Feminists
Related: About this forumPost got locked - why England is upset about Kate Middleton breast photos
in many ways, men thing that they are superior to women. They "protect" us. By that, I mean that we are seen as a comodity.
What they don't realize is that women are more than capable of protecting themselves, and I kind of have an argument against this outrage for one reason.
Kate Middleton's breasts being displayed makes her no less a person, no less stronger of a person, just a person whose breasts were desired to be seen. Prince Harry was butt naked. He didn't apologize for it, and no one was appalled.
Frankly, If I'm famous enough that my breasts on display is of national interest, I think I've pretty much done a good job of being human. This fixation with the modesty of women in our nation is part of the problem. You've heard it "Tits displayed or you don't matter". People don't beg men to display their penis.
Most men are actually afraid to display their penis because it isn't very big. They want women to display their breasts, and we are very capable of doing that, but understand, this comes from a place of insecurity in men, not in insecurity of women.
We know what our breasts are ultimately for, feeding children, and men know that ultimately, their dicks are only useful in the function of creating children for about 2 minutes, and then they get off of their asses and work to raise their children. If they are decent men.
It's insecurity.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)
dkf
(37,305 posts)That is not what she wanted.
She gets to make her choice or at least she should be able to. Your defending her inability to make that choice in a feminist forum is odd.
Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)
Our resident *concerned person*. So glad you stopped by.
She should be able to make that choice, I agree, but the psychology behind it is, and should be, up for grabs.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Is necessary to giving birth and she should be proud of it.
Yeah that's just great.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Breasts are.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that you were going to lose it, didn't you? I mean, you stand on the right wing side of every argument and act as a concern troll every time you can.
How about this morning when you discouraged a person from pursuing voter rights because there were hard limits on the time tables of registering to vote despite the fact that said voter had been naturalized 6 weeks earlier?
"Nothing you can do"
That's what you encouraged, instead of them fighting for their right to vote.
Atman
(31,464 posts)I still don't care. She was topless on vacation. The horror. The horror.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)That know they are trolls. It's as satisfying and having V8 juice and a filet mignon with a fantastic salad.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)If you want to call out someone for being a "resident feminist" please don't do it in the Feminists Group.
eta: IOW, argue all you want on the basis of content but please refrain from name calling, even sarcastic name calling.
Thank you,
Gormy Cuss, host of the Feminists group.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)My apologies. I'm not sure how to edit the post, but I will, if you could tell me what I should say that isn't sarcastic.
Is resident troll acceptable? I'm sincerely asking.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Using 'feminist' in that way was not acceptable. In general we prefer that characterizations of longtime DUers be avoided, but it's especially not good to use feminist in an epithet in this group. Thank you for editing.
GC, host of Feminists forum.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Is that okay?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Hope it is acceptable.
Atman
(31,464 posts)She stepped out onto the veranda topless, knowing full well she was followed by parazzi. Actually, kind of exhibitionist behavior if you ask me. Which you didn't.
Personally, I just don't see why people are so freaked out at naked bodies. We all have one. Every single one of us.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)She should have the choice of the pictures being displayed or not, but otherwise, fuck it. She was on the balcony topless with her husband in France, for God's sake. That's OH SO scandalous. Not.
yardwork
(61,608 posts)People being this freaked about blurry photos of somebody's breasts implies that the person with the breasts is a helpless victim who needs to be protected. In reality, a grown woman stepped onto a veranda topless. So what. We can argue that having paparazzi dog her every move is itself a serious violation of privacy, but that goes on all the time and nobody mentions it. I think it's the implication that there is somebody so scandalous and shocking about naked breasts that is offensive.
It says something about the way that women are perceived, and what it says is not good. The implication is that we are helpless children who can't be trusted to keep our "naughty parts" properly covered up. The whole thing is kind of disheartening actually.
FloridaJudy
(9,465 posts)1) Kate has breasts. Yawn.
2) This isn't a feminist issue - it's a human issue. I'd feel equally as disgusted if the paps took a picture of Willy's willy and published it. When on vacation alone in a hotel room with your spouse, you have some expectations of privacy, and deserve not to be filmed with a telephoto lens!
Kate did absolutely nothing wrong. The kind of human trash who stalk celebs, on the other hand...
MysticLynx
(51 posts)but I do see two sides here.
First and foremost is that the person who the breast belong to should get the choice as to weather they are put on public display.
Second this whole virginal double standard, it is ok for the male to wander around butt naked but how unbecoming of a woman to go around in private topless. Oh the horro of it all *snark
thirdly - the post is right there is a much higher demand for pictures of 'famous' breast than there is for pictures of the 'famous' penis. Again another double standard and since most of the newspapers are owned and operated by men, and paparazzi are typically male it may be highly likely that the lack of interest in the 'penis pic' is driven by insecurity in the male population.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)And I think I asked a thought provoking question.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)I Did not accuse anyone of being a troll- I said maybe in response to another post that implied it was a 'troll post' and requested that no-one respond to the thread. That post seems to have been removed, but it was there when I posted.
An accusation would be something along the lines of I BELIEVE so and so is a troll- But thanks for making me feel so welcome here since I am a newer poster *snark
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)as I said thank you for the warm welcome- not
Expected better from this group- which I will now be leaving.
To all those standing up for the rights of women all over the world- Thank you but I have the group to be less than hospitable- not interested in fighting with other women, to much work to be done for this type of petty garbage.
obamanut2012
(26,076 posts)
That is not what happened as all, as you well know.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If you are on a private property that has mile long borders in each direction, and you step outside naked, you have the right (in my opinion) to an expectation of privacy. Britains royals and other big celebs have very little privacy out of doors and when they take a getaway vacation, they ought to be able to have some.
A multithousand dollar telephoto lens does not take away someone's right to privacy in that situation.
obamanut2012
(26,076 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)it doesn't take away their privacy, you are correct. I just wonder why there is so much flap about Kate Middleton in a clearly chaste and harmless situation, but Harry gets a free pass when he is butt naked in Vegas.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)let's not forget that the scandal about Harry has not gone away and it was not a little thing in the UK.
Also, what Harry did was much more reckless and thus he had much less right to complain.
post_rinse_repeat.
(25 posts)I always get the feeling that they're just out to get laid. 
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)This is analagous to calling a white person advocating for equal rights for African Americans a 'n-----r lover'. We see similar terms for non-Jews advocating for Jewish rights, non-LGBT advocating for LGBT rights, etc. We can go on and on.
This is divisive hatespeak designed to isolate groups being discriminated against.
Response to stevenleser (Reply #31)
Post removed
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You realize you just outed yourself as either the troll or the friend of the troll, right?
On edit: And by the way, I'll take my cues from the hosts of this group in terms of what is appropriate. Not you.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)a repeat disruptor bold enough to continue their previous socks' conversations.
obamanut2012
(26,076 posts)Or Zara Philips before she was married. It would have been the same but even worse.
It is maybe 10-20% because she is the future Queen Consort, but I firmly believe most of it is because she's female.
Remember the shot of William's bare willy? Made the rounds, but died out very quickly, and there was no subtle, or acute, slut-shaming of him (his own fault for peeing! he knew what he was doing! what a slut!). Same thing with Harry.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)I think that stepping outside fully clothed on private property there is also an expectation of privacy and it's unfortunate that the laws don't reflect that. A few years ago there were flaps over the car-mounted Google cams capturing images of people inside their own homes and the attitude was it was the person's fault because they didn't have the drapes drawn. IIRC Google did agree to blur out such shots.
I wish that the reason people were interested in this story was because of her privacy rather than her breasts.
tama
(9,137 posts)Men are generally physically stronger, and anthropological study of human social structures and gender roles is IMO fascinating subject. According to those studies, male protection is very much about protection of females against other males - primarily against other males stealing food from females and secundarily against rape, which together with our ecological niche as cooking species led to family structures as basis of human social organization. On community level, males have had primary responsibility of protecting the tribe against other predators and other tribes.
"Commodity" is much later development of human cultural evolution than male protection, originating in agrarian (patriarchal?) societies, whether applied to land, cattle, slaves, females, etc. etc. etc.
Are you absolutely sure you want to reject the instinct/cultural pattern of male protection in all forms? If I see another male stealing food from a female or raping a female using his advantage of greater physical strength, I should not protect that female because I'm male and that would be condescending and degrading to feminist pride and autonomy?
***
Second, I come form culture where full nudity is much more common than in puritanic America and both sexes often enjoy sauna and swimming together. Penis size is not an issue, I've never heard of local male avoiding sauna and swimming because of small penis.
