Ah, but you\’ve missed the point my lovely

She added: \”This \’sexualisation\’ process objectifies women and girls, and grooms boys and men into thinking it is acceptable to view and treat women and girls as sex objects. This portrayal of women is incompatible with a socially responsible press.\”

We do not want a socially responsible press. We want a free press.

As free of my prejudices about what makes a socially responsible press as it is from your.

14 comments on “Ah, but you\’ve missed the point my lovely

  1. But you (and I) are clearly not counted amongst the “we” that EVAW or, by her lack of criticism, Ms Topping, consider to have permission to express an opinion.

    And, unfortunately, they are the ones that seem to have the zeitgeist amongst the ruling classes if not the general public. Statism, active ignorance and bansturbation are the flavour of the political climate (to add milk to the scrambled metaphor!)

    Why is an egregious WGCE the “no1 UK Economics blogger”? Because his misconceptions and lies are what a lot of people want to hear.

  2. So would I – but with freedom comes responsibility. How a free person or institution is brought to be responsible without active coercion is a bugger of a question but, still, it’s what I want.

  3. So the sexualisation of women and girls which makes men and boyes think it is acceptable to treat females as sex objects is bad. Why hasn’t she said that the objectification of men allows women to see men as nothing more than sperm donors. If she hasn’t said that then she isn’t socially responsible. It works both ways.

    Anyways, hasn’t millions of years of evolution designed the human body to be seen as a sexual object in order to further the genes of the human race. If someone sees another of the opposite sex and their heart flutters a bit that’s human nature and not some sexist misogynist brain.

  4. Personally I dislike the frivolous and gratuitous display of flesh in newspapers. And I don’t buy those papers. But I also dislike the frivolous excesses of the catwalk and red carpet queens showing off far too much, in the interests of garnering ever more publicity for themselves. The article should have been addressed to the very same young women whose addiction to the limelight leads to the inevitable race to the bottom, as typified by the likes of Elizabeth Hurley.

    Tim adds: Race to the tit surely?

  5. Dont worry – the fatter women -get the sooner they wont be sexual objects. And overpopulation will not be a worry any more.
    You poor people.

  6. This must be Steven Sailor’s law at work – any female journalist proposing any change of the law or social mores, does so in such a way that people like her will be more desired after the revolution.

    So men like to look at pretty girls? They always have. They always will. No censorship of the media is going to prevent that.

  7. The standards of newspapers that dogs in my neighbourhood read must be shocking. They all regard our girl as a sex object and nothing more.

  8. Tim, the Marxist deconstructionist in me (trapped in the body of a swivel-eyed, freedom-loving loon) would say that your demand for a free press is merely your way of demanding a socially responsible press.

    Someone take me out and have me shot. I’ll swap that final gasper for an admission that a free press is irremediably a good thing.

  9. Simple puritanism, of course. The particularly virulent and nasty female-led kind that characterises the Anglosphere, which has the same intent but different jargon to the particularly virulent and nasty male-led kind that characterises the Islamosphere.

  10. “my lovely” – yes, taking that patronising and condescending tone does not at all make you sound like a tool and definitely bolsters your ‘argument’ – which I need hardly add is specious.

    Responsibility and freedom are not only not mutually exclusive, they are, or should be in a civil society, sides of the same coin.

    Yes, Ian. ‘Of course’ it’s just puritanism. We just want to spoil your fun in looking at other human beings as pieces of disposable visual entertainment. How dare we suggest that might not be a good thing? Cry ‘censorship’ [again, NOT what is meant by responsibility] and you are home and dry. I mean, hey, why address a real issue when you can make one up and have a pop at that?

    Please. Heard it all before. Still wrong, still stupid, still dehumanising.

    Yes, horrid, virulent, nasty feminist that I am. Heard that one too. Wanting to be treated as a full human being: well, that’s just unacceptable. How very dare we? What termagants. We ought to shut up and know our place.

    Oh, forgot “humourless”, I’m sure that will be the next thing on the list., because if a man says something isn’t to be taken seriously: well, must be right then.

  11. Rufus – ““my lovely” – yes, taking that patronising and condescending tone does not at all make you sound like a tool and definitely bolsters your ‘argument’ – which I need hardly add is specious.”

    Oh I think you need to add it boyo. Can you explain just why it is specious?

    “Responsibility and freedom are not only not mutually exclusive, they are, or should be in a civil society, sides of the same coin.”

    Indeed. But responsibility and freedom are the other side of the coin to laws and regulations. Which is what these people want. What is more they are individual characteristics. When they talk of “social responsibility” they mean some other thing entirely.

    “We just want to spoil your fun in looking at other human beings as pieces of disposable visual entertainment. How dare we suggest that might not be a good thing?”

    You would have to make a case to explain why it is not such a good thing first. Have you? Other human beings are disposable pieces of visual entertainment. I am sorry if that fact upsets you, and perhaps we should not admit it in public, but it is still true.

    “Cry ‘censorship’ [again, NOT what is meant by responsibility]”

    What is meant then?

    “Please. Heard it all before. Still wrong, still stupid, still dehumanising.”

    Explain to us how it is wrong, stupid or even dehumanising. You mean it makes you feel sad? So what?

    “Wanting to be treated as a full human being: well, that’s just unacceptable. How very dare we? What termagants. We ought to shut up and know our place.”

    Indeed. Except no one is failing to treat you as a human being. After all, being pretty and so an object men like to look at is entirely human. As is being not-so-pretty and hence not an object men want to look at as well. Or for that matter an object women want to look at. All part of the human condition. It is you who seems upset by the idea of the human condition. When you say a “full human being”, it seems to me you are insisting we all deny a large part of what it is to be a full human being (and hence an object of desire to at least one person).

    “Oh, forgot “humourless”, I’m sure that will be the next thing on the list., because if a man says something isn’t to be taken seriously: well, must be right then.”

    Humourlessness just comes with being a humourless person. Common in the feminist movement. Well, to be sexist, common among women in general. Just that most of them laugh at men’s jokes and so qualify for what most men think of as funny. This argument is particularly po-faced mind you.

  12. Ian B – “Simple puritanism, of course. The particularly virulent and nasty female-led kind that characterises the Anglosphere, which has the same intent but different jargon to the particularly virulent and nasty male-led kind that characterises the Islamosphere.”

    Feminism is a constant struggle against reality that not only has not worked, it will not work. It is based on a fundamentally flawed set of basic assumptions about human nature. As such its believers are mainly notable for being miserable

    Islam, on the other hand, takes the way people are and pushes them to an extreme. As far as we can tell, most people would be happy enough under such a system and some would enjoy it a lot – not all of them men.

    That they are both concerned about sex and sexual expression is the one thing they have in common. But then most people are strongly interested in sex and many of those, until very recently, accepted the idea that it should be regulated. I am sure they both also accept the world is round. Well Islamists I am not so sure about.

  13. Rufus-

    Yes, it is just puritanism. Any study of the history of feminism will reveal that. The Puritan revivial that created the Victorian Values system was spearheaded by a vanguard of upper class women steeped in Puritan values, who saw their job as being a kind of “moral ruling class”. They narrowly defined the sphere of woman as being the moral police force of society. They thus developed a fanatical hatred of immoral behaviour by other women (“letting the side down”) and that ghastly and dehumanising cult is still with us, having reinvented itself as the Second Wave of Feminism by cobbling together a pseudo-Marxian justification based on “exploitation”.

    You say that visual entertainment is “looking at other human beings as pieces of disposable visual entertainment.” What you can’t explain is how that differs from other forms of entertainment. You go to a comedy show. You don’t care about the comedians beyond their ability to make you laugh. That single dimension of their nature. You don’t care about them as full human beings, and they are disposable. If Eddie Izzard isn’t funny, you dispose of him by never purchasing his comedy again. What’s the difference?

    The dishonest argument here is the pretence that humans can and should treat other humans as “full human beings” all the time. But we never do. It’s impossible. People are objects, by feminist definitions, all the time. Eddie is a comedy object. Dancers are dance objects. Plumbers are plumbing objects. Accountants are accountant objects. People are mother and father objects, worker objects, drive-the-kids-to-school objects, tennis partner objects, shop assistant objects. And so on.

    What is special about sex objects?

    Only the sex thing. It all collapses back to the Puritan infestation of the Anglosphere. It is not a desire for women to be “full human beings”, but to have part- a major part, their sexuality- of their humanity stripped from them. It is feminism that dehumanises, not the normal and healthy sexual interaction of the genders.

    This is why it’s important to understand that Feminism is a war on women as much as men. Last time its values were dominant, under the Victorian Hegemony, for every prot0-Feminist locking up her servants to save them from sin, there was a maid slipping out the scullery window to have a bit of fun. Girls were slung into institutions for “delinquency” (a normal sexual appetite). A model that denies female sexuality is simply wrong, and the damage it does- forcing women to try to live to a standard that is unnatural- is horrendous. In the Victorian Era, mental illness was rife. All those weird mental problems women had? Not sexism. They were real. And you bastards caused them.

    Remember poor gentle Ida Craddock. Please. She made the mistake of trying to publish useful sexual advice to help couples suffering under that miasma of repression. The Puritan censor Anthony Comstock latched onto her and successfully had her committed to Federal prison for five years; unable to face such a horror, she committed suicide. For writing a book about sex. For daring to want human nature to be allowed, rather than suppressed. And Comstock? He used to boast about how many people he had driven to suicide. Nice man.

    That is what you bastards are fighting to reimpose upon western society, and thus no condemnation of you is strong enough. Feminism is a scourge because it hates men, but the greatest evil of it is that it hates women- any woman who does not cleave to Puritanism- even more. Andrea Dworkin’s choice of the title “Woman Hating” for a book was, inadvertently, the truest title she could have chosen.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>