Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Seriously, get rid of that shit. Never, ever, ever, ever is it acceptable, or cool.
It's only hair.
If only you knew what was to come
In line with the 90% of DiSers who are body hair phobic.
What's that? The hygiene thing about the pubes in your (girlfriend's) pants doesn't apply to under your arms (but it's still minging if she lets it grow there)?
Some people on here genuinely seem afraid or repulsed of body hair. Some don't, and some don't give a shit either way, but some have attempted to argue in previous threads about it's minging wrongness.
Please advise on how the differences between men and women affects body hair necessities.
It's always ready to jump in.
not even the slightest bit.
my current bf has no body hair at all. Which took me a while to get used to as all my previous boyfriends have been really hairy beasts. Well he has hair on his bits and a bit on the underarms, but chest and legs there isnt really much at all. Doesnt help that he is like 7 years younger than me. hahah.
so, no, definately not. I just dont like how it feels on my body. I cant lye in bed and feel a bit of stubble rub on my legs. I really hate it.
on others i mean. It probably does have a lot to do with how i feel about it on myself.
firstly, not liking the feeling of stubble on yr legs is different from a wholesale aesthetic rejection of female body hair.
secondly, i'd love to be as deluded when it came to assessing my own social conditioning.
No hair at all??!! No pubes??!! What does he do with them. I'd only date someone who had a big hairy man garden. If they shaved it all off, I'd just leave. Wouldn't even try it out. Grim.
Also, I love a hairy chest. Ppphhhwwwwoooaaarrrr. Men with no hairs on their chest are gross.
EeewWww. I only like man beasts.
The hair phobia of a lot of DiSers is kina of strange and I can't imagine any other thread about an asthetic choice getting such digusted reactions from some quarters. Espcailly from self styled 'alternative' types.
As HoFo mentioned above I think a lot is to do with the lack of female body hair in the media.
And is there not a touch of homophobia* in there somewhere? ie Men = hair, women = hairless, therefore woman with hair = get's confusing.
* entirely baseless theory.
Personally, I've been out with girls who remove body hair from everywhere and I've been out with girls who would rarely shave anywhere. Both are fine. Man up.
She looked good with her full minge.
I prefer girls to have pubic hair than to be shaven. Don't know why, but it seems more "womanly". But when this comes up with girlfriends, at least half of the time they've wanted to keep shaving everything off regardless, so I don't know that it has all that much to do with pressure to please men or whatever.
like for me it would be more about going swimming/the sauna etc. and that's just in front of other women. I really couldn't care less if someone I was having sex with knew that I have body hair.
there's absolutely no denying the pressure on women by men to be hairless.
I have no real problem with leg hair, I PREFER pubic hair to no hair, but for whatever reason when it comes to underarm hair it wouldn't be my fave feature. Why am I telling you this? That's a very good question
Or did you literally sit her down and tell her to get those hairy drumsticks out of your sight?
finlands biggest vice
don't need arm pit hair as well
PS: what about the pretty moustachio'd ladies?
do you wish me luck with ^those? (the last one says fake, but i refuse to believe it)
you've got bamnan on your side.
so it balances out
fucksake you are actually an idiot.
go alittle further and go for those robot dolls
Is a lot of people will have a go at a man who says they 'dislike women with hairy pits' but don't when a girl says that 'they dislike men with a beard'
Same principle innit?
who grow beards then have a go at a woman for growing her armpit hair
Double D standards
I believe people should do whatever they want with their body as long as it doesn't harm others
Both sets are picky sods. But each to their own innit.
But there's a difference between preference and expectation. And a difference between expectation and pressure to conform.
And yes, the beard v pit hair example does seem rather hypocritical.
I've not got a massive preference. I can't see I'd find it to be a defining feature. A bit like when people are dead set that they only ike a certain hair colour. Yeah sometimes you find yourself prefering one tone over another. But to pretend that you're never attracted to a girl when she's brunette cos 'you only prefer blondes' is the opinion of a wrong 'un.
they're both body hair
I won't deny for one moment that the is a bigger emphasis on women shaving pit hair though.
but tbf male facial hair isn't entirely free of backstory of pressure to conform.
not wanting to put them on a level pegging, but I'd have thought that the default for any fella these wanting to smarten up his act for work purposes or whatever would be to be cleanly shaved. althought it's a rather less ingrained trend than women's armpit hair and by no means an across the board thing, so i've no doubt that there will be DiS guys who haven't come across that have felt that re: work. but i'd be surprised if most guys nowadays are completely devoid of some sort of appreciation of general expectations. in any case, as i say, i'm not suggesting a direct equivalence.
*these days wanting
I had about a week's worth of beard growth at the time, not a beard but not patchy stubble either. My editor asked if I was growing a beard, and when I shrugged, he told me to go home and shave before I visited the family. I thought about arguing the toss about it being my face and what I chose to do with it falling out of the remit of his management, but if you want to look "smart" as perceived by the majority of people, you have to conform yourself to certain expectations. It's the way of the world, and it applies in some senses to men as well as women.
It's why I go to work looking 'groomed', and that includes occasionally shaving under my arms. I do forget sometimes though and couldn't care less. I struggle to understand the fuss. If you are repelled by body hair, then that;'s a shame, feel free to do something about it. I prefer being smooth, but I am busy, forgetful and a bit disorganised, and so people just have to take me as they find me any given day of the week. Professional standards aside- is somebody was to judge me because of something like that, then they're not the kind of people whose judgment matters a jot to me. <shrug>
i don't really understand why women still grow hair under their arms or on their legs. they don't grow it on their chest, so why in those places? it's not attractive, and i think you'd be pretty hard pushed to find a man who does find it attractive.
and reproduced with them, then it would
but as most women simply shave off their hair the genetics aren't changing
SO you could argue it could work like that but also that it won't work like that as the hairlessness of women is often an illusion.
these things happen for myriad reasons, and if you're assuming this goes beyond a modern media body image concern, it's not unreasonable to factor in the basic principles of heterosexual attraction.
, you total leonard
sexual selection is a very fickle process. first off, differing standards of 'beauty' over the years has a massive impact. did people in the stone age find women with hairy armpits unnattractive? in the middle ages did they prefer completely hairless women? did they care at all? its pretty likely [note: I'm not basing this on any evidence whatsoever] that the obsession with hairlessness is a very modern trend and so would not have any time to manifest itself in an evolutionary trend. also, what Yesiamduck sed.
hairyness could be adaptive for all you know, armpit hair keeps in the heat or something which would obviously be useful in conditions of cold and so on. plus, even if hair was nonadaptive, could easily be that hairy armpits are common in many of the same women as some kind of adaptive trait, so it still common. or something, idk
(is this an insult?)
ps ignore all the typos in that post please
not pushed in the slightest.
because they think it makes them progressive and an honourary feminist, these awful desperate people do exist.
on the other hand, maybe i just literally don't know anybody who genuinely means this and i'm fully willing to accept that is a possibility.
and its a pretty simple one, its just armpits jeez
first thing you should realise is that questions about "hygiene" are obsolete
second thing you should realise is that talking about what is or isn't "attractive" is the dumbest thing ever
third thing you should realise is that although its the dumbest thing ever its pretty pervasive in society and it is men that lead the discourse because of FAIRLY OBVIOUS HISTORICAL FACTORS
Conclusion should be:
1. There is a reason why some women see having (and in some cases displaying: see patti smith album cover) hairy armpits as a protest. They have the right and the reason, because it helps people like you budge their fucking slothy train of thought to point 2 ->
2. As a man but moreover as a product of our society your perceptions on what is "attractive" or not are basically not up to you for the most part. Give us a break, as if you've gone "Yes well I compared a hairless armpit with a hairy armpit and the hairless one simply has more aesthetic value. It is for that reason that I find hairless armpits more attractive"
3. Your perceptions of what is attractive or not will never be up to you for the most part.
4. Because people feeling pressure is a bad thing, people shouldn't have to feel pressure to shave their armpits/not admit that they find hairy armpits attractive. Men do not feel this pressure and it is at that point that you realise that this argument is engendered and that somebody isn't being an "honourary feminist" (which is obviously terrible gawwwwwd). Which leads to point 5, the final conclusion.
5. We shouldn't be arguing about this. It is really really simple.
I honestly am shocked that you can't comprehend that somebody could have a liberal attitude towards fucking armpit hair. You've got some sort of deep seated rebellion issues going on their. The young tory bus left too late for you.
but just to be sure i read the last line and as expected, you're way off the mark.
As you were then. The balance is restored. That balance being You're an idiot:You're an idiot.
and I do sex wee's
i'm all for people doing whatever they want to do with their body and i'm also all for people expressing their opinions on what they like in other peoples bodies.
i haven't said anything to the contrary, and seeing as i'm pretty fucking sure that's a very reasonable position to be taking, nothing you have said up ^there in that long winded post could be relevant to me. go crusade on somebody else's time.
which i'm sure you've at least skimmed despite having "not read it", its not really "their opinions" that the people are expressing. Which is part of the problem. Which you are ignoring. Deliberately.
ok got it.
didn't say "brainwashed", didn't say "media", didn't say "100% of the time".
but then again i come from an age that was before this one where all women seem to have everything shaved off and then photographed.
Its a pretty niche thing to like women who shave their armpits, it might be a niche where the majority in a society who discuss what they find attractive through the medium of magazines and a peer hierarchy also inhabit, but it is a niche nevertheless.
It als might suggest that some wish to have sex with prepubescents.
I wish there was less pre-occupation with identifying with getting attracted to someone elses idea of what is attractive, but men do seem to find themselves drawn to porn images of women, or indeed images of women.
People should try to avoid being so enthusiastic to go for the artificial over the natural
*on the body at least* because they are naturally inclined to, it's become more sort after since the advent of mass media BUT I think the is a general reason why men tend to perfer it. The human species has been getting progressively less hairy so it wouldn't TOTALLY surprise me.
As I have said many times I don't condone women choosing to grow it though
the you would still get people having a preference both ways, but I would hope that other things would actually determine whether you become mates or not.
The other thing that although people might naturally have some sort of preference, it is still the fact that much preference (and especially mean preference/predujuce) comes about because of massive popular mass media, and peer pressure to conform/compete with lifestyles and choices.
It is this that I have my contempt for, and I would urge all men to consider getting less influenced by still or moving reproduced images
is there actually any evidence for this or is this just blind speculation?
as in, naturally, not through shaving etc
obviously humans are less hairy than apes/the common acestor. I meant since Egyptian or Roman times or something?
were very keen on the hairless look, for both males and females.
though I'm not really sure that's actually relevant to this particular question (it is the one in my other post about the perceptions of beauty. d'you know it was common in say middle ages? I'm still vary wary of assuming that preferences of individual cultures has anything to do with evolution/genetic coding/whatever)
not really sure this post makes any sense, but whatever
Read some 19th century french literature, discover men who find under-arm hair attractive.
Some women do grow hair on their chest.
Evolution doesn't work like that, men weren't such prissy fuckheads for the majority of the last million or so years.
started growing armpit hair
I didn't mean to say I dislike body hair, i'm fine with it and don't really mind women having it. Just that if you meet someone who shaves and then after a couple of months or so just they suddenly start letting it grow... hmmmmm
and a few months into the relationship I decided to grow a beard. She laughed at me because it went ginger and bullied me into shaving it off.
Men have every right to find it attractive or unattractive as they wish.
Social expectation puts women under pressure to shave it. True.
Is it a similar pressure that makes me put a suit on before I go to work rather than a Sonic Youth T shirt that was black some time in the mid 90s and is now kind of grey? I dunno. I think we are all victims of social conditioning in pretty much every walk of life.
I don't know. I'm sure someone is going to be enraged by the analogy^ and post some bile. I don't even know why I'm in this thread.
I guess the point is this: you can't and shouldn't post commands about what all women SHOULD do but neither should we pretend that we don't have preferences, cos we do (men and women, straight or gay) and that's ok.
It's fine to have preferences (you can't really help it, to be honest), but that's not to say it should ever be a damning feature either way.
I have lady-hair preferences, but they'd never be close to a make or break feature. Frankly, by the time you get to see them, you should probably be enough of a fan of them not to mind either way.
."You're only allowed to voice your opinions if I agree with them." Shaving's hardly an unrealistic beauty standard.
Relationships will only work if both partners discuss what they like.
i'd definitely do it. it's not really a "oh god she's suppressing my soul, i can't go on like this with silky smooth pins" it's more a "yeah i can do that makes no difference to me"
seriously if you have to turn these little give and takes into ridiculous social issues, you will die alone.
I agree with all this post, dood.
1) I don't for a second deny the systematic repression of women's identities has been taking place for centuries but, interestingly (or not) the whole question of the sexual attractiveness of non-head hair has changed polarities many times.
If you look at Victorian erotica for example a lot of it is hymns in praise of lush pubic hair (more than could be covered with a dinner plate, a lovely phrase) and armpit hair.
But this is really neither here nor there - I digress.
2) My boss doesn't make me wear a suit to work. I do. And this is kind of the point that I was making, not attempting to in any way trivialise any feminist struggle but to make this exact point: there's no rule in my workplace that says I HAVE to wear a suit. Just.. you know.. most people do so... That's how it works and that's society and 'the norm' at work.
3) Can we have a list of things we have a right to voice an opinion about and things we don't?
4) If you were in a relationship with a man and you didn't like his facial hair (or bum hair or whatever) would you have a right to voice an opinion about it? Male standards of beauty and female perceptions vary in hair terms as much as female ones (see point 1). Wouldn't an ideal society (from a sexual equality point of view) be one where men and women had the same freedoms and equalities?
I've not held any women down and shaved their underarms, but I'm probably still history's greatest monster
what a bunch of idiots
You'll be arguing about what water tastes like next. "water is rubbish it doesn't even taste of anything" "NO YOU IDIOT it only tastes like nothing because you find water everywhere and it has become our (HUMAN SPECIES) base for what nothing tastes like" "yeah I agree I think they should replace water with dr pepper because that is the best drink"
Today has been amazing.
You're all idiots.
IT'S WHAT PLANTS CRAVE
no sugar. same great taste.
I'm above like 90% of you. Figuratively and literally (my room is on the 13th floor). I wouldn't even let 90% of you dine at the table of my intellect.
point still stands, I'm even above this site. You guys are all in the matrix and I'm like the best character in the film "the matrix".
you're all banned.
i especially liked the "good luck finding a girlfriend"
most women shave their armpits. i think he's gonna be fine.
Have any thread which touches on a feminist issue and she will be there with the sole intent to get a point across, sometimes it can be insightful and scaving stuff... other times it can be totally blind and bias. It depends, you should just get used to it.
hush your (presumably bearded) chops.
i'm the first mofo who came wading in to this thread with all guns blazing, and i want full credit for it ffs.
the usual feminazi suspects
He's trying to indoctrinate you all into joining his Long-Pubed Soldiers of Atheist Jesus political party.
wishpig is cool, you dorks.
i'd be interested to hear, thwza, have YOU ever been called a feminazi or 'totally blind and bias' or 'highly strung' about feminist issues? cos i'm fairly sure i've observed you being just about as insistent as wishpig at taking a feminist stance in these sorts of threads. hmm, interesting...
wishpig has been incredibly obnoxious throughout. the others were just arguing points.
but then i'm a nuts reading, beer drinking sexist manpig so what do i know.
stand your ground with proper explanations. don't hide behind faux woe-is-me double-bluff nonsense.
forgive me, i'll take these forum debates more seriously next time
too late for that when you're fully locked on.
but i don't think so.
less likely when you're a guy, probably.
especially you. i hope you take it personally. YOU PERSONALLY are the root of all women's oppression ever and that's why i hate you.
i do think you're an arrogant solipsistic idiot who is incapable of thinking outside your own narrowly defined worldview. let me ask you something. have you ever changed your mind about anything? ever?
i actually respect and can see some genuine thoughtfulness in your problem with intellectualism, so i will happily revoke my insult 'idiot'. i don't think it's ok to be horrible to people for being stupid, but there is a very big difference between being stupid, and using 'stupidity' as an excuse to spout off uninformed, offensive, blinkered, sexist nonsense.
also, just gonna have to leave space for a little lol at the first sentence
you cant say women hate all men then say those men who are feminist are also masochists for engaging with something 'they didn't do'
also way to make sweeping historical generalisations.
also you are actually such an idiot it's unreal
'it was a rudimentary way of keeping control of your genes'
Wow. Just wow.
but it would not be so widespread or as vehemenant, were it not for mass media moving and still captured image combined with a conformist peer value system that competes in lifestyle/choices (this aspect is artificial and therefore something that people are allowed to rail against, however the voices decrying women for growing hair unite to unfairly condemn them)
yet she gets the mentions. hmmm weird.
Maybe he would if he had the power, but no ones yet given him any power to abuse, so...
I'd support your campaign to be a mod. About time we had a man on the inside, finding out how the seedy underworld of DiS works through our own, admittedly seedier, mole.
... Probably be a good idea to delete this once you get Made, least we tip Sean off.
Just commenting on VGW saying that it's weird you get more mentions than others arguing the same point. You can be as much of a dick as you like love
please, PLEASE don't do the 'love' thing, it makes you seem like a total and utter cock. WHY DO PEOPLE THINK THIS IS OK?
i only object to it in this context. people using 'love/dear/sweetcheeks' whilst arguing with someone is really really embarrassing and patronising. If you have a good point to make in your discussion doing something like that completely undermines it.
and I completely agree that it's not ok to use and is very patronising. The only reason I used it was because I thought she had been a bit of an idiot in the thread (whilst not being wrong on the specifics) and thought it was the kind of throwaway remark that would annoy her, nothing more than that tbh, thought that would be the end of it all and didn't think anyone else would notice
Can we do a trade?
You ban this one and unban the other. The equilibrium of banning remains. I respect where you're coming from but you are hilariously OTT. I'm sure you feel it's necessary, but it's not going to achieve true equality any quicker than not taking it personally. No one here honestly thinks women deserve less rights than men. That's why we're arguing about superficial shite, shirely.
kinda redeems all you unpleasant, boring morons.
I just assumed that he was trying to get into wishpig's pants.
and actively sought out hairyness
If you're young and good looking then it is a positive boon to have an air of pervyness
whereas Hofo blates knows we all know he's doing it to increase his chance of getting some (hairy) pussy?? Exhibit one: who is the only one in the thread who broke up with a lady because of her body hair?
more broke up with someone cause her attempt to remove her body hair and conform to someone else's ideal was causing him physical discomfort. sure it's a dickish thing to do but not incompatible with being a feminist.
This thread make me melancholy
I'm just going to log off and crawl under my desk
of how to be a slightly creepy borderline sex pest while still being able to engage with feminist thought
the rest of you guys should all take note
I just don't do sex pest convincingly
Man - do hard things
Woman - do soft things
Man - smell of man
woman - smell of flowers
Man - do big poo
Woman - do little rabbit like poos
why respond to my post, not the first one, Mr Sarky
let's just take our tops off and cuddle
have you got a lot of hair?
I don't like a lot of hair.
Damn hoisted by my own petard.
i try out my chat-up lines on them. duncan goodhew was well up for it. the dirty cow.
wish i'd said that instead of what i did
I guess I connoted "non-mainstream music" with "non-mainstream thought" and I was pretty happy until I realised that being "indie" is basically just about non-mainstream consumption. It basically justifies itself through consumption whilst putting itself outside the usual "consumer society" discourse, leaving all you nuggets free to not-think. Actually fuck all of you (most of you).
i keep forgetting.
Last time i was on here this thread had 10 replies. 192?! Jesus christ guys, what the fuck do you even come on to the internet for?
A brief outline on the purpose of the internet:
-Reading and watching people be funny and find material that you can copy and thus be funny in turn to your real life friends
-Not for people to be boring cunts
THIS THREAD HAS OBVIOUSLY NOT MET ANY OF THIS CRITERIA AND I DON'T EVEN HAVE TO HAVE READ IT TO KNOW THIS
a true trouper
let you all know of my utter contempt for all of you
When will we get past the trite sermons and move on to the more engaging and idiot friendly stoning and crucifying?
was down to spilling a chocolate doughnut on my carpet, not actually reading the thread
i'd imagine the gut feeling is "yes"
apply to men thinking about women etcetera, avoid this whole thread
except one has a 5 o'clock shadow/stubble, and one has the hairless complexion of a fourteen year old boy, which would you say looks the most masculine?
most feminists would agree that restrictive ideas about 'masculinity' are every bit as rubbish as the ones about femininity (and are a really big part of what drives institutional sexism - it's not very 'masculine' to be a feminist, innit)
gonna switch to the other one for a bit now.
stay calm and try not to get carried away.
They're viewed as uniquely manly because only men of sufficient age and hormone levels can grow them. They're a symbol of virility and strength because only healthy men grow them properly. (Ignoring the pasty weaklings of the current crop of males)
Now, assuming you're actually referring to douchebag and not just using his post as a sounding post, why is this 'rubbish' or 'restrictive'?
secondly: the point is that seeing 'masculinity' and 'femininity' (which have nothing whatsoever to do with 'nature') as pinnacles of attraction is harmful to everyone of every gender. finding beards/hairless armpits attractive: fine (as long as you're happy to admit that attraction is subject to all sorts of cultural pressure and conditioning). suggesting that beards/hairless armpits make someone a 'better' example of attractive masculinity/femininity: not fine
... because only men can grow them? Why are you calling my point that men grow beards, and this is considered a sign of virility 'faux evolutionary psychology'?
How is this harmful to every gender?
Nurture can only do so much. Your point might work if it was just ours that valued beards, but it's not. It does play a role though. I never mentioned it didn't though?
I never said hairless armpirts made someone a better example of attractive femininity? Did you not read my post further up the thread?
doesn't make him more attractive to me.
and perceived virility is a key evolutionary factor in attractiveness. So in general terms, he's more attractive to the majority
the fact that we're even talking about this suggests there are equally important "non-biological/evolutionary" factors and that the biological/evolutionary factors arn't somehow more essential or intrinsic because they have been around longer.
Biological factors aren't more important because they're around longer, and I find it surprising you think this is why.
and perceived masculinity/perceived femininity is just one of many factors that informs attractiveness/attraction. I don't think that can be disputed
is an evolutionary signifier or virility? Hmmmmm.
yknow what I'm on about. I know what I'm on about
corn is a symbol of fecundity in golden age spanish painting iirc
genuinely as shit as actual shit
but erm... yeah sorry
I presume you only came into this thread to find a way out of it
I'm going to post excerpts from Victorian porn in praise of hairy ladies.
Something for you all to look forward to.
but razors are horrible. I'm developing a close yet extremely painful love/hate relationship with my epilady these days.
If I could afford it, I'd get laser treatment to get rid of it permanently.
It's only what man wants you to want. Save your money for a good comb.
I'll cope ;)
& I can't. For reasons I won't baffle you with.
as stated, i was messin.
sometimes I wish I was more like him. Does this I've been hoodwinked into thinking that body hair is essentially bad by the media or does it show that I genuinely don't like body hair? And if it's the second one is it okay for me to also prefer the look on women?
Plus I got my chest hair caught in a zip once and it hurt like a bitch :(
Fucking hell. You take trolling to depths not previously seen.
(do i take it from this that weneedmorebooze is one of bamnan's?)
Do they not care?
I'm dressed head to toe in black today AND I haven't brushed my pubes
opinions on everything while also arguing their opinion is definitely the rightonecozeveryoneelseiswrongandtheymustbetoldwhytheyarewrong?
(and by that I mean; it's the internet)
every thread to say that that they don't find it necessary to wade into every thread andyettheystillwadeintoeverythreadtosaytheyrenotwadingintothethread?
People just argue so virulently on topics they probably haven't even really thought about and list some pseudo genetic or socio-cultural musings that they then conclude are FACTS that are DEFINITELY correct, because they spent over 5 minutes typing them out on the internet
You maniacs! You blew it up. Damn you, god damn you all to hell.
The survivors will envy the dead
And shave off one eyebrow as well, but on the opposite side to the shaved armpit.
and tiramisu patronising ho_fo
Hairy wimmin is ugs yeh.
In the blue corner
Also I was banned for saying 'feminazis' in a thread about PITHAIR.
Can you do something about that Theo? Am I allowed go behind wishpigs and do the dirty with another mod? She's not been on since yesterday and likely hasn't seen my pm. Call me baby xxx
The vast majority of women are just as compliant as the vast majority of men are.
I'm getting confsused
you personally, I mean.
is a primary criterion, then any estimate that puts 99% of feminists as women is pretty ridiculous.
nrgh but by claiming feminists refer to women who 'believe women should be equal to men' you're assuming that women need to somehow rise in status to that of men. surely feminism is more about breaking down gender roles rather than reinforcing them.
so it is reinforcing the idea that men possess certain qualities that women desire.
Certainly in the field of computers and more specifically computer gaming, and again in the field of athletics where it feels like the gaps between the men's and women's areas are shortening. And I suppose there are those girl gangs roaming the streets of London that the Daily Mail likes to talk about...
before you have to start in with some full social change for both sexes and all races, of course.
just so i know where white middle class women are plotted against black, premier-league footballers and the Turkish man who I buy my fruit and veg from.
On a serious note, like Theo says, once we start down a route of 'priviledge' arguments start to come to bits, as I'm sure most people can find some aspect of their life in which another person is or has been more privileged.
To argue that women shouldn't be the equal of men is obviously ridiculous, but I don't feel that I ought to apologise for something I don't beleive in or perpetuate, yet am seen as an 'oppressor' by virtue of my having this privilege, be it sex, skin colour, height, weight, or - and this is for Baman - stupidity.
surely ^ you imply that women should have more rights than men?
When you suggest that men do not have the right to comment (on a messageboard or to a partner) about their preference with regard to armpit hair. Do women not have the right to comment on their preferences with regards to men's appearances? Because if they do then you are advocating an imbalance in rights for men and women.
Seems a pretty stupid point I know but I think there's a crucial distinction between the school of feminism that says 'women and men should be equal and enjoy equal rights' and the school of feminism that says 'men have lorded it over women for too long, now it's time to redress the balance and ensure that women have more rights or whatever than men'.
Some yes/no questions:
1) Do I as a man have the right to express my preference for hairy or non hairy armpits?
2) Does a woman have the right to express her preference for hairy or non-hairy armpits (or beards or whatever)?
If no/no then fair enough - you don't believe people have to right to express opinions but at least you're consistent.
if no/yes then you don't believe women and men have equal rights.
If yes/yes then you contradict what you said above^
I assume you're not going to pick yes/no because that would make no sense given your earlier remarks.
Pleaase let me know, I am genuinely interested in your answers.
there really shouldn't be that many 'a's in please. Hey ho.
It had yes/no questions and everything?
*shakes fist at skies*
and you delve deeper into error.
you say you want equal rights for women and men, but also say that men have little to ne basis for making comments on topics about women because the 'ultimately led the discussion for decades'? that's exactly what walks and Theo were talking about up there. you are making little sense.
responds to my 'reduce it to yes/no questions' tactic.
I should probably do my marking.
Nice work if you can get it I suppose.
because to me, I'm afraid, it sounds like I've caught you very successfully in an inconsistent postion, you don't want to admit to this and therefore you're refusing to engage.
I could be totally wrong but that's what I've looked like. You misinterpreted my question when I first posted it and had a go at my reading skills and now you're refusing to answer when it's been re-posted but to be honest I think it really cuts to the heart of the matter: do you believe men and women should be equal or do you believe women shoudl enjoy more rights than men?
Anyway if you're sure you can't / won't answer these questions then I guess that's the end of the matter. I would have been genuinely interested though.
"oh, your not a woman" argument instead of engaging with me in a discussion.
you have lost all credibility with that one.
I suggest anyone reading ^that comment might want to look at it in context as it's not quoted exactly as it appears in the brilliantly written text. Excellent post, that's for that wishpig.
it's about common courtesy and decorum during a serious and engaging discussion. from what i've seen recently it's your sensitivities that are more acute...
this reverse racism thing isnt really that helpful
im not entirely sure that whats being advocated is this perfect equilibrium in rights
maybe the point is that the inequality is so great that women passing comment on mens body hair doesnt really exist in the same sphere of social relations to men doing the same to women
that are ostensibly about promoting equality are pretty dodgy.
of course privileged people need to be aware of their privileges (be they gender/racial/financial/educational/...) but cutting them out of the movement, or creating a two-tiered structure, seems really unhelpful.
i just think that your definition seems a little alienating.
will presumably have the same views when it comes to women feminists: that men and women are not treated as equals and that this imbalance should be tackled.
obviously when it comes to issues that require direct knowledge and experiences related to being a woman men should take a backseat - but i think most men who *would* self-identify as feminists would be completely aware of that.
being male doesn't mean you aren't aware of gender imbalances and that your support or input is somehow less valuable.
100% agreed re: men being particularly helpful when it comes to calling out patriarchal traditions. that proposing thread was just a complete car-crash.
it's because some of us (men) feel like we do have something to contribute, whether you think we do or we don't. it is, mostly, well meaning. at least, mine is. :)
Whether they're justified is another matter. Doesn't really follow to say
1. Bigotry has been going on for centuries
2. Women have been excluded from discourse unfairly during these centuries for the reasons you gave
If you stop discourse for one of these reasons you are being a bigot
is pretty offensive, imo. I mean, I haven't taken offence to it in this particular instance because I wanted to know what you considered feminisim to be and can't get pissy because you told me and I didn't like it, but still ... Why should anyone take a back seat in discourse relating to gender, gender roles, gender inequalities, other things with the word gender in them ... ? Why fetishise experience in that way? How can something affect women but not affect men, or vice versa? I don't get it.
As for the 'how so' ... I'd have thought we're both agreed that power lies predominantly with men, and that as such men are in a much better position to push through change. Has there been literally no change to how women are considered in various facets of society? Perhaps it makes more sense to look at it in terms of how the feminist cause has been contributed to, where I feel men have among the strongest contributors (with the obvious caveat that not nearly enough of them have done even close to enough ... but then women, as a gender/sex, are no different in that respect).
I think this reads too much like a creaky post. I'm out.
y'know, knowing what it's like to be a woman, or to live as a woman.
and that therefore discussion concerning issues that only affect women have to be led by women.
I don't think there are any.
pregnancy; abortion; the contraceptive pill; maternity leave; post-natal depression; violence against women; teen pregnancy; female genital mutilation; the vast vast vast majority of rape/sexual abuse/domestic abuse; the vast majority of sex-workers are women; blablablabalbala.
personally, I think I would definitely prefer legislation on these issues to be decided almost solely by women.
gender bias in politics; gender bias in the media; gender bias in the workplace; the state of international women's rights; the amount of women represented at the highest levels of business/courts/government/; etc.
I'm not arguing those things have the same impact on men that they do on women. particularly in the most visceral, tangible terms- they clearly don't. But those issues are part of, and sometimes a direct consequence, of a patriachal hegemony which shapes the behaviour of men and women alike.
oh dear oh dear. Pregnancy, abortion and the pill are only women's issues? You're having a laugh, yes? Men are intrinsically, naturally, quite required importantly neededfor those issues.
i agree that they need to be dealt with in tandem, on a level with women but to exclude men from the discussion entirely is properly backwards leaning. what about the father's rights in an abortion case? does he not have /any/ say?
more alarmingly, if you were to leave men out of the discussions for violence against women and rape how would the opposite work if it was violence against men? and why should there be any difference in the two?
you're having a laugh now, right?
how you can say that the pill is an issue that affects men and women equally is completely beyond me.
there is obviously more of an equilibrium needed when it comes to abortion, and that was just me being a bit flippant/extreme but THE PILL? bloody hell. of course the pill affects women in a much much much larger way than it affects men.
have you ever had to worry about the side-effects and health problems that could result from taking the pill? or have you ever had to go for the morning-after pill? or go for a consultation at an abortion clinic? or actually undergo an abortion? or go through the pain of labour?
somehow manage to affect the sex lives of heterosexual women but not men? How could the change in how women regulated their bodies and conducted themselves sexually not have ramifications on the behaviour and expectations of both genders?
I don't care much for arguing about whether or not men should have more rights with abortion (they shouldn't, btw) or how men can't feel labour pain- that's reductive. I thought we were talking about social phenomena that solely and exclusively affect women.
there are NO issues that only affect one or the other? (beyond, like, really primary sexual/gender stuff like menstruation and ejaculation or something)
it's impossible to entirely differentiate the two, but it is very possible to say that one gender should have (MUCH) more say than the other.
The fact that no issue affects just one gender suggests to me that both genders should play a key role in addressing whatever the issue is. I wouldn't look to quantify who has more 'say'- I don't know how you could. It doesn't seem 'very possible' to me.
That's presuming that 'genders' have coherent voices and ideas about things anyway, and they really don't.
I'm fairly sure I'm probably not a feminist after all.
I think that the fact that no issue affects just one gender means that both genders should have a say, but that sometimes when an issue affects one gender disproportionately, they should have more of a say.
the same goes for 'minority' groups of all kinds.
and 'feminist' is such a loose term that if you want to identify yourself as one, you pretty much can.
which means i am a pretty big stake holder in it. i worry all the time about the health affects that the pill has on women, even having discussions with her, and her doctor, about other options, and that's at my own personal level - at a legislative level, her (and this can be the hypothetical her as well) well being can be as important to men as anything in the world and, as such, a man has as much importance in the pill, or any kind of contraceptive, as a women.
also, i'd point out that i didn't say "the pill is an issue that affects men and women equally" as you say i did. what i did say was that to exclude men from discussions and legislation about such issues makes no sense. you cannot have your cake and eat it.
who takes such an active interest in her well-being as you are, but your interest and care can only mean so much - it is not equal to her experience.
and sorry, i was paraphrasing from you saying that the issues should be discussed ."in tandem, on a level". which to me reads in pretty much the same way as ."men and women should have equal say in these discussions".
I admit that her/female experience(s) is/are something important but it can also cloud judgement - for example, saying that women's issues should only be dealt with by women is no different from saying that they should only be dealt with by men, it's just a different type of sexual bias. that's my point. and to say that there are issues that only affect women is to be quite short sighted, like DanielKelly's pill example above.
any way, you are right, she is lucky to have me! :D haha
and whilst we might disagree, i really enjoyed this. the last few weeks on DiS ain't been easy going nor have the been SOAWJO but they've had some fucking heavy discussions that, sometimes, have really made me think. The proposal thread, this thread, and the religion thread come to mind.
how is that an issue? What is there to be discussed about the pain of labour? It exists and its a shame. Its a shame that any pain exists. Pain exists for everyone. People can never understand any pain of anybody else. Its pretty useless saying "You can never understand the pain of labour" because I can't understand the pain of my flatmates hangover. The whole thing with pain is that people have come to an unsaid agreement to believe testimony as to how much pain affects other people. this is off topic.
hm i guess its interesting that you cited the potential to experience/having experienced pain of childbirth as something which qualifies you to comment on "womens issues". Its something which is incommunicable and private (like any pain, I add) but something which women have more access to than men.
Man I'm not sure how i feel about all this idea that men have to repent to some extent before they're qualified to engage with issues that (apparently) only affect women. Seems pretty christian-y which is to blame for this whole mess anyway. We're all people right guys? One world right guys?
i dunno, devising strategies when it comes to pain provisions being given to women in labour and emotional support being given to women in labour and aftercare for new mothers and emotional and physical support given to expecting mothers etc.
either way, that is such a tiny issue to pick up on in this whole debate.
to me, it seems totally natural that some people should have more say when it comes to certain issues. it just seems totally natural to me to concede that in a debate concerning gay issues I should have less of a say as I have no experience of issues affecting gay people. or that as someone who is not a teacher i should have as much say as teachers when it comes to their profession or something.
so why are so many men in this thread refusing to accept that men should have less of a say when it comes to certain women's issues...?
that is not to say that men have *no* role, or as i posted up there ^^^^ that men shouldn't be allowed to call themselves feminists, just that there are certain issues that women should have more say in.
that seems totally obvious and i don't really get the whole furore here.
'so why are so many men in this thread refusing to accept that men should have less of a say when it comes to certain women's issues...?'
I could accept that entirely. I've merely asked to be pointed to an issue which is exclusively women's. For every action, there is reaction. Ying and yang. All that stuff.
Btw, I don't see that the gay comparison really works all that well.
as the dynamics between wealthy, straight, white males and any group that is not comprised of wealthy, straight, white males will be dependent on 349543989677 different external factors.
there is no direct equivalent.
It works sufficeiently poorly that it adds nothing to the discussion.
it's a totally adequate comparison - more so than the stupid teacher comparison.
If my entire argument hinges on not thinking experience is the be all, why would the gay comparison do anything for me? I'm not gay, just as I'm not a woman- do I therefore exist in a vaccum, completely cut-off from their experiences?
i dunno i guess i'm just a little off put by wishpigs language (men should "apologise or shut up").
pain of labour is interesting to me from a "philosophical" point of view but i wont get into that or people will start calling me a prick again
i guess the problem is that regardless of all the theories about gender performativity and gender roles and all that, the crude biological differences which distinguish "man" from "woman" are not going to change. For this reason I think its pretty dumb to say you want rights to be equal (there will always be certain rights which are not equal (in the sense of identical) as long as we still call people "men" or "women"). The victory kind of happens in the very act of feminism and when somebody *does* feminism rather than everybody who calls themselves a feminist beating all the non feminists in some sort of battle of rights and privileges. The point is that everybody should *MAKE A CONSCIOUS EFFORT* be engaged.
a man is going to have to take a step back and re-assess how he treats his role in the current gender game and all that but i kinda get the impression that wishpig wants some kind repenting. The word for me is engagement and i think everybody (men first and women second, there are tonnes of women who are definitely not feminist) needs to take a leap of a certain length to become engaged with the issue.
people are simply suggesting that certain roles affect different groups in a larger way and ergo, the affected groups should have more say.
thats some pretty christiany stuff going on there.
REALLY? I mean REALLY?
'sorry love, that's your problem, pregnancy doesn't affect me I'm going to have another beer and watch the game' - APPROVED BY FEMINISTS :D
I mean obviously it affects women to a much greater extent but not solely.
Idk I just wish this debate could be rephrased from "womens rights not considered in the same way as mens rights" to "In one large group of people who ostensibly share the same rights, the rights of one part of this group are not considered in the same way as another part"
it means you want a society in which women have the freedom to choose, therefore it is everybody's issue.
Its not only wanting to live in a society in which women have the freedom to choose, its also wanting to live in a society where women are free to choose who they involve in their decision.
What would you think about a case where (somehow, because of medical science) a woman was told by a doctor 2 weeks after finding out that she was pregnant that she would die during childbirth and the only way to stop it would be to have an abortion, however the woman would rather die in childbirth because her religion denies abortion to women?
Isn't there a large amount of evidence out there to imply that women can be worse than men when it comes to pointing fingers and damning other women in the cases of things like teen pregnancy, rape, etc.? Maybe it's all a myth.
My point is really that it's about getting people who aren't arseholes...
that is not interlinked with a whole spectrum of outside sources and influences and issues and pressures and laws and conditions and so on.
ergo, I took this discussion to mean "Which issues should women have more of a say in than men?" and I completely maintain my opinion that female voices and experiences are much more important when it comes to discussing things like abortion/pregnancy/the pill.
that's not to say that men have absolutely no role to play whatsoever, but those are discussions that should definitely be women-led.
."personally, I think I would definitely prefer legislation on these issues to be decided almost solely by women.". you actually meant, ."I would definitely prefer legislation on these issues to be decided almost solely by people who think like I do, i.e. are liberal and open-minded but recognise the need to do something about gender inequality, etc.".
The problem is the idea that 'women' as a whole would somehow intrinsically be better than whoever's in charge now strikes me as a fallacy because there are a lot of women out there who I'm sure you bloody well wouldn't want in charge of legislation on those sorts of things.
which makes any kind of empirical 'evidence' a bit of a stab in the dark.
you hater of women/feminists/total babes
Also it's not easier to troll when your username is also in that account.
Do you think I was comparing feminists to Nazi's? Christ.
Trying to do the right thing with the wrong tone.
but I'm not entirely sure 'feminazi' was an entirely serious remark.
Or maybe so you can say terrible things and pass it off as just a 'persona' and I'm meant to endorse that? Good one.
Who r ya?
Does trolling never get old?
the kind of people who turn up after a thread usually involving some kind of dispute has died down, and proceed to critique everybody in general
"this is terrible, you should all be ashamed of yourself"
"this is an embarrassing thread"
thanks for your input. 9 times out of 10 they just weren't around when it was kicking off and can conveniently take the moral high ground.
Coming in after an event has finished with their opinions and judgements. Oi, Starkey, shut it about the Tudors, you weren't even there mate!
think that's enough for that line of argument.
this thread will exist to make them feel ashamed.
i just checked. seems like we've moved on from that somewhat.
Why is everything so bamnan on this website?
He can't express his opinion, with him being a man.
I thought we were safe down here!
We've got a way to go yet.
Stop expressing your opinion!!!!!!
I'm getting paranoid
Now shut it, you flaming poo bucket.
thats the best description of you I have ever heard, permission to use it in the future sah?