Forum menu
99 to go boys 🙂
Back to my point of think what you want, but don't preach.
TBH the article didn't seem that preachy to me, it was just a bit;
"Why are we still having to have this conversation?"
Could it simply be that we're from different eras so have a different frame of reference?
Well I was born in the mid-70s, so I didn't experience this first hand.
I started off being curious, because a lot of things feminists would say didn't seem to make sense. But the more I learn about the world the more I understand their point.
because a lot of things feminists [s]would[/s] say [s]didn't seem to[/s] don't make sense.
[img] 
[/img]
dragon - Memberbecause a lot of things feminists [s]would[/s] say [s]didn't seem to [/s]don't make sense.
lol
because a lot of things feminists [s]would[/s] say [s]didn't seem to[/s] don't make sense.
Such as?
They don't make sense to you, because maybe you're not listening?
Maybe you are sexist after all?
A lot of feminist writing [i]is[/i] ridiculous but then again, lots isn't. But thats why this thread is so long. All I've said in that sentence is that I disagree with [i]some[/i] feminist writing, yet it will be leapt on and turned into cumberlanddan hates women.
As for calendars, i don't think they [i]cause[/i] men or women to be sexist. I don't think this particular imagery is particularly demeaning or outrageous which makes me think the original article was more than a little bit OTT.
The argument against the calendar seems to boil down to the pernicious nature of the image creating an environment for sexism. Well the language used by many defending the abolishment (is that word OK?) of such images is equally pernicious in that it demeans and dismisses without engaging, and some of it demonstrates a quite sexist attitude against men.
yet it will be leapt on and turned into cumberlanddan hates women.
Ok let's put this to bed. I've repeatedly said I don't think you're sexist. Binners does, but I don't.
Well the language used by many defending the abolishment (is that word OK?) of such images is equally pernicious in that it demeans and dismisses without engaging, and some of it demonstrates a quite sexist attitude against men.
Who exactly is defending the abolition (that's the actual word 😉 ) of calendars? The forced censorship, in other words?
No-one is advocating censorship.
A lot of feminist writing is ridiculous
As are an awful lot of opinions on here. (the one where you keep insisting that people are suggesting banning this sort of calender when no-one has, springs to mind)
and some of it demonstrates a quite sexist attitude against men.
now I know you're trolling 😆
because a lot of things feminists would say didn't seem to don't make sense.
There does appear to be some hypocrisy but that is because there are two (if not more) ways of looking at feminism - those who look for equality (most people arguing the case here) and those who are interested in liberation (Germaine Greer etc) - often they will disagree with each other.
I have been groped by women , had woman flash their boobies and lift their skirts. I have had a man just walk over and sit on my lap and tell me he wanted to take me home and **** me on two separate occassions. I have been beeped at. Had women hold two fingers to their mouth and wiggle there tongue through it.
I even had a woman crash her car as she was to busy watching me walk down the street with my top off.
And had several dogs hump my leg.
I don't know what conclusion to come to with regard to calendars based on the above information.
Now were back into semantics!
Abolishment (I had to look it up! It didn't sound right but is apparently correct), banning, etc - Seriously, what would you call a situation where someone is producing something you don't like and you want them to stop?
Self censorship seems to be the correct term which in practice would be exactly the same as an enforced ban i.e. censorship.
I don't know what conclusion to come to with regard to calendars based on the above information.
Easy: 'Chip' - 2016 Calendar
[img] 
[/img]
Binners is even posting pictures of child abusers now.
Yay, go binners.
Self censorship seems to be the correct term which in practice would be exactly the same as an enforced ban i.e. censorship.
[img] 
[/img]
Seriously, what would you call a situation where someone is producing something you don't like and you want them to stop?
I'd call it [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_More_Page_3 ]a campaign?[/url]
Easy: Chip 2016 Calendar
I have let myself go a bit lately, give me six months and I'm in, and we will shoot the 2017.
Excellent. Well done.
A campaign with no purpose then. How wonderful.
The first sentence of your link
No More Page 3 was a campaign to stop The Sun from including pictures of topless glamour models on its Page 3; it ended when the topless feature was discontinued
So, self censorship then.
I can see the 'next' thread coming soon....just needs the 'right' STW article to spark off debate;
'STW article .... E-Bikes, a feminist's view of electric empowerment to help drive gender equality on the trails of Surrey'
it ended when the topless feature was discontinued
It hasn't been though -lots of the right on got excited and then the Sun whapped some baps back on page 3
Take a bow. You're behind Kelvin Mackenzie on the evolutionary curve 😀
So, self censorship then.
Indeed, that was the point of the campaign, rather than 'ban' anything the whole exercise was geared towards getting the the Sun to stop voluntarily.
No bans needed, d'you see?
The sun is free to print as many boobies it wants, and yet...
Does the sun still run page 3 or not, I thought they started again.
But you still don't want them to do it? And you don't think it should be illegal? And you don't think possession of such depraved images should be a crime?
To get it straight then, you don't want them to post pictures of tits, but you want them to be able to post pictures of tits so that they can demonstrate their worthiness by not posting pictures of tits?
Whats the point exactly? And in what way is it different to censorship?
And you don't think possession of such depraved images should be a crime
thankfully or I'd be in jail with my photography back up disc lol
'Slow down ginger or you'll end up like binners! Have a look at molgrips last one.'
So I post my third post out of the 27 pages and I am told to 'slow down'. I wasn't referring to Molgrips but answering another post, as indicated.
You might want to re-read what you are writing and consider how aggressive your posting is before you hit the post button. It is certainly coming across so to me.
[img] 
[/img]
...and we're onto page bloody three. Ah well. Again, it's about what's appropriate in a given context.
Whats the point exactly? And in what way is it different to censorship?
Do you really not understand the difference between "can't" and "shouldn't"? Oh, wait, what am I saying, you demonstrably don't, you've been banging on about banning / not banning things for half the thread.
Censorship is, simplistically, forcing people not to say something. Whereas a petition or campaign can raise awareness that there's a group of people who don't like what you're saying. In the latter case you're still free to say those things if you like.
The calendar is the same situation. No-one's saying Maxxis can't create such calendars, but some folk are saying that they'd prefer it if they didn't. Is this [i]really [/i]such a difficult concept to grasp?
On the back of this, Maxxis might well turn round and go "gosh, we had no idea, we'll not do it again" and sack all their models; or they might go "well, too bad, a lot of people do like them so we're going to carry on." Either way, they're empowered to make an informed decision rather than soldiering on obliviously.
The issue isn't just that they made the calendar. It's that they thought that they calendar was a good idea.
Self censorship is a completely different thing to censorship. Because self censorship acknowledges that there is something bad about whatever it is.
But you still don't want them to do it?
I would prefer if Maxxis and papers like the Sun didn't print those sorts of images, yes.
And you don't think it should be illegal?
I'd rather not to have to go the trouble of having to identify pictures that are objectifying nakedness, over ones that have nakedness within context. [i]Most[/i] folk can recognise the difference without having the law get in the way
And you don't think possession of such depraved images should be a crime?
Depraved?
Dan, you recognise the problem. That's real progress, and to be honest, takes the wind right out of Binners' sails. No one is suggesting banning a calendar. People here are despairing that there is still a market for it, and are dissapointed that a large firm with access to professional marketing and the like would think tha it's a good idea. For reasons that you have pointed out, it probably [i]is[/i] a good idea, from a fiscal perspective, because there are plenty of unreconstructed, mysoginistic men who have there belief system validated by this sort of dross. It is a spectrum though; there of plenty of mouth breathers (I don't for a second believe you are one) there are the chaos that are in the middle who don't give it much thought because it doesn't affect them or theirs (this is where you are probably I think, and I certainly was in the past) and there are those who are hypersensitised to sexism, like Mol Binners and probably myself, because they are empathic with women in their life, or just because they've done great deal of analysis, both internally and of the world around them.
You're not so far apart in your thinking, everyone.
Agreed.
But I'd also add - don't under-estimate the subliminal effect of peer validation.
- with the intention of making them stop saying/printing whatever 'it' is.Whereas a petition or campaign can raise awareness that there's a group of people who don't like what you're saying
That is [i]de facto[/i] censorship and preventing a perfectly legal minority opinion to be expressed. I don't like the connotations of that line of thinking.
Ginger - my posts may sound aggressive, sorry for that, but thats what happens when you're constantly being attacked! My comment was meant tongue in cheek not seriously.
v8ninety - I'd broadly agree with that post though i would use probably use different language in places and we'd most likely disagree about the proportions in each category
My argument, as before, is that the calendar or similar, doesn't validate anyones opinions and is innocent. It is the other unreconstructed, mysoginistic mouth breathers, to use your terms, who do the validating.
It needs tackling but I think articles like this, and the stop page 3 stuff, can actually make it worse as it gives them something to rail against.
with the intention of making them stop saying/printing whatever 'it' is.
Making them realise that it has bad effects on people they might not've considered, so that they'll stop of their own accord.
Still a big difference.
Its a bit of a difference, maybe, but the main reason the sun stopped was because they lost money, no moral epiphany.
The end result and aim is still censorship, self or otherwise.
[quote=cumberlanddan ]Now were back into semantics!
Easily avoided by you simply using words as they are defined
Self censorship seems to be the correct term which in practice would be exactly the same as an enforced ban i.e. censorship.
Yes not doing something is exactly the same as not being allowed to do something
So what [i]would[/i] you do about it Dan? Because I think raising awareness, making people actually think and take a look at themselves is a good thing. You list the 'no more page 3' campaign as a bad thing, whereas I see it as a small step forward. See people, rightly or wrongly, see print media as an authority. (See also, the daily mail effect). The calendar is a a much smaller, but similar sort of thing. In someone's brain, somewhere, a little neuron connects to another neuron, saying 'well they're allowed to print it, so it's not illegal, and Dave down the road has it on the wall and he's a decent bloke so it's all good to objectify women'. [i]In a very small[/i], but significant way.It needs tackling but I think articles like this, and the stop page 3 stuff, can actually make it worse as it gives them something to rail against.
Not being permitted to go about your lawful business because of one group who shout louder than the others is different yes.
The end point is the same though i.e. censorship (which you might call a ban).
In fact, your version, where the loudest bunch rule, can be worse than 'real; censorship as it lends credibility to bad situations. Maybe you should speak to a shias and sunnis about this type of thing.
except it's not the 'loudest' group, is it? It's the group with the most reasonable and persuasive argument. Because we've decided in recent years that sexism and objectification of women is, y'know, bad and all.In fact, your version, where the loudest bunch rule, can be worse
Yay !
Merry Christmas, one and all !!
Well I'd disagree there.
Not this bit
Because we've decided in recent years that sexism and objectification of women is, y'know, bad and all.
because that does seem to be a civilised viewpoint.
This bit I don't agree with.
except it's not the 'loudest' group, is it? It's the group with the most reasonable and persuasive argument.
In some cases that will be true in others it wont. My point is made for me if page 3 [i]is[/i] back in the Sun, I don't read that rag though so I couldn't tell you.