begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Tuesday 01 August 2006 14:42 \__
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> __/ [ Jim ] on Tuesday 01 August 2006 10:14 \__
>>>
>>>> [H]omer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I can draw wimin ... but I usually make the hooters too big.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> nuttin' wrong wid big titties...
>>>
>>> Women read this newsgroup, so I'm not sure it's a good conversation to
>>> have. *bashful smile* But there you have the GIMP.
>>
>> Why not? Isn't this what makes the world go around?
>>
>> It's funny really, you can watch any number of TV programmes with females
>> going all goey over whoever the latest hearthrob is, and nobody cares,
>> but if you're a guy and comment on a female in some way, you're some
>> kind of, err, undesirable - why is that? I've never really understood
>> this really wierd discrimination.
>
> When the women account for a minority in this newsgroup, I think it can be
> repelling, unwelcoming and intimidating. Maybe it's a matter of culture and
> norms, but it's often perceived as embodiment of stereotypes and
> 'objectification'.
>
Perceived by whom, though? There's nothing /wrong/ with finding women
attractive, is there? Just like women find men attractive?
I've sat in mixed offices where the females can chat for hours about
boyfriends, who's sexy, and so on, and they think that's fine, so why
not guys?
Come to that, I've never understood the 'objectification' argument.
Males are what they are, just as females are. Neither males nor females
are able to control what they do or do not find attractive, it's not
possible to "objectify" in that 1970s "feminist" way, these things just
are. For example, here's a quote from a teenage girl's magazine on
having a bunch of male athletes pictured; "Ready, Steady, Get 'em off!"
Now, what was that about objectification?
Another view, if you go to some of the chat fora where Mrs Mark has spent
a lot of time over the years (she's an engineer turned programme
manager, btw), these are downright pornographic, really so - there're no
holds barred at all.
I don't get why males are expected to behave differently to females. It
seems like discrimination to me.
Interestingly, one of the results of the anti-male movement which was
feminism has been the growth of "ladishness" and "laddisms" and so on.
For example, the comic "Viz", and later, all the well-known lad's
magazines which media females are desperate to appear in whilst wearing
as little as they can get away with. Now I agree that those magazines
are 99.999% puerile mindless cr*p, but that just means that they're
essentially the same as Cosmopolitan, or similar. Again, the lad's
mags are seen as bad, but the girl's ones are not - why?
Ah, I dunno - I'm probably missing something fundamental with my
autistic-engineer viewpoint on things - perhaps it's important for
females that some male behaviour /is/ seen as unacceptable so that it
can be "exciting" or "dangerous" or something they find sexy when the
guys do it. Seems a bit childish to me, but there we go.
Perhaps I'll ask my sister - she's the psychologist!
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear.
-- 1 John 4:18
|
|
