this particular event?


That's not the point.
The point is that you made a particular claim in your post, and that even the excerpt of the OP's post that *you* quoted to support your claim *DID NOT*, in fact, support your claim. The OP made a *general* point about beauty pageants, but only made a *specific* reference re: an event not happening, to the actual "Miss University London" pageant.


> Is it ok by them for people to hold beauty contests in general just not this one? Is that what you are saying? If so why? What is so special about this particular event that deems it worthy of being disrupted


The "particular event" is what the OP is referring to with reference to (and I quote) "...This pageant should not be happening", not beauty contests in general.
No amount of quibbling on your part changes the fact that you misrepresented what the OP said to cover stopping pageants in general when the OP referred to the "Miss University London" specifically.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> Yep me too. I much prefer satire and parody.
> 
> I've never been a great fan of "SMASH the [whatever]" rhetoric, mainly because it does seem to provoke the  that dylans' responses are an example of.



Well, as you say, it's rhetoric. As most of us are well aware, it very seldom actually means the physical destruction of [whatever] (however much some posters on this thread might wish to interpret it so), but rather the discrediting or "destruction" of the ideas that allow [whatever] to happen. Anyone who takes the rhetoric literally deserves everything they get.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2009)

I like how throwing a stinkbomb is seen as 'unacceptable disruption'

'IT"S LIKE LIVING IN NAZI GERMANY'


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, as you say, it's rhetoric. As most of us are well aware, it very seldom actually means the physical destruction of [whatever] (however much some posters on this thread might wish to interpret it so), but rather the discrediting or "destruction" of the ideas that allow [whatever] to happen. Anyone who takes the rhetoric literally deserves everything they get.



I agree, most of us know that it's rhetoric. It poses conceptual problems for the more _literal_ minded, as you say. And of course gives those that disagree with the concept a hook to hang their disagreement on. That's why I prefer parody. But it's just a personal preference ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I like how throwing a stinkbomb is seen as 'unacceptable disruption'


How someone with that opinion would react to witnessing some real old-fashioned physical direct action, would be amusing to behold. 


> 'IT"S LIKE LIVING IN NAZI GERMANY'


Or "stop punching those racist skinheads, you fascist!".


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I like how throwing a stinkbomb is seen as 'unacceptable disruption'
> 
> 'IT"S LIKE LIVING IN NAZI GERMANY'



It's not new either. We still have an empty smoke bomb cannister that my uncle managed to retrieve from a disrupted Miss World competition back in the dim and distant


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> I agree, most of us know that it's rhetoric. It poses conceptual problems for the more _literal_ minded, as you say. And of course gives those that disagree with the concept a hook to hang their disagreement on. That's why I prefer parody. But it's just a personal preference ...



I like parody. It's like rubbing someones face in their own shit, but in such a way that they're left no alternative but to acknowledge that they deserved the rubbing *and* the mocking laughter.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> I like parody. It's like rubbing someones face in their own shit, but in such a way that they're left no alternative but to acknowledge that they deserved the rubbing *and* the mocking laughter.



Yep. The thing I'll remember most about the Miss University London Beauty Pageant is the wanking booth.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

Ok let me ask a different question completely. 

Is it ok for me to disrupt a movie that I feel is racist? Midnight express for example or Romper Stomper? Or Bernard Manning Live in Las Vegas or Jim Davison. 

All of the above have offended people at some point in the past. Does that offence justify my throwing stink bombs in the cinema?

Am I entitled, because of the offence such movies have caused me, to attempt to disrupt those events? Yes or No.

If the answer is yes, then anyone has the right to disrupt anything that they find offensive. Nothing would be safe from the righteous anger of the offended. We would not have any art, any literature any film any theatre. Or what we did have would be tepid and neutered. Artists would be creatively castrated, terrified of expressing themselves in case someone took offence. It would be mob rule with anyone with a grievance feeling justified in disrupting any event they felt had offended them. 

I don't want to live in a world like that.

If the answer is no, then why do feel that it is acceptable for people offended by a beauty contest to do exactly the same? Why is this event the exception?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> It's not new either. We still have an empty smoke bomb cannister that my uncle managed to retrieve from a disrupted Miss World competition back in the dim and distant



1970 or '71, I think. I remember seeing it on our black and white telly and thinking "smoke isn't usually *that* white, is it?".


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> Ok let me ask a different question completely.
> 
> Is it ok for me to disrupt a movie that I feel is racist? Midnight express for example or Romper Stomper? Or Bernard Manning Live in Las Vegas or Jim Davison.
> 
> ...



What part of "within the law" don't you understand?


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

dylans - the answer's yes. And yes. I don't have a problem with people responding to things they find offensive.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> Yep. The thing I'll remember most about the Miss University London Beauty Pageant is the wanking booth.



And yet, even given the splendid appropriateness of the wanking booth to the event, some people will refuse to believe that "the male gaze" has anything to do with the reason that "beauty pageants" still exist.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2009)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...statue-is-jailed-for-three-months-598234.html

have a read dylans. I agree with what the bloke did, but the judiciary did not and punished him accordingly.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> dylans - the answer's yes. And yes. I don't have a problem with people responding to things they find offensive.



I don't have a problem with people "responding" to things they find offensive either. I have a problem with people thinking it is ok to stop the thing they find offensive from happening as in the case of the beauty contest. If the demonstrators had picketted the event I would support their right to do that. I object to the protestors attempting to ruin the event for the people who disagree with them. 

If I was in a cinema say watching Life of Brian for example,  and some Christian idiot let off stink bombs I would feel my liberty to watch the movie was bei,ng denied.
but thank you for giving me a straight answer unlike some on this thread


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...statue-is-jailed-for-three-months-598234.html
> 
> have a read dylans. I agree with what the bloke did, but the judiciary did not and punished him accordingly.



Not sure whose liberty was being denied by this act. I'm not sure what this has to do with free speech. This is a case of criminal damage, the guy went to jail. End of.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> 1970 or '71, I think. I remember seeing it on our black and white telly and thinking "smoke isn't usually *that* white, is it?".



That's it


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> Not sure whose liberty was being denied by this act. I'm not sure what this has to do with free speech. This is a case of criminal damage, the guy went to jail. End of.



It's the difference between what is legitimate within the law and what is not.

if you had wanted to view this statue in the art gallery, your right to do so has been taken away by this man. He was no nihilist, but someone smashing that statue as a political statement. Entirely relevant.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> It's the difference between what is legitimate within the law and what is not.
> 
> if you had wanted to view this statue in the art gallery, your right to do so has been taken away by this man. He was no nihilist, but someone smashing that statue as a political statement. Entirely relevant.



Yes I see that. His action was wrong. He should have made his statement in a   democratic manner as should those who object to a beauty contest


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> I don't have a problem with people "responding" to things they find offensive either. I have a problem with people thinking it is ok to stop the thing they find offensive from happening as in the case of the beauty contest. If the demonstrators had picketted the event I would support their right to do that. I object to the protestors attempting to ruin the event for the people who disagree with them.
> 
> If I was in a cinema say watching Life of Brian for example,  and some Christian idiot let off stink bombs I would feel my liberty to watch the movie was bei,ng denied.



That's clearly the difference between our points of view. If some Christians disrupted my viewing of a film, I'd probably shrug and watch it another time, or join in with a proportionate response to the disruption.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> That's clearly the difference between our points of view. If some Christians disrupted my viewing of a film, I'd probably shrug and watch it another time, or join in with a proportionate response to the disruption.



For sure that is the difference. I believe that the offence they feel does not give them the right to impose their views on me.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> For sure that is the difference. I believe that the offence they feel does not give them the right to impose their views on me.



A lot of men (and women) felt like that about the Suffragette movement.


----------



## the button (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> For sure that is the difference. I believe that the offence they feel does not give them the right to impose their views on me.



I find crossing picket lines fairly offensive, and spent many happy hours trying to stop it happening. Was I being unfair trying to impose my views on scabs? Just out of interest like.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> For sure that is the difference. I believe that the offence they feel does not give them the right to impose their views on me.



They're not "imposing" anything on you. It's *your* choice to leave the cinema or not, surely? I mean, if you want to see the film that badly why let a little hydrogen sulphide stop you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

the button said:


> I find crossing picket lines fairly offensive, and spent many happy hours trying to stop it happening. Was I being unfair trying to impose my views on scabs? Just out of interest like.



It's this idea that everything reduces to imposition/non-imposition that interests me, because it entirely elides the historical "middle ground" of compromise. If everything did boil down to binary oppositions, the only way we'd ever evolve as social beings would be through open conflict, armed or otherwise.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> They're not "imposing" anything on you. It's *your* choice to leave the cinema or not, surely? I mean, if you want to see the film that badly why let a little hydrogen sulphide stop you?



Thats the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. It really sums up your mind set completely, doesn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> A lot of men (and women) felt like that about the Suffragette movement.



A movement of which a protest against the commodification and objectification of women is a logical historical extension, too.


----------



## the button (May 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's this idea that everything reduces to imposition/non-imposition that interests me, because it entirely elides the historical "middle ground" of compromise. If everything did boil down to binary oppositions, the only way we'd ever evolve as social beings would be through open conflict, armed or otherwise.



I quite agree. I put my question in terms of imposition/non-imposition because that's how dylans is framing his argument. Meanwhile in the real world, I couldn't give a fuck whether I was "imposing my views" on scabs or not.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's this idea that everything reduces to imposition/non-imposition that interests me, because it entirely elides the historical "middle ground" of compromise. If everything did boil down to binary oppositions, the only way we'd ever evolve as social beings would be through open conflict, armed or otherwise.



No but compromise is exactly what i have been arguing for.
A compromise on this occasion would have been for the demonstrators to demonstrate in a non disruptive way and for those (admittedly idiots) who wanted to do their beauty contest to do their thing, but nooooooooo. That is not good enough for you.your offence was so great, your righteousness so indignant that you wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than attempting to ruin the event itself.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> A movement of which a protest against the commodification and objectification of women is a logical historical extension, too.



Which is why I thought it was a more apposite example than, say, the Chartists.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

the button said:


> I quite agree. I put my question in terms of imposition/non-imposition because that's how dylans is framing his argument. Meanwhile in the real world, I couldn't give a fuck whether I was "imposing my views" on scabs or not.



I don't think the scab argument works either because in this case we have a minority for their own selfish reasons who are undermining the democratic decision of their union colleagues to strike.this isn't a free speech issue at all.The free speech issue would be for those who disagree with the strike to have their say at the union meeting where the strike is decided .After that it is their duty as union members to abide by the decision


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> Thats the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. It really sums up your mind set completely, doesn't it?



As _ad hominem_ argument in place of logic appears to sum up yours.

What you posit; i.e. that someone breaking a stink-bomb in a cinema during a film you're watching somehow "imposes their views" on you, is what is ridiculous, as they impose nothing on you. They merely offer you their opinion through the medium of a stink-bomb. 
If I were being analytical about it, I'd say that it's in fact quite a blatant metaphoric device, i.e. "this film stinks".

But hey, keep on with the _ad homs_ in lieu of reasoned argument, if that's what turns you on!


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> As _ad hominem_ argument in place of logic appears to sum up yours.
> 
> What you posit; i.e. that someone breaking a stink-bomb in a cinema during a film you're watching somehow "imposes their views" on you, is what is ridiculous, as they impose nothing on you. They merely offer you their opinion through the medium of a stink-bomb.
> If I were being analytical about it, I'd say that it's in fact quite a blatant metaphoric device, i.e. "this film stinks".
> ...


Yawn


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> No but compromise is exactly what i have been arguing for.


No, what you've been arguing for are solutions defined through *your* viewpoint. That's not compromise, that's unilateral imposition. Compromise is multi-lateral agreement/consensus. 


> A compromise on this occasion would have been for the demonstrators to demonstrate in a non disruptive way and for those (admittedly idiots) who wanted to do their beauty contest to do their thing...


As you say, *A* compromise. One that suits your own particular view. 


> ...but nooooooooo. That is not good enough for you.your offence was so great, your righteousness so indignant that you wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than attempting to ruin the event itself.


Interesting that you choose to project offence, indignation and righteousness, as well as believing that you can accurately determine exactly what any poster who doesn't agree with you might want "anything less" than.
Perhaps if you looked inward...?


----------



## the button (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> I don't think the scab argument works either because in this case we have a minority for their own selfish reasons who are undermining the democratic decision of their union colleagues to strike.this isn't a free speech issue at all.The free speech issue would be for those who disagree with the strike to have their say at the union meeting where the strike is decided .After that it is their duty as union members to abide by the decision



Fair enough, chief. Was trying to work out the scope of your argument.

What about the sufragettes example? I'm thinking particularly of the vandalism of The Rokeby Venus in the National Gallery.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> Yawn



Such erudition!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

the button said:


> Fair enough, chief. Was trying to work out the scope of your argument.
> 
> What about the sufragettes example? I'm thinking particularly of the vandalism of The Rokeby Venus in the National Gallery.



Or, perhaps, Emily Davison's violent assault (a veritable attempt to "smash", no doubt!) on the hallowed turf of Epsom in an attempt to "impose her views" on the good race-goers at the Derby?


----------



## XR75 (May 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> As _ad hominem_ argument in place of logic appears to sum up yours.
> 
> What you posit; i.e. that someone breaking a stink-bomb in a cinema during a film you're watching somehow "imposes their views" on you, is what is ridiculous, as they impose nothing on you. They merely offer you their opinion through the medium of a stink-bomb.
> If I were being analytical about it, I'd say that it's in fact quite a blatant metaphoric device, i.e. "this film stinks".
> ...


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

the button said:


> Fair enough, chief. Was trying to work out the scope of your argument.
> 
> What about the sufragettes example? I'm thinking particularly of the vandalism of The Rokeby Venus in the National Gallery.



When a people are denied democratic rights they are no longer bound by democratic necessities. The right of black people to violently oppose apartheid for example is a right precisely because they are denied a democratic path.
The same with the suffragettes. While women were denied the vote then society does not have the right to demand they are bound by democratic norms.
That clearly is NOT the case in the example of the beauty contest. The women who attempted to disrupt the event are not being denied a democratic channel in which to protest. On the contrary it is THEM who are denying the rights of others by attempting to disrupt an event freely attended by consenting adults (who happen to disagree with them)
They attempted to disrupt an event that THEY felt was offensive to THEM.That is an unacceptable imposition on the liberty of others for no other reason but that they believed that there viewpoint was superior and should be forced on others


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Such erudition!



Double Yawn


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> When a people are denied democratic rights they are no longer bound by democratic necessities. The right of black people to violently oppose apartheid for example is a right precisely because they are denied a democratic path.
> The same with the suffragettes. While women were denied the vote then society does not have the right to demand they are bound by democratic norms.
> That clearly is NOT the case in the example of the beauty contest. The women who attempted to disrupt the event are not being denied a democratic channel in which to protest. On the contrary it is THEM who are denying the rights of others by attempting to disrupt an event freely attended by consenting adults (who happen to disagree with them)



Which part of their response breached their democratic right of protest then?


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> Which part of their response breached their democratic right of protest then?



The entire attempt at disruption. The throwing of stink bombs, the seizing of the microphone, the storming of the stage, the heckling, the throwing of flyers from the stage. All of these actions were clearly intended to stop the event from taking place.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> The entire attempt at disruption. The throwing of stink bombs, the seizing of the microphone, the storming of the stage, the heckling, the throwing of flyers from the stage. All of these actions were clearly intended to stop the event from taking place.



You seem to be deciding what form their democratic right of protest should take. That's not very democratic - is it?


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> You seem to be deciding what form their democratic right of protest should take. That's not very democratic - is it?



Their democratic protest can take whatever form they wish as long as it doesn't interfere with the liberty of others


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> Their democratic protest can take whatever form they wish as long as it doesn't interfere with the liberty of others



So in order to ensure one set of liberties, you advocate curbing others'?


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> So in order to ensure one set of liberties, you advocate curbing others'?



What rights do I advocate curbing?Their right to deny the rights of those who disagree with them? Then yes I do. 
They have the right to be offended .They don't have the right to censure those who offend them.


----------



## weltweit (May 3, 2009)

I don't see that a beauty pagent for Miss Uni London actually affects that many people apart from those taking part.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

weltweit said:


> I don't see that a beauty pagent for Miss Uni London actually affects that many people apart from those taking part.



Yes but our self elected guardians of womens liberation were _offended _ and so it must be SMASHED!


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2009)

So it was a stink bomb, was it?

A fairly juvenile and silly response to a fairly juvenile and silly event.

Seems quite fitting - where's the fire?


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> What rights do I advocate curbing?Their right to deny the rights of those who disagree with them? Then yes I do.
> They have the right to be offended .They don't have the right to censure those who offend them.



You're seeking to curb the democratic right of protest by delineating what's acceptable for you i.e. that one set of rights outweigh the other.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

weltweit said:


> I don't see that a beauty pagent for Miss Uni London actually affects that many people apart from those taking part.



So what?


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> Yes but our self elected guardians of womens liberation were _offended _ and so it must be SMASHED!



Yes but our self elected guardians of womens objectification wanted it to take place. So it should take place with ONLY minimal disruption !!!!!111


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> You're seeking to curb the democratic right of protest by delineating what's acceptable for you i.e. that one set of rights outweigh the other.



Yes, I deny the right of people to impose their morality, politics or beliefs on me at the expence of my freedom to disagree with them. Yes, guilty. 

I deny the right of people to walk down the road slicing people up at random with a samurai sword too. I defend the right of people not to be sliced up at random. Does that mean I think one set of rights outweighs another. Well, er, yes. The right to not be sliced up by a maniac with a samurai sword outweighs the loony's right to slice me up.

My right to watch the life of Brian and decide on its relative blasphemous nature or not outweighs the christians right to shut the cinema down.
My right to don a swimming costume and prance around on a stage answering inane questions about my hobbies outweighs the right of those who are offended to stop me. 

My right to read, write, say, watch and attend anything I wish outweighs the right of someone to stop me because they are offended. 

So yes. Guilty as charged


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> Yes but our self elected guardians of womens objectification wanted it to take place. So it should take place with ONLY minimal disruption !!!!!111



Yes exactly.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

I hardly think slicing people up with a Samurai sword is akin to making it more uncomfortable than usual to watch a film.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> Yes exactly.



I.e. censorship on your terms.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> Yes, I deny the right of people to impose their morality, politics or beliefs on me at the expence of my freedom to disagree with them. Yes, guilty.
> 
> I deny the right of people to walk down the road slicing people up at random with a samurai sword too. I defend the right of people not to be sliced up at random. Does that mean I think one set of rights outweighs another. Well, er, yes. The right to not be sliced up by a maniac with a samurai sword outweighs the loony's right to slice me up.
> 
> ...



You make some decent judgments on the whole there, but I'm not convinced that the right of some people to hold a backwards festival of sexism outweighs the rights of others to throw stink bombs in said area.

Not quite as clear cut as the sword business, as cesare points out.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> I hardly think slicing people up with a Samurai sword is akin to making it more uncomfortable than usual to watch a film.



Well of course.
But the point is the Christian has as much right to stop me watching the film as the loony does to stop me living, NONE. 
They are both unacceptable interferences in my personal liberty.Both the Christian and the loony should get out of my face and leave me alone.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> Well of course.
> But the point is the Christian has as much right to stop me watching the film as the loony does to stop me living, NONE.
> They are both unacceptable interferences in my personal liberty.Both the Christian and the loony should get out of my face and leave me alone.



Tough. If I fancy disrupting something that you're doing because I think you're interfering in my personal liberties - I will.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> I.e. censorship on your terms.



I'm sorry where is the censorship? The beauty contest can take place. The protest can take place. Both can take place as long as one doesn't attempt to disrupt the other.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> Tough. If I fancy disrupting something that you're doing because I think you're interfering in my personal liberties - I will.




I'm sure you will.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> I'm sorry where is the censorship? The beauty contest can take place. The protest can take place. Both can take place as long as one doesn't attempt to disrupt the other.




The censorship is your deciding on the terms.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> Well of course.
> But the point is the Christian has as much right to stop me watching the film as the loony does to stop me living, NONE.
> They are both unacceptable interferences in my personal liberty.Both the Christian and the loony should get out of my face and leave me alone.



We did this point earlier 'MY LIBERTIES ARE THE ONES THAT MATTER MOST' is not an acceptable view to take and can in some cases be downright dodgy.

'can't call a spade a spade these days' etc.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> The censorship is your deciding on the terms.



The terms guarantee everyone an equal expression of their rights. 
What you are advocating is simply mob rule where anyone can insist that their being offended justifies censoring the source of alleged offence.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> The terms guarantee everyone an equal expression of their rights.
> What you are advocating is simply mob rule where anyone can insist that their being offended justifies censoring the source of alleged offence.



Your terms do not do this. 

Your terms would guarantee that one set of people can do something with only a limited (if any) response.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> We did this point earlier 'MY LIBERTIES ARE THE ONES THAT MATTER MOST' is not an acceptable view to take and can in some cases be downright dodgy.
> 
> 'can't call a spade a spade these days' etc.



No .EVERYONES liberties are the ones that matter most. My liberty to watch a beauty contest, your right to protest. My right to judge the quality of a piece of art or literature for myself, your right to be offended by the said piece of art or literature.

When you disrupt an event on the basis of_ offence_ you are imposing your standards and morality on me because what you find offensive others may not. Be offended, fine. Live with it.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> Your terms do not do this.
> 
> Your terms would guarantee that one set of people can do something with only a limited (if any) response.



well yes, the limit is the degree to which your response  interferes in the liberty of others. Protesting does not interfere with that liberty. Throwing a stink bomb in a club or a cinema does.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> No .EVERYONES liberties are the ones that matter most. My liberty to watch a beauty contest, your right to protest. My right to judge the quality of a piece of art or literature for myself, your right to be offended by the said piece of art or literature.
> 
> When you disrupt an event on the basis of_ offence_ you are imposing your standards and morality on me because what you find offensive others may not. Be offended, fine. Live with it.



your liberty to (if you chose to do so) to call a black man a nigger should by that logic trump the right of the black man not to be denigrated in that manner?

You see why absolutist doesn't work yet?


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> your liberty to (if you chose to do so) to call a black man a nigger should by that logic trump the right of the black man not to be denigrated in that manner?
> 
> You see why absolutist doesn't work yet?



Clearly using a word that denigrates and insult another interferes in that persons liberty,namely his right to live in peace without racial attack


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> well yes, the limit is the degree to which your response  interferes in the liberty of others. Protesting does not interfere with that liberty. Throwing a stink bomb in a club or a cinema does.



Rather than going round and round in circles with your 'my absolute liberty outweighs your absolute liberty' argument - can you give us some examples of when your right to absolute liberty should be matched with opposing absolute right to respond?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> Clearly using a word that denigrates and insult another interferes in that persons liberty,namely his right to live in peace without racial attack



and yet at one time the word was in common currency as an acceptable term. Peoples objections and protests etc. made it not so.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> Rather than going round and round in circles with your 'my absolute liberty outweighs your absolute liberty' argument - can you give us some examples of when your right to absolute liberty should be matched with opposing absolute right to respond?



Yes. The Satanic verses 
Now people were clearly offended by that book . They had the right to demonstrate, to picket bookshops, to burn it (repulsive as that is to me) fine. They had the right to be offended. They had the right to demonstrate. They didn't have the right to ban the book or kill Rushdie


Earlier I posted an anecdote about going to see the movie Romper Stomper and meeting people outside who called for me to boycott the movie. Now they had the right to picket the movie and to call for a boycott if they wished. I disagreed with them and went to see the movie anyway. Now Both parties in these examples have expressed their rights. The Rushdie demonstrators and the Romper stomper pickets. But the book should still be published and read and the movie should still be watched

Now if the Romper Stomper pickets had gone into the cinema and thrown stink bombs or let the fire alarm off they would have crossed the line between legitimate response and interference in the liberty of others. Likewise, the moment the Rushdie demonstrators started to try to get the book banned, not to mention the physical attacks on the author and publisher of that work, they crossed the line.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2009)

I bet Rosa Parks disrupted a few peoples bus journey, indeed maybe she made them late for work.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> Yes. The Satanic verses
> Now people were clearly offended by that book . They had the right to demonstrate, to picket bookshops, to burn it (repulsive as that is to me) fine. They had the right to be offended. They had the right to demonstrate. They didn't have the right to ban the book or kill Rushdie
> 
> 
> Earlier I posted an anecdote about going to see the movie Romper Stomper and meeting people outside who called for me to boycott the movie. Now they had the right to picket the movie and to call for a boycott if they wished. I disagreed with them and went to see the movie anyway. Now Both parties in these examples have expressed their rights. The Rushdie demonstrators and the Romper stomper pickets. But the book should still be published and read and the movie should still be watched



But nothing has been banned, and no-one's been killed here.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> and yet at one time the word was in common currency as an acceptable term. Peoples objections and protests etc. made it not so.



Er..actually it was NEVER an acceptable term, not to black people anyway


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> But nothing has been banned, and no-one's been killed here.



No, that's true. But the event was disrupted and the intention was clearly to stop the event from taking place. To "smash" it . The OP said the event "should not be happening"

Also, the degree to which supporters of the disruption wish the event banned is not clear as they have point blank refused to answer that question


----------



## revol68 (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> Yes but our self elected guardians of womens objectification wanted it to take place. So it should take place with ONLY minimal disruption !!!!!111



oh fffs i thought your politics were better than this inane shite.

If some dickheads want to parade themselves around to live off their looks for a brief peroid of time, who really gives a fuck, let them get on with it. It's not exactly going to affect anyone with wit or even a smudgen of self respect. 

It isn't the fucking fifties, beauty pagaents are hardly taken seriously or their participants upheld as something young women should aspire too, they are generally held in mocking contempt, as are the hysterical morons who stand outside squawking about it.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> Er..actually it was NEVER an acceptable term, not to black people anyway



It was perfectly acceptable for the white man saying it and the society he was a part of.

I suppose it was up to your despised 'self appointed' types like Rosa Parks to protest against the word and the associate segregationary practises


----------



## revol68 (May 3, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I bet Rosa Parks disrupted a few peoples bus journey, indeed maybe she made them late for work.



to be fair Rosa Parks wasn't a minger jealous that some attractive lasses where trading on their good looks in a procession irrelevant to everyone with wit.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 3, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> It was perfectly acceptable for the white man saying it and the society he was a part of.
> 
> I suppose it was up to your despised 'self appointed' types like Rosa Parks to protest against the word and the associate segregationary practises


_...coming over here, sitting on our buses in the wrong bits!!!!... _


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2009)

revol68 said:


> to be fair Rosa Parks wasn't a minger jealous that some attractive lasses where trading on their good looks in a procession irrelevant to everyone with wit.





*passes Revol the big wooden shit-stirrer*


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> No, that's true. But the event was disrupted and the intention was clearly to stop the event from taking place. To "smash" it . The OP said the event "should not be happening"



Back round in circles again. 

Back to my original question "can you give us some examples of when your right to absolute liberty should be matched with opposing absolute right to respond?"

And by "absolute right to respond" I mean unfettered by your terms of acceptable disruption.


----------



## revol68 (May 3, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> It was perfectly acceptable for the white man saying it and the society he was a part of.
> 
> I suppose it was up to your despised 'self appointed' types like Rosa Parks to protest against the word and the associate segregationary practises



yes because the impact of a fucking beauty pageant is anyway equivalent to the systematic dehumanisation of blacks in America. This protest is more akin to if Rosa Park spent her time outside a Jay Z concert whinging about him using the n word and glorifying a narrow form of urban black masculinity.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

revol68 said:


> oh fffs i thought your politics were better than this inane shite.
> 
> If some dickheads want to parade themselves around to live off their looks for a brief peroid of time, who really gives a fuck, let them get on with it. It's not exactly going to affect anyone with wit or even a smudgen of self respect.
> 
> It isn't the fucking fifties, beauty pagaents are hardly taken seriously or their participants upheld as something young women should aspire too, they are generally held in mocking contempt, as are the hysterical morons who stand outside squawking about it.



Fuck off revol. If you'd read my fucking posts you'd fucking see that I couldn't really give a fucking toss about the fucking stupid bints wanting to parade about for some sleazy fucking hoorays to wank over.

What I'm fucking arguing about here is dylans' deciding who the hell gets to protest and how on his or her fucking terms you wee fuckwit.

They can hold up a banner in a non disruptive place but they can't throw a fucking stinkbomb or whatever? Get a fucking grip.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

XR75 said:


>



I see that you're as erudite in your replies as dylans is. Well done!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> You seem to be deciding what form their democratic right of protest should take. That's not very democratic - is it?



He does that quite a bit, doesn't he?


----------



## revol68 (May 3, 2009)

actually that raises a point, there is far more objectification of women at night clubs and within various genres of music than there is at a beauty pagaent but they don't tend to attract such protests. I'd suggest this is because of how old fashioned and ultimately absurd and irrelevant these pagaents are and as such it's far easier to attack the irony laden ghosts of sexism past than anything relevant.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2009)

revol68 said:


> yes because the impact of a fucking beauty pageant is anyway equivalent to the systematic dehumanisation of blacks in America. This protest is more akin to if Rosa Park spent her time outside a Jay Z concert whinging about him using the n word and glorifying a narrow form of urban black masculinity.



Yeah, but it's moved a little beyond the actual pageant and into Dylans bizarre view of absolutist liberty.


----------



## revol68 (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> Fuck off revol. If you'd read my fucking posts you'd fucking see that I couldn't really give a fucking toss about the fucking stupid bints wanting to parade about for some sleazy fucking hoorays to wank over.
> 
> What I'm fucking arguing about here is dylans' deciding who the hell gets to protest and how on his or her fucking terms you wee fuckwit.
> 
> They can hold up a banner in a non disruptive place but they can't throw a fucking stinkbomb or whatever? Get a fucking grip.



they can have their simulacra of struggle at the simulacra of sexism all they want, doesn't stop them being just as pathetic and reactionary (if not more) than those who organised and took part in the pagaent. Atleast the women taking part might actually gain something out of it rather than simply indulging their out of date and highly strung caricature of feminist politics.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> I see that you're as erudite in your replies as dylans is. Well done!!



what did I do?


----------



## revol68 (May 3, 2009)

Anyone arguing back and forth over each sides right to protest and freedom to organise such events is a fucking pathetic liberal. 

Can we all agree that only fuckwits organise beauty pagaents and only fuckwits protest against them and fuck all this bourgeois right to blah blah shite.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Yeah, but it's moved a little beyond the actual pageant and into Dylans bizarre view of absolutist liberty.


I take offence at that. I think you should be banned!


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Can we all agree that only fuckwits organise beauty pagaents and only fuckwits protest against them and fuck all this bourgeois right to blah blah shite.



castigating liberals and saying 'can we all agree' in one post eh?

Allanis


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> No .EVERYONES liberties are the ones that matter most. My liberty to watch a beauty contest, your right to protest. My right to judge the quality of a piece of art or literature for myself, your right to be offended by the said piece of art or literature.


You keep using the word "offence", but it's not about "offence", it's about *our* liberties (and I *don't* mean LEGAL RIGHTS, either), where *my* liberties become an imposition on yours, and _vice versa_, and how we compromise on the matter.
You, it seems, wish to believe that in any compromise *all* of your own liberties *must* remain intact.


> When you disrupt an event on the basis of_ offence_ you are imposing your standards and morality on me because what you find offensive others may not. Be offended, fine. Live with it.


See what I mean?


----------



## revol68 (May 3, 2009)

Still sure we can all act too cool for 50's old skool sexism whilst we happily watch mtv, go to hip hop gigs, girls aloud etc etc

And seriously objectification is such a bullshit term, as aesthetics and sexuality have to be based on mythical fully rounded terms.


----------



## 8ball (May 3, 2009)

revol68 said:


> actually that raises a point, there is far more objectification of women at night clubs and within various genres of music than there is at a beauty pagaent but they don't tend to attract such protests. I'd suggest this is because of how old fashioned and ultimately absurd and irrelevant these pagaents are and as such it's far easier to attack the irony laden ghosts of sexism past than anything relevant.



I think it gets fairly relevant when feminism has been rolled back to the point where a place of supposed academic stature like London Uni is doing this sort of thing.

I suppose we should be expecting the Oxford University Black And White Minstrel Show Summer Spectacular to be announced any minute now.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

revol68 said:


> they can have their simulacra of struggle at the simulacra of sexism all they want, doesn't stop them being just as pathetic and reactionary (if not more) than those who organised and took part in the pagaent. Atleast the women taking part might actually gain something out of it rather than simply indulging their out of date and highly strung caricature of feminist politics.



Well the entire response lent the pageant the weight of publicity. And this 'smash the [whatever]' makes me cringe. 

But I don't need Mary Whitehouse dylans giving it large and censorious about how awful it was that the event was disrupted at all.


----------



## revol68 (May 3, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> castigating liberals and saying 'can we all agree' in one post eh?
> 
> Allanis



I was calling on all those professing to be not fuckwits to a strong single minded position.

You can embrace your faggoty multitude if you want...


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> What rights do I advocate curbing?Their right to deny the rights of those who disagree with them? Then yes I do.
> They have the right to be offended .They don't have the right to censure those who offend them.



Do you know what "censure" means?


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Anyone arguing back and forth over each sides right to protest and freedom to organise such events is a fucking pathetic liberal.
> 
> Can we all agree that only fuckwits organise beauty pagaents and only fuckwits protest against them and fuck all this bourgeois right to blah blah shite.



You won't be saying that if someone tries to stop you wearing that Palestinian teatowel


----------



## revol68 (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> Well the entire response lent the pageant the weight of publicity. And this 'smash the [whatever]' makes me cringe.
> 
> But I don't need Mary Whitehouse dylans giving it large and censorious about how awful it was that the event was disrupted at all.



to be fair atleast there is the possibility of some self valorisation watching a beauty pagaent, next to known browsing the protest I'd guess.


----------



## revol68 (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> You won't be saying that if someone tries to stop you wearing that Palestinian teatowel



I've long ago moved onto snoods.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> *passes Revol the big wooden shit-stirrer*



But revol *is* the big wooden shit-stirrer!!


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> You keep using the word "offence", but it's not about "offence", it's about *our* liberties (and I *don't* mean LEGAL RIGHTS, either), where *my* liberties become an imposition on yours, and _vice versa_, and how we compromise on the matter.
> You, it seems, wish to believe that in any compromise *all* of your own liberties *must* remain intact.
> 
> See what I mean?



How is a beauty contest and imposition on your liberties? You don't have to attend the stupid thing do you? ? You can express your disapproval of its ethics. You just can't seem to conceive that it is possible to express your disapproval without disrupting or banning the thing. ( although we are not clear whether you wish to ban it are we? as you refuse to tell us)


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> Well the entire response lent the pageant the weight of publicity. And this 'smash the [whatever]' makes me cringe.
> 
> But I don't need Mary Whitehouse dylans giving it large and censorious about how awful it was that the event was disrupted at all.



I think you will find that Mary Whitehouse would be on your side.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> Fuck off revol. If you'd read my fucking posts you'd fucking see that I couldn't really give a fucking toss about the fucking stupid bints wanting to parade about for some sleazy fucking hoorays to wank over.
> 
> What I'm fucking arguing about here is dylans' deciding who the hell gets to protest and how on his or her fucking terms you wee fuckwit.
> 
> They can hold up a banner in a non disruptive place but they can't throw a fucking stinkbomb or whatever? Get a fucking grip.



I do wish you'd stop trying to be diplomatic, and actually say what you mean for once!


----------



## revol68 (May 3, 2009)

The only thing I would say is that those calling for it to be shut down, smashed etc should atleast have the intellectual honesty to ask themselves why they aren't protesting against other forms of what they deem 'female objectification'. If you say you draw a line at a daft beauty pagaent it doesn't give you much room for manevoeure amongst most popular culture and events.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

8ball said:


> I think it gets fairly relevant when feminism has been rolled back to the point where a place of supposed academic stature like London Uni is doing this sort of thing.
> 
> I suppose we should be expecting the Oxford University Black And White Minstrel Show Summer Spectacular to be announced any minute now.



Black and White Minstrel show - great idea! Featuring Jim Davidson as host. And a competition for the best Bernard Manning style comedian.


----------



## revol68 (May 3, 2009)

Infact i bet half those protesting lesbians have no problem with Pinks live show.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> I do wish you'd stop trying to be diplomatic, and actually say what you mean for once!



He swored at me first guv  I hope you're not suggesting that my response was disproportionate or disruptive and infringed on revol's freedom of expression


----------



## revol68 (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> Black and White Minstrel show - great idea! Featuring Jim Davidson as host. And a competition for the best Bernard Manning style comedian.



Yes because beauty pagaents aren't dripping in irony, even if it's oblivious to the retard organisers or contestants.

Would you not agree that the representation of women in popular culture, movies and music is far more influential and in many cases far more degrading to man, woman and beast.

Those Twilight books are far far far more reactionary than any uni beauty pagaent.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> I think you will find that Mary Whitehouse would be on your side.



On the contrary. I think Mary Whitehouse would have wholeheartedly condemned the wanking booth and stink bomb throwing, much the same as you do.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Yes because beauty pagaents aren't dripping in irony, even if it's oblivious to the retard organisers or contestants.
> 
> Would you not agree that the representation of women in popular culture, movies and music is far more influential and in many cases far more degrading to man, woman and beast.
> 
> Those Twilight books are far far far more reactionary than any uni beauty pagaent.




I think a Black and White Minstrel show would be dripping in irony too. No-one could take that seriously, could they?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Infact i bet half those protesting lesbians have no problem with Pinks live show.



They should do really, because live or recorded Pink is shite.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> He swored at me first guv  I hope you're not suggesting that my response was disproportionate or disruptive and infringed on revol's freedom of expression



No to do that you would have to go round to his house with a megaphone, scream and howl like a banshee, take over his living room stand on his telly,  throw stink bombs on the carpet and throw flyers all over his garden while 20 of your mates tried to stop his mates coming round to visit. But that would just be a legitimate response wouldn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> How is a beauty contest and imposition on your liberties.


You miss the point. It's not about a beauty contest (or a film, or a book), it's about personal freedoms and liberties.
The liberties I have enable me to protest against beauty pageants, and even to protest *for* them if I so wish.  However, unlike you, I'm perfectly willing to sit down at table with anyone opposed to whichever position I take and try to find a compromise. Your own position, as argued on this thread, appears to be to demand the full satisfaction of whatever you perceive your own personal freedoms and liberties to be.


> You don't have to attend the stupid thing do you? ? You can express your disapproval of its ethics. You just can't seem to conceive that it is possible to express your disapproval without disrupting or banning the thing.


Depends how you quantify "disruption", I suspect". If we were to quantify it based on what you've written on this thread, I suspect "disruption" would be taken as meaning "anything that impinges on my enjoyment".


> ( although we are not clear whether you wish to ban it are we? as you refuse to tell us)


"Us"? Only you have asked me.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> On the contrary. I think Mary Whitehouse would have wholeheartedly condemned the wanking booth and stink bomb throwing, much the same as you do.



I think it was her supporters that tried to ban "Life of Brian." Successfully too in a few places.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> I think you will find that Mary Whitehouse would be on your side.


Mrs. Whitehouse and the NVLA never protested against beauty pageants, and in fact was generally as absolutist in her positions on issues as you appear to be, so your finding isn't particularly apt.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

I would "quantify" disruption as throwing stink bombs, storming a stage, heckling the contestants and grabbing a microphone, but that's just me.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> No to do that you would have to go round to his house with a megaphone, scream and howl like a banshee, take over his living room stand on his telly,  throw stink bombs on the carpet and throw flyers all over his garden while 20 of your mates tried to stop his mates coming round to visit. But that would just be a legitimate response wouldn't it?



You do realise that revol only swore at me on a message board, don't you? You'd have been far better off deploying the Bookfair response as an example of disproportionate behaviour.


----------



## revol68 (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> I think a Black and White Minstrel show would be dripping in irony too. No-one could take that seriously, could they?



well it would cause outrage but that's hardly evidence of it's actual reactionary impact on society. 

I'd suggest drag queens are closer to black and white minstrels than beauty pagaents, which would be more akin to cultural events and discourses that celebrate and promote narrow and reactionary notion of self identity amongst an 'oppressed group' such as say certain forms of gangsta rap or Sex and the City, Cosmo, and shitty fruit based drinks amongst late twenties, early thirties women.

Still only a proper fuckwit would stand protesting outside the Sex and the City movie or some over priced shit hole like Karen Millen.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> I think it was her supporters that tried to ban "Life of Brian." Successfully too in a few places.



Precisely. "A few". 
And you'll find that most cinemas that refused to show it in the UK did so because local by-laws gave the local authority final say on what got screened, so it was more about "concerned Christians" making representations to their councillors, who then got the wind up, than about mass protests by crowds of offended Jeebus-lovers.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> However, unlike you, I'm perfectly willing to sit down at table with anyone opposed to whichever position I take and try to find a compromise.



Then throw stink bombs when you don't get your way?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> I would "quantify" disruption as throwing stink bombs, storming a stage, heckling the contestants and grabbing a microphone, but that's just me.



So your position is that protest can involve no disruption, which you quantify as any physical manifestation of disagreement with the event taking place, then?


----------



## revol68 (May 3, 2009)

how on fucking earth can you hope to debate an empty category like protest?

Is it a legitimate protest to throw stink bombs at a gay civil ceremony or is that not a homophobic attack?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> Then throw stink bombs when you don't get your way?


On the evidence of the above comment, you don't actually understand what compromise is, do you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

revol68 said:


> how on fucking earth can you hope to debate an empty category like protest?
> 
> Is it a legitimate protest to throw stink bombs at a gay civil ceremony or is that not a homophobic attack?


That'd depend on the motivation(s) of the thrower.


----------



## revol68 (May 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> That'd depend on the motivation(s) of the thrower.



exactly, you can't have such a discussion without some content. In some cases protesting with live ammuntion is to be not only defended but actively supported at others protesting with simply leaflets is to be smashed.


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> So your position is that protest can involve no disruption, which you quantify as any physical manifestation of disagreement with the event taking place, then?



What was the actual goal of the protest? Was it to express opposition in a theatrical manner, as people here suggest? Or was it to stop the event? 

The OP makes it clear that the event "shouldn't be happening" The protestors storm the stage and throw stink bombs, the language talks of "smashing" beauty contests.

Am I really unreasonable in assuming the intent of the protestors was to stop this event from taking place? In which case it is imposing your view (that you don't like this type of event) on those who disagree.

 I just wish those who defend this protest would be honest as to the real intention of the action that  evening instead of refusing to answer the question.

 So I ask it again, Violent Panda is it your view that this beauty contest (this particular one if you wish) should not have been allowed to happen?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2009)

dylans said:


> What was the actual goal of the protest? Was it to express opposition in a theatrical manner, as people here suggest? Or was it to stop the event?
> 
> The OP makes it clear that the event "shouldn't be happening" The protestors storm the stage and throw stink bombs, the language talks of "smashing" beauty contests.


Let's revisit (yet again!) that statement by the OP, the one that goes:
"Beauty contests are ridiculous and demeaning. This pageant should not be happening, and should be disrupted all the way."
What the OP does is *express an opinion* that the pageant shouldn't be happening, as well as opinions pertaining to the ridiculousness and demeaning nature of such events.
So, was the goal to *STOP* the event? No, it was to express an opinion about the acceptability of such events, and to get it across to as wide an audience as possible (as happened).


> Am I really unreasonable in assuming the intent of the protestors was to stop this event from taking place?


Given the facts, then I believe that while you're not "unreasonable" in your assumption, you are wrong-headed. Blinded by your own rhetoric and the need to maintain your position.


> In which case it is imposing your view (that you don't like this type of event) on those who disagree.


In reality, meanwhile, the protesters expressed their opinions rather than imposed their views.


> I just wish those who defend this protest would be honest as to the real intention of the action that  evening instead of refusing to answer the question.
> 
> So I ask it again, Violent Panda is it your view that this beauty contest (this particular one if you wish) should not have been allowed to happen?


The name is ViolentPanda, single word. Use it.
And as you've asked a definitive question rather than it's vague predecessor, I'll answer it: My view is that it should have been (and was) allowed to happen, *and* that the protesters had every "right" to do what they did to express their opinion(s) as to it's suitability. Your right to hold a beauty contest extends exactly as far as my right to object to it, especially when it is held on publicly-funded property.


----------



## badco (May 3, 2009)

she was fit as FUCK though wasn't she?Hubba Hubba


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

badco said:


> she was fit as FUCK though wasn't she?Hubba Hubba



Who?


----------



## badco (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> Who?



wrong thread


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

badco said:


> the homophobe



Are you sure you're on the right thread?


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

badco said:


> wrong thread


----------



## badco (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> Are you sure you're on the right thread?



see above post


----------



## badco (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


>



meh


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

badco said:


> meh



Happens dunnit  Don't matter. I bets you were confusing this with the troll Gays and Gals thread?


----------



## the button (May 3, 2009)

badco said:


> wrong thread



As "wrong threads" go this is fairly fucking spectacular.


----------



## badco (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> Happens dunnit  Don't matter. I bets you were confusing this with the troll Gays and Gals thread?



maybe,can't remember


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

edited cus I just can't be bothered anymore


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2009)

Blimey.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> Blimey.


that really is quite staggering eh? 

_you're free to think what you think, as long as i say its ok..._


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2009)

_We are all free, but my freedom is more important than yours.
_

That's what your argument boils down to dylans


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 3, 2009)

_The object unsoiled is packed ready and waiting,
For the moment of truth in this spiritual mating.
The object unsoiled is packed ready and waiting,
To be owned, to be cherished, to be fucked for the naming.
The public are shocked by the state of society,
But as for you, you're a breath of purity.

Well don't give me your morals, they're filth in my eyes,
You can pack them away with the rest of your lies.
Your painted mask of ugly perfection,
The ring on your finger, the sign of protection,
Is the rape on page 3, is the soldiers obsession,
How well you've been caught to support your oppression.
One god. One church. One husband. One wife._

*makes vain, narcissitic and ultimately pointless punt for being the new jc2*


----------



## dylans (May 3, 2009)

Edited cus I just can't be bothered anymore.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2009)

Oh fuck of with that precious attitude. People have argued you up and down, but rather than re-consider your own views you choose to label your opposition as circle-jerkers. I thought you had some integrity too. You disappoint me.


----------



## Nigel (May 3, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> _The object unsoiled is packed ready and waiting,
> For the moment of truth in this spiritual mating.
> The object unsoiled is packed ready and waiting,
> To be owned, to be cherished, to be fucked for the naming.
> ...


What is that: CRASS?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 3, 2009)

(aka a birmingham fashion house) by c.r.@.s.s.


----------



## Nigel (May 4, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> (aka a birmingham fashion house) by c.r.@.s.s.



Have'nt heard that for years.
Cheers


----------



## Nigel (May 4, 2009)

Who the fuck is this pissed fat fucker!!!!!!!!
At least he's put together a good selection of sounds


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 4, 2009)

dylans said:


> Edited cus I just can't be bothered anymore.


ah well, at least free expression won out in the end eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 4, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> that really is quite staggering eh?
> 
> _you're free to think what you think, as long as i say its ok..._



Did he reply to me and then delete it, like?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 4, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> ah well, at least free expression won out in the end eh?



At least until he decides that he was *forced, forced I tell you*, to edit his posts because he wouldn't fit in with the monothought clique.


----------



## 8ball (May 4, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> At least until he decides that he was *forced, forced I tell you*, to edit his posts because he wouldn't fit in with the monothought clique.



I think he had a point, akshully.

<gets coat>


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 4, 2009)

8ball said:


> I think he had a point, akshully.
> 
> <gets coat>



<revokes 8balls' membership of clique >


----------



## dylans (May 4, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> <revokes 8balls' membership of clique >



Quite! (just kidding)


----------



## revol68 (May 5, 2009)

8ball said:


> I think he had a point, akshully.
> 
> <gets coat>



well he did, if the people calling for it to be smashed actually mean it then the logic is that such things are not merely to be protested against but to be banished.

Of course it's just ranty fuckwit hyperbole with next to no thought going into, just knee jerk lefty feminist muppetry.

still doesn't mean a beauty pagaent isn't retarded jut not the type of thing warranting a political intervention.


----------



## cesare (May 5, 2009)

revol68 said:


> well he did, if the people calling for it to be smashed actually mean it then the logic is that such things are not merely to be protested against but to be banished.
> 
> Of course it's just ranty fuckwit hyperbole with next to no thought going into, just knee jerk lefty feminist muppetry.
> 
> still doesn't mean a beauty pagaent isn't retarded jut not the type of thing warranting a political intervention.



Women love being told by men what they should/shouldn't protest about, what's worthy or not.


----------



## revol68 (May 5, 2009)

cesare said:


> Women love being told by men what they should/shouldn't protest about, what's worthy or not.



well in that case they should also not lower themselves to playing the pathetic relativist card they pulled out their arse after a mirror and vagina consciousness raising meeting. 

oh and if you do wish to stick to that angle perhaps you should consider the correctness of telling other women how to behave in a manner more according to the sisterhood ie not takig part in beauty pagaents...


----------



## Rod Sleeves (May 5, 2009)

revol68 said:


> well in that case they should also not lower themselves to playing the pathetic relativist card they pulled out their arse after a mirror and vagina consciousness raising meeting.
> 
> oh and if you do wish to stick to that angle perhaps you should consider the correctness of telling other women how to behave in a manner more according to the sisterhood ie not takig part in beauty pagaents...



This is politically cretinous of you.


----------



## revol68 (May 5, 2009)

well I might concede that of you go atleast someway towards making a point.


----------



## revol68 (May 5, 2009)

people of all races, genders, sexes and religions hating being told they are wrong, doesn't have fuck all bearing on whether they are or not.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 5, 2009)

Isn't part of the problem here that, underlying the rhetoric, that this is basically moralising? Telling someone they can't do something because it arguably has negative impacts on others? Remember that I don't hold a candle for beauty contests either way, and leaving aside the interesting issues surrounding sexual objectification posed by having the wank booth, but just think that you won't have 'won' anyone to your cause, or indeed swayed anyone's opionions one way or another, beyond (as I've already said) gratifying yourselves that 'a blow has been struck' and that you're doing _something_?


----------



## cesare (May 5, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Isn't part of the problem here that, underlying the rhetoric, that this is basically moralising? Telling someone they can't do something because it arguably has negative impacts on others? Remember that I don't hold a candle for beauty contests either way, and leaving aside the interesting issues surrounding sexual objectification posed by having the wank booth, but just think that you won't have 'won' anyone to your cause, or indeed swayed anyone's opionions one way or another, beyond (as I've already said) gratifying yourselves that 'a blow has been struck' and that you're doing _something_?




Which protests don't do that?


----------



## Blagsta (May 5, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Isn't part of the problem here that, underlying the rhetoric, that this is basically moralising? Telling someone they can't do something because it arguably has negative impacts on others? Remember that I don't hold a candle for beauty contests either way, and leaving aside the interesting issues surrounding sexual objectification posed by having the wank booth, but just think that you won't have 'won' anyone to your cause, or indeed swayed anyone's opionions one way or another, beyond (as I've already said) gratifying yourselves that 'a blow has been struck' and that you're doing _something_?



This is an argument for never taking a stand against anything.


----------



## revol68 (May 6, 2009)

cesare said:


> Which protests don't do that?



ones in which it's based on your own concrete interest or coherent and consistent politics rather than inventing an imaginary homogenous entity that is being offended, insulted or denigrated. If the women in a beaut pageant want to trade on their looks then let them, it's really not your problem, certainly less so than far more concrete forms of exploitation.

Why not go protest outside a hotel or restraunt about how low wage pink collar jobs reproduce notions of female servitude? Oh of course you wouldn't because whilst there is clearly some truth such a point, such an intervention is absurd moralising shite rather than anything political. 

If i join a protest over a war or a strike of low paid cleaners I don't go on it just to whinge about it being wrong, I go there with a point of supporting a concrete demand eg higher wages, stopping a war. This however was simply a down with that sort of thing protest, that whilst using the rhetoric of 'smash' etc never had such intentions and if it did would be a ridiculous, reactionary response to something so cretinous and trivial.

I note you haven't replied to my response to your relativism, I'll take it that's cos your mildly scundered you resorted to it.


----------



## revol68 (May 6, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> This is an argument for never taking a stand against anything.



it's an argument against the politics of protest culture and the whole spectacle of taking a 'stand' that shores up bourgeois liberalism, it's not an argument against actually concrete struggle and resistance that aims to win or go beyond the contemptible politics of the confessional ("Not in my name" etc etc).

This protest would go beyond that if it actually sought to really smash the beauty pageant and stop it and similar events taking place however that would also make it rather bat shit and actually more reactionary than the event it sought to shut down. Of course as has been argued at length it never was really meant to do such a thing as smash it, instead it's just moralising wank wearing radical rhetoric.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 6, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Did he reply to me and then delete it, like?


yes basically. won't even begin to try and replicate it. but it was awesome


----------



## DotCommunist (May 6, 2009)

revol68 said:


> ones in which it's based on your own concrete interest or coherent and consistent politics rather than inventing an imaginary homogenous entity that is being offended, insulted or denigrated. If the women in a beaut pageant want to trade on their looks then let them, it's really not your problem, certainly less so than far more concrete forms of exploitation.
> 
> Why not go protest outside a hotel or restraunt about how low wage pink collar jobs reproduce notions of female servitude? Oh of course you wouldn't because whilst there is clearly some truth such a point, such an intervention is absurd moralising shite rather than anything political.
> 
> ...



Why does this read as 'some protests are worthier than others'?


----------



## revol68 (May 6, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Why does this read as 'some protests are worthier than others'?



because clearly they fucking are, so much so that it shouldn't need fucking saying. Unless of course you think a protest against the Iraq war was on the same level as a protest against Jerry Springer The Opera.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 6, 2009)

Well so long as we have Political Officer Revol there to tell us what is and isn't valid protest, we'll be fine.


----------



## revol68 (May 6, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Well so long as we have Political Officer Revol there to tell us what is and isn't valid protest, we'll be fine.



well i assume you aren't a clueless fuckwit who goes through life unable to make such judgements. I mean I assume you would have a view on the political validity of protesting gay marriages compared to say a protest against the banning of abortion?

I mean fucking shock horror someone making a political judgement on a politics thread and even going so far as to construct an argument to support it.

I'd insult you as a liberal but that would be an insult to liberals.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 6, 2009)

you're a bit graham norton tonight revol tbh../..


----------



## cesare (May 6, 2009)

revol68 said:


> ones in which it's based on your own concrete interest or coherent and consistent politics rather than inventing an imaginary homogenous entity that is being offended, insulted or denigrated. If the women in a beaut pageant want to trade on their looks then let them, it's really not your problem, certainly less so than far more concrete forms of exploitation.
> 
> Why not go protest outside a hotel or restraunt about how low wage pink collar jobs reproduce notions of female servitude? Oh of course you wouldn't because whilst there is clearly some truth such a point, such an intervention is absurd moralising shite rather than anything political.
> 
> If i join a protest over a war or a strike of low paid cleaners I don't go on it just to whinge about it being wrong, I go there with a point of supporting a concrete demand eg higher wages, stopping a war. This however was simply a down with that sort of thing protest, that whilst using the rhetoric of 'smash' etc never had such intentions and if it did would be a ridiculous, reactionary response to something so cretinous and trivial.



Before we go any further with this - have you actually done what I suggested in my sweary response post and read what my point of view is on this particular protest? Because you're coming across as if you haven't fully grasped it. 

Either that, or you're making a general point but for some reason keep saying 'you' & 'your' instead of framing it in general terms.

Which is it?



revol68 said:


> I note you haven't replied to my response to your relativism, I'll take it that's cos your mildly scundered you resorted to it.



Oh, you mean this I take it:



revol68 said:


> well in that case they should also not lower themselves to playing the pathetic relativist card they pulled out their arse after a mirror and vagina consciousness raising meeting.
> 
> oh and if you do wish to stick to that angle perhaps you should consider the correctness of telling other women how to behave in a manner more according to the sisterhood ie not takig part in beauty pagaents...



Well it obviously touched a nerve, didn't it? When I read it, then read Rod Sleeve's response, then your next two posts ... it didn't look as if there was much more to be said. 

But when you finally grasped it, to an extent, after your hissy fit:




			
				revol68 said:
			
		

> people of all races, genders, sexes and religions hating being told they are wrong, doesn't have fuck all bearing on whether they are or not.



Yes, but who the fuck are _you_ to decide whether they're wrong or not? You see, you're in a relatively privileged position. A white able bodied male. You make your pronouncements without even a hint of irony.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 6, 2009)

revol68 said:


> I'd insult you as a liberal but that would be an insult to liberals.



well that, and you have already shown some dangerously liberal tendencies yourself so can't really go denouncing...


----------



## revol68 (May 6, 2009)

cesare said:


> Before we go any further with this - have you actually done what I suggested in my sweary response post and read what my point of view is on this particular protest? Because you're coming across as if you haven't fully grasped it.
> 
> Either that, or you're making a general point but for some reason keep saying 'you' & 'your' instead of framing it in general terms.
> 
> ...


i'm also an unemployed young man from a region still feeling the legacy of anglo colonialisation, whilst you're an employed relatively well paid older woman living in the imperialist metropolis. 

honestly i'm shocked you would sink so low as to make this caricature of an argument.

it wouldn't matter a fuck if i had dicks for limbs, was blind, HIV positive and lived in tree house with no running water, it wouldn't impact on the validity of my argument one bit.

But since you are so keen on chastising me for telling others what is worthy and what isn't perhaps you should pose that question in regards to the willing women taking part in the pageant.




seriously what the fuck has able body got to do with it


----------



## cesare (May 6, 2009)

revol68 said:


> i'm also an unemployed young man from a region still feeling the legacy of anglo colonialisation, whilst you're an employed relatively well paid older woman living in the imperialist metropolis.
> 
> honestly i'm shocked you would sink so low as to make this caricature of an argument.
> 
> ...



In case you have still missed it, for the third time @ you, I don't give a toss about the pageant. But because of my age, because of the context, I don't have a problem with people protesting about it either. 

You're running with the argument that the protest shouldn't have taken place at all. More than that, you evidently feel very strongly about it. Strongly enough to resort to comments such as "vagina consciousness raising meeting."

Are there any feminist protests that would gain your seal of approval?


----------



## pk (May 6, 2009)

Cock off revol, you're a standing joke across the entire internet.

Go on, off you fuck.


----------



## cesare (May 6, 2009)

He's not though, pk. There's lots of people that have loads of time for him, me included hopefully obviously. Don't mean to say that people can't disagree on a particular issue.


----------



## revol68 (May 6, 2009)

cesare said:


> In case you have still missed it, for the third time @ you, I don't give a toss about the pageant. But because of my age, because of the context, I don't have a problem with people protesting about it either.
> 
> You're running with the argument that the protest shouldn't have taken place at all. More than that, you evidently feel very strongly about it. Strongly enough to resort to comments such as "vagina consciousness raising meeting."
> 
> Are there any feminist protests that would gain your seal of approval?



no i couldn't particularly give a fuck about the daft protest or the shitty pageant it only granted more importance too, what bothered me was the lack of intellectual honesty in peoples responses.

of course i don't think they should have protested, i've made that perfectly clear and likewise i'm perfectly clear on the fact you are only really defending the protest on some abstract 'right to protest' tip.

what i feel strongly about is your pathetic relativism, an argument that is so utterly cretinous, politically and intellectually bankrupt that it pisses me off far more than anything else. I can deal with reactionary arguments, I can't however deal with the contemptible crock of shit that only serves to undercut any potential ground for politics, emancipatory or otherwise.

as for feminist protests, well if it's some shitty feminism without prefix shite,  the second wave moralising gobshites or the equally cretinous mirror opposite new third wave "getting your tits out" is empowering mob, then no I have nothing but contempt. If however it's a feminist protest in so much as it make concrete demands around issues such as reproductive rights, child care or the multitude of issues that might be of some relevance instead of simply being simulcra of struggles against the spectres of the past, then yes I will support it.


----------



## revol68 (May 6, 2009)

pk said:


> Cock off revol, you're a standing joke across the entire internet.
> 
> Go on, off you fuck.



You flatter me too much.


----------



## revol68 (May 6, 2009)

basically the protest only summed up how utterly bankrupt what passes for feminism has become (actually not merely feminism but politics in general), still knocking out the same shitty slogans without any real thought, fighting ghosts because it's little more than a narrow historical sub culture, fuck all attempt at honest self criticism or even analysis of the world and how gender roles, divisions and hierarchies have changed and then of course answering reasoned criticisms with relativist shite that is meant only to shut down any discussion and of course renders politics dead full stop.

all of which by the way can be applied to various political movements within the present, being as it is a symptom of the apparently post political, post ideological landscape.


----------



## cesare (May 6, 2009)

revol68 said:


> no i couldn't particularly give a fuck about the daft protest or the shitty pageant it only granted more importance too, what bothered me was the lack of intellectual honesty in peoples responses.
> 
> of course i don't think they should have protested, i've made that perfectly clear and likewise i'm perfectly clear on the fact you are only really defending the protest on some abstract 'right to protest' tip.
> 
> ...



Can't you fucking read? Seriously have you entirely fucking failed to grasp that whilst I'm ambivalent about this particular pageant I see no reason to denigrate those people that choose to carry on protesting about them. 

I'm not "defending the protest on some abstract 'right to protest' tip." Just fuck off with that. I grew up with the Morley, Mecca, Miss World pervasion. For me, the protests back then served a purpose. And they were effective. The pageants don't have the currency now that they did back then. But they might do again in the future, if people like you seek to curb protest, stifle indignation.


----------



## cesare (May 6, 2009)

revol68 said:


> basically the protest only summed up how utterly bankrupt what passes for feminism has become (actually not merely feminism but politics in general), still knocking out the same shitty slogans without any real thought, fighting ghosts because it's little more than a narrow historical sub culture, fuck all attempt at honest self criticism or even analysis of the world and how gender roles, divisions and hierarchies have changed and then of course answering reasoned criticisms with relativist shite that is meant only to shut down any discussion and of course renders politics dead full stop.
> 
> all of which by the way can be applied to various political movements within the present, being as it is a symptom of the apparently post political, post ideological landscape.



But the second anyone turns the spotlight back on you, oppressed white male lol, you have a major fucking hissy fit


----------



## revol68 (May 6, 2009)

Stifle indignation, lolz. I'm fucking indignant that people can be such knee jerk fuckwits, protesting a beauty pageant is as relevant and worthwhile as protesting a Jay Z gig for his lyrics about women, infact it's less relevant as beauty pageants are irrelevant kitsch crap. The reason they are protesting a beauty pageant instead of something like a Jay Z gig is precisely because the beauty pageant is irrelevant shit, as such the protest is little more than self congratulatory moralising backslapping and not close to challenging contemporary gender politics.

You probably grew up when free love was apparently something subversive doesn't mean to say it's nothing but a contemptible means for sleazy fuckers to take the mick.


----------



## revol68 (May 6, 2009)

cesare said:


> But the second anyone turns the spotlight back on you, oppressed white male lol, you have a major fucking hissy fit



sorry I have contempt for relativist identity politics precisely because it's supposed turning of the spotlight is utterly inane and only serves to castrate anything approaching an emancipatory politic. The lefts short sighted embrace of such faddy shit is a large factor in why the political landscape is as barren as it is.

I would have thought my jokey point about me being an oppressed child of hibernia eeking out a meagre subsistence on the cursed oppressors dole would have made it clear that such relativism only ends in farce but apparently not.

If you want to turn the spotlight back on my political arguments by all means do so, hold them up to critical comment but please don't kid yourself that pointing out i'm white and male is doing anything other than illuminating the bankruptcy of your own argument and more fundamentally only serving to uphold the status quo by removing the possibility of a real emancipatory politic.


----------



## cesare (May 6, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Stifle indignation, lolz. I'm fucking indignant that people can be such knee jerk fuckwits, protesting a beauty pageant is as relevant and worthwhile as protesting a Jay Z gig for his lyrics about women, infact it's less relevant as beauty pageants are irrelevant kitsch crap. The reason they are protesting a beauty pageant instead of something like a Jay Z gig is precisely because the beauty pageant is irrelevant shit, as such the protest is little more than self congratulatory moralising backslapping and not close to challenging contemporary gender politics.
> 
> You probably grew up when free love was apparently something subversive doesn't mean to say it's nothing but a contemptible means for sleazy fuckers to take the mick.



You what now? You decide what form gender politics takes, what's relevant, what's not, what's worthy what's not? You? 

A woman says 'well actually x, y and z' and you descend from a great height putting her right and setting out where she's gone wrong? 

Oh thanks for that.

If you've got a handy checklist of acceptable feminist protests that'd be great.


----------



## revol68 (May 6, 2009)

oh for fucksake does it really matter if i have fucking cock or cunt, does my argument carry greater weight one way or the other? No of course it fucking doesn't.

This relativism is utterly pathetic, if you are going to embrace it atleast be consistent with it and chastise yourself for telling the oppressed children of England's first colony the correct protocol in discussing gender politics are.

Next time you feel outraged about the hanging of homosexuals in Iran, the mutilation of female genitalia or the general disgusting position of women in Afghanistan society may I remind you that you a relatively well off white british woman are in no place to pass judgement on the cultural practices of countries who have bleed under the butchers apron and whose systematic rape has went somewhat in producing the material circumstances that allow you to pontificate so smugly on the internet.

Like I said I'm disappointed that you've sunken to such pathetic non arguments, especially as it's one based on a logic that offers nothing for the millions of men and women around the world struggling against the tyranny of tradition and culture.


----------



## cesare (May 6, 2009)

revol68 said:


> oh for fucksake does it really matter if i have fucking cock or cunt, does my argument carry greater weight one way or the other? No of course it fucking doesn't.
> 
> This relativism is utterly pathetic, if you are going to embrace it atleast be consistent with it and chastise yourself for telling the oppressed children of England's first colony the correct protocol in discussing gender politics are.
> 
> ...




<inserts jesus lol pic>

You get well worked up with this feminist stuff don't you 

Don't worry, at the end of the day we'll stay in our place.


----------



## revol68 (May 6, 2009)

cesare said:


> <inserts jesus lol pic>
> 
> You get well worked up with this feminist stuff don't you
> 
> Don't worry, at the end of the day we'll stay in our place.



no i don't get worked up about feminism stuff i get worked up by people falling back on irrational relativist shit especially when said people should be some of the first to see what a dead end it is for all politics other than the status quo.

it is however an argument much favoured by many people on sexual and gender politics and furthermore one that to me stands in stark contrast to the egalitarian universalism that the best in feminism aims towards.


----------



## cesare (May 6, 2009)

revol68 said:


> no i don't get worked up about feminism stuff i get worked up by people falling back on irrational relativist shit especially when said people should be some of the first to see what a dead end it is for all politics other than the status quo.
> 
> it is however an argument much favoured by many people on sexual and gender politics and furthermore one that to me stands in stark contrast to the egalitarian universalism that the best in feminism aims towards.



Rubbish. You've got a real fucking bee in your bonnet about gender politics. I've never seen you popping up on race or disableds threads with equivalent arguments. Actually, I'd love to see you popping up on a disabled thread with pronouncements about what they could or couldn't protest about. 

Go on, try it.


----------



## revol68 (May 6, 2009)

actually where relativism has popped up in race issues i have, check a ton of threads on libcom, it's generally from some yanks and normally from white radicals with guilt dripping from them, ive also arguing against relativism in regards to liberal multiculturalism.

relativism on racial issues is far less common than gender, something I feel reflects how reified gender difference is within society, as I said those relativist arguments only act to support the status quo.
 as for the disabled well it might have something to do with the general lack of disability politics that are discussed on these forums and it also might have something to do with the fact i've never encounter identity politic relativism in such regards beyond the old joke about HIV positive lesbians in wheelchairs.

I mean I wouldn't rule out telling some disabled people their protest was stupid if I thought it was, thankfully I haven't came across disability protests that aren't by and large very concrete in their demands. I mean if the protest wasn't against a beauty pageant but for the facilitation of proper toilets as opposed to only stand up urinals then yes of course I'd support it but if it was some protest about disabled people with false limbs taking part in sports being sell outs and promoting an ablist ideal then I'd call bullshit.


----------



## cesare (May 6, 2009)

Jesus wept 

To the extent that anyone read all of that - it's like ICC-lite 

Lecture fucking lecture. Do this. Do that. Comply.


----------



## revol68 (May 6, 2009)

look who's turnt into dylan...

get back to me when you've got an argument, as for the ICC as annoying as they can be atleast they generally argue politics instead reverting to the gutter of relativism.


----------



## cesare (May 6, 2009)

revol68 said:


> look who's turnt into dylan...
> 
> get back to me when you've got an argument, as for the ICC as annoying as they can be atleast they generally argue politics instead reverting to the gutter of relativism.



I'm not surprised that you'd prefer the ICC's politics to in your face tell that way to the disableds.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 6, 2009)

revol68 said:


> because clearly they fucking are, so much so that it shouldn't need fucking saying. Unless of course you think a protest against the Iraq war was on the same level as a protest against Jerry Springer The Opera.



This would depend on your perspective.


----------



## revol68 (May 6, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> This would depend on your perspective.



how profound.


----------

