Is Feminism Still Relevant? - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-24-2013, 03:41 PM   #151
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlsAloudFan View Post
Would I be wrong in saying that feminism is very much alive and relevant on cable television?

Uber popular HBO programs like GAME OF THRONES and GIRLS display it every episode.
Very wrong
__________________

__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2013, 04:18 PM   #152
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 06:22 PM
What about Girls is feminist?
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2013, 05:17 PM   #153
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
What about Girls is feminist?

I find her critiques of porn somewhat feminist.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2013, 05:40 PM   #154
Blue Crack Addict
 
GirlsAloudFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 25,283
Local Time: 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
GAF, what is your idea of feminism? What examples can you give that GoT and Girls display feminism in every episode?
I have no idea what the textbook definition of feminism is. I'm basically an idiot.

But I am of the mind that women are better than men. It's a blanket statement, sure, but I think it's true for the most part. Women are better and more powerful than men.

THRONES shows this all the time. It's one of the prevailing themes of the show, if not the prevailing theme. Maybe GIRLS is a bit of a stretch, but I was in fact thinking of the pornography angle that Irvine mentions.

Lena Dunham has been quoted as saying that the sex scenes portrayed on GIRLS are an attempt to "counteract a skewed idea of sex created by the proliferation of porn".

Anyway. Women are better than men. It's just true. Men are the worst.
__________________
GirlsAloudFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2013, 06:36 PM   #155
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 06:22 PM
Also, Lena Dunham makes it a point to put her very average naked body on screen frequently (which upsets deep greatly), and she still gets to have sex with someone as gorgeous as Patrick Wilson. It seems a direct rebuttal to the average guy/hot girl dynamic there's so much if.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2013, 06:47 PM   #156
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 06:22 PM
To me, to tie this to feminism you'd have to argue that it's a form of sexual empowerment for an average looking woman to have sex with a hot guy. Just not sure that I'm quite there yet.
__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2013, 09:01 PM   #157
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
jeevey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Rue St. Divine
Posts: 4,095
Local Time: 07:22 PM
There's been a TON written about Lena Dunham, Girls and feminism. A quick google of those words will bring up a flood of material.

It gets cheered for the MC pursuing satisfying sex with an more attractive older man (that's the feminist part, antitram- that instead of being grateful just to be with him, she makes sure that he satisfies her) and booed for featuring borderline dub/con sex (the famous 'on her hands and knees' scene.) If nothing else it's a feminist show because it's creatively controlled by a young woman writing about her own experience, rather than a committee of old white dudes writing what they think the experience of a woman in her 20s must be. When criticized about the mediocre sex her characters experience, Dunham replied, "Um, if there's anybody writing in television who knows what kind of sex women in their 20's are having these days, I think it's me." That kind of claim to the legitimacy of her own voice is undeniably feminist.
__________________
jeevey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2013, 09:45 PM   #158
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlsAloudFan View Post
THRONES shows this all the time. It's one of the prevailing themes of the show, if not the prevailing theme. Maybe GIRLS is a bit of a stretch, but I was in fact thinking of the pornography angle that Irvine mentions.
Oh yeah. Showing their boobs for the sake of straight men is female power

This article reflects my attitude to prevalent female nudity on TV:

Quote:
The dudes, meanwhile, get more leeway. I'm not saying that there aren't super-hot guys that get a lot of shirtless time, but there's also plenty of scenes revolving around naked politics that don't star the Khal Drogos or Gendrys. A male character can have a little bit of a potbelly in a shirtless scene and still be taken seriously as an agent of power and change in his universe; when a female character does it, she gets lambasted for daring to assault our poor, defenseless eyeballs.

Maybe this is just my own internalized sexism. But guys' onscreen nudity always gives me the impression of being so deliberate, like creators sat back and debated whether or not his dong was necessary for plotting purposes. By contrast, female nudity comes off as almost knee-jerk, like of course a woman's sexual appeal (or lack thereof) would have to be an integral part of her character. Like a female character couldn't be smart and wicked and badass without visually proving to us that she has a smokin' hot body to boot.

Audiences seem way more willing to grant that a male character can have more to offer a plot than just his hot bod; a naked female character (and whatever actress plays her) tends to get reduced outside of the show to her breasts first, brain second. (Link NSFW)

There are exceptions to every rule, obviously. I'm sure that there are shows out there that star a lot of women being fully-clothed and badass while nubile young athletes lounge at their feet and idly thumb their own abdominal muscles. Generally speaking, though, I haven't seen many. (Also, um, if that specific show I just described exists, please direct me to it post-haste.)

In a perfect world, I would be all for TV shows and movies that showcase all manner of naked-ass bodies, behaving realistically and interestingly and in ways separate from and integral to the plot. But until that happens, I'd rather push for no boobs at all.
If I See Another Bare Breast on Television, I'm Going to Scream | xoJane

It is true that for a woman to express her sexuality or femininity, she has to show skin. It's been that way for long time. Just look at red carpet events like the Oscars or such. The women compete on who looks the sexiest whether by showing some or a lot of skin, while men uniformally wear tuxedoes that cover up their bodies. Yet, a man can express his sexuality and masculinity simply by how he presents himself: his voice, his stare, his stance. A woman has to show her cleavage, her legs, and in some cases, highly suggest she is not even wearing a thong. Why can't the way a woman carries herself be enough? By society saying that a woman needs to show skin in order to be a sexual being, you are putting her worth on her body rather than her confidence and personality.

I know I sound like a staunch conservative here, but there is some truth to what they say. I'm definitely not saying we should all wear burqas or boring outfits like Orthodox Jewish women wear. But honestly, can't the way we present ourselves be enough to be sexy? Many women say feeling sexy comes from within, not by how much of their bodies they show.
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2013, 09:58 PM   #159
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,105
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Pearl... Come on.... Do you know who you're talking to? Don't fight it, just let him roll.
__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2013, 10:46 PM   #160
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 07:22 PM
Me posting that article and commenting on it was in no way directed to GAF. It was a way of continuing the discussion of feminism, a sort of "while we are on the subject..."

Honestly, do you really think I take GAF seriously?
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2013, 12:30 AM   #161
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
To me, to tie this to feminism you'd have to argue that it's a form of sexual empowerment for an average looking woman to have sex with a hot guy. Just not sure that I'm quite there yet.

You should see how upset deep gets when Lena Dunham is naked on screen.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2013, 07:24 AM   #162
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
jeevey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Rue St. Divine
Posts: 4,095
Local Time: 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
Oh yeah. Showing their boobs for the sake of straight men is female power

This article reflects my attitude to prevalent female nudity on TV:



If I See Another Bare Breast on Television, I'm Going to Scream | xoJane

It is true that for a woman to express her sexuality or femininity, she has to show skin. It's been that way for long time. Just look at red carpet events like the Oscars or such. The women compete on who looks the sexiest whether by showing some or a lot of skin, while men uniformally wear tuxedoes that cover up their bodies. Yet, a man can express his sexuality and masculinity simply by how he presents himself: his voice, his stare, his stance. A woman has to show her cleavage, her legs, and in some cases, highly suggest she is not even wearing a thong. Why can't the way a woman carries herself be enough? By society saying that a woman needs to show skin in order to be a sexual being, you are putting her worth on her body rather than her confidence and personality.

I know I sound like a staunch conservative here, but there is some truth to what they say. I'm definitely not saying we should all wear burqas or boring outfits like Orthodox Jewish women wear. But honestly, can't the way we present ourselves be enough to be sexy? Many women say feeling sexy comes from within, not by how much of their bodies they show.

While it's true that the female body is beautiful and generally both sexes enjoy looking at them, the fact that women are almost universally portrayed partly naked to be sexy, is a mark of their subordinate status and our sexualization of their subordination. Consider the that in BDSM imagery, the sub is always nude or nearly so and the dom is more fully dressed, regardless of sex. And that in a strip club, the people who have all the money keep their clothes ON. And that the clothing most associated with a person with LOTS of money and social power is a man in a suit. In slave owning societies slaves have often been kept naked, and stripping is often a part of public punishment for criminals. The wearing of clothes is a marker of social power and always has been.


When we as a society can get really, really swoony about a woman in an expensive well cut suit.... well, that'll be a marker of real progress.
__________________
jeevey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2013, 10:00 AM   #163
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
While it's true that the female body is beautiful and generally both sexes enjoy looking at them, the fact that women are almost universally portrayed partly naked to be sexy, is a mark of their subordinate status and our sexualization of their subordination. Consider the that in BDSM imagery, the sub is always nude or nearly so and the dom is more fully dressed, regardless of sex. And that in a strip club, the people who have all the money keep their clothes ON. And that the clothing most associated with a person with LOTS of money and social power is a man in a suit. In slave owning societies slaves have often been kept naked, and stripping is often a part of public punishment for criminals. The wearing of clothes is a marker of social power and always has been.


When we as a society can get really, really swoony about a woman in an expensive well cut suit.... well, that'll be a marker of real progress.
I guess Britney Spears wasn't kidding when she sang "I'm Slave 4 U".

The only celebrities of any kind I can think of who came across as sexy while not being overtly sexual were The Corrs. With the exception of their "In Blue" cover where Andrea was leaning over showing some breast, I can't remember seeing a pic or video of them posing like porn stars. They were/are outrageously gorgeous, they knew it and that was how they presented their femininity. They also used their personalities, which had more substance than many women in the entertainment world. I think some men swooned, or were even entranced by them, more so than with other women.
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2013, 12:59 PM   #164
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
jeevey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Rue St. Divine
Posts: 4,095
Local Time: 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
I guess Britney Spears wasn't kidding when she sang "I'm Slave 4 U".

The only celebrities of any kind I can think of who came across as sexy while not being overtly sexual were The Corrs. With the exception of their "In Blue" cover where Andrea was leaning over showing some breast, I can't remember seeing a pic or video of them posing like porn stars. They were/are outrageously gorgeous, they knew it and that was how they presented their femininity. They also used their personalities, which had more substance than many women in the entertainment world. I think some men swooned, or were even entranced by them, more so than with other women.
I think men have it in them to get swoony over a woman for all the right reasons. The boys were always crazy over my sister, who was pretty and well groomed but never, ever sexualized or skin-showy. I know of more than a few men who had the serious hots for the Dixie Chicks, who didn't show a ton of skin and were "as good as men" on their instruments.

Here's a great example of demonstration of social dominance through clothing and posture.

noirfacade: Cocktail Hour | Lydia Hearst, Benedict Cumberbatch by Jonty Davies for Marie Claire UK December 2010

In this photoshoot the man is fully dressed down to the cuffs in every single image. The woman is exposed- either breasts, back, or translucent clothing in every one. In most of them she is reclining, looking up at him. He's avoiding eye contact with her in several, and only looks at her once. There are only two in which she is not physically posed lower than him. In one, she's touching and looking at him, demonstrating a request for attention, while he stares away from her. In the other she's in a dominant stance and dominatrix clothes- full coverage but see through, overtly sexy- and he seems to be anticipating loosening his belt.

Now, I love Benedict Cumberbatch and I know that models have zero creative control in these shoots, but... this shoot has some seriously sexist body language, and it's absolutely the norm for high fashion magazines.
__________________
jeevey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2013, 01:31 AM   #165
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
In this photoshoot the man is fully dressed down to the cuffs in every single image. The woman is exposed- either breasts, back, or translucent clothing in every one. In most of them she is reclining, looking up at him. He's avoiding eye contact with her in several, and only looks at her once. There are only two in which she is not physically posed lower than him. In one, she's touching and looking at him, demonstrating a request for attention, while he stares away from her. In the other she's in a dominant stance and dominatrix clothes- full coverage but see through, overtly sexy- and he seems to be anticipating loosening his belt.
Talk about over-analyzing.

Let me have a try:

In two of the photos, the woman has her back to the male in an expression of indifference. In two more shots, the woman is posed above the man, physically, and thus metaphorically, holding him down. In the double-page-spread, the woman is reclined on the sofa in a similar fashion to a roman emperor while the male tends to her subordinately (he even appears to be offering her his wrist, much in the same way a vampire would feed from a submissive victim).

Look and ye shall find.

And shall we ignore the fact that the shoot was styled by a woman?
__________________

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com