Well, yes, but….

When our children and grandchildren look back at the Sun’s page 3 (for I have no doubt its days are numbered) they’ll see it in much the same way as we watch the casual sexism in Mad Men now. It will seem embarrassingly anachronistic. I know this because it is embarrassingly anachronistic now. It exists in an era where women build and fly planes, debate in the UN, run businesses and generally demonstrate that they are more than the sum of their parts. Page 3 is a relic of a bygone era, but it’s still here.

Sure women are more than the sum of their parts. Just as men are more than merely their dicks. But just as men still have dicks (and still think with them at times) so do women still have parts.

Parts that are specifically designed (hmm, evolution doesn’t do design but you know what I mean) to get men thinking with their dicks. There is no other explanation for the female breast.

That women do “build and fly planes, debate in the UN, run businesses” is just great. But quite why that means that we should stop being a mammalian, viviparous species, why we should stop acting like one, is a little beyond this bear of little brain. Nice wing line there! Super barrel roll, that speech was delish, stunning profit line: whoa! titties!

If that last were all that’s said then one could understand the ire. But it ain’t, is it?

And if women didn’t know this, and play to it, there’s be no explanation for the boob job, would there? And that’s not limited to the cosmetic type either: how often do you see the justification for reconstruction after cancer surgery and the like being “but it’s part of who I am as a woman”?

OK, if that’s true, and as a society we say that it is for the NHS pays for such out of our tax money, then in this society titties are indeed part of being a woman. So what the hell’s the problem with celebrating all aspects of humanity and femininity, not just some?

31 comments on “Well, yes, but….

  1. So, Ellie believes that “..under a feminist party there would be no headlines about equal pay taking another 60 years to be realised, no tabloids publishing shaming stories of girls having sex on holiday, no quibbling over whether to make domestic violence a separate offence, and full reproductive rights for all.”

    Isn’t she leaving out the bit where they’ve got to:

    A) Win an election, then
    B) horse trade & negotiate with opposition parties to get the relevant legislation through?

    Why, it’s almost as if she’s a complete airhead who doesn’t know the slightest thing about politics, isn’t it?

  2. When our children and grandchildren look back at the Sun’s page 3, it’s more likely that they’ll be amused about the quaint linear page numbering of dead tree media.

  3. It exists in an era where women build and fly planes, debate in the UN, run businesses

    Fuck me, did women not do these things in the 1980s? Pretty sure we had a prominent female politician during that decade, who truly was a global figure. What was her name again?

  4. She says a feminist party needs to be set up ‘[N]o men would be allowed. Nothing personal, guys, but I believe women are central to their own emancipation.’

    What the fuck is stopping her? The dribbling cretins of Mumsnet would surely back her.

  5. How insulting to all the brave woman pilots of the RAF that ferried all the bombers across the Atlantic to the UK in WWII.

  6. ” no tabloids publishing shaming stories of girls having sex on holiday” – not that I purchase that kind of paper, but how would such a ban be enforced, bearing in mind that in a New Media environment it would have to apply to blogs too? What kind of law is she proposing to enact? Only a ban on all allegedly patriarchal pieces of writing being published would do, I suspect.

    Or is this not a plan at all, rather that canard of wishful thinking, “if good people (ie folk I agree with) are in power, then good things will happen and bad things will stop happening”.

    Reminds me of the Scottish voters who think independence will bring about a fairer, richer, more equal and cuddlier Scotland as if by magic, or the bizarre optimism of 1997 whereby the election of St Tony would mend broken homes and make would-be murderers stop in their tracks and reconsider, because the Years of Darkness were lifted…

  7. The Sun should have blown this argument out of the water years ago by alternating beautiful half-naked women and beautiful half-naked men every day. And their readership would’ve loved it.

    I don’t get it: all this pressure to make money out of your brains, not your body. All very well for us intellectuals, but what if you’re a bit stupid? Why the hell shouldn’t you be able to use what you’ve got to make a living, whatever it is you’ve got? If egalitarianism means anything, surely it means that.

  8. That women do “build and fly planes, debate in the UN, run businesses” is just great.

    No they don’t. Actually. At least not well. What is interesting about all the emancipation we have had is how little impact it has had. We have had affirmative action for decades and women still, on average, cannot compete on a level playing field.

    JuliaM – “B) horse trade & negotiate with opposition parties to get the relevant legislation through?”

    Feminism is a sub-set of Marxism. She is thinking they will come to power and put people like you and me up against a wall. So they won’t have to horse trade with anyone.

    Interested – “What the fuck is stopping her? The dribbling cretins of Mumsnet would surely back her.”

    Sweden has a lesbian party. It did not do so well. So maybe common sense is stopping her. Feminists have never represented anyone but a small subset of the mentally ill.

  9. Years ago, my somewhat racy aunt lectured my coming-of-age sister on the Power of Breasts, and what useful tools they were in the Battles of the Sexes.

    Getting them out prematurely, not that she would have used the phrase, was entirely to be avoided.

  10. I think the figures are–90,000 have signed their frigid, dickless anti-page 3 petition and 5 million(?) by the big tits Sun daily.

    Democracy in action.

  11. @Loodt Pretorius

    The Air Transport Auxuiliary (ATA).

    “Lettice Curtis (1 February 1915 – 21 July 2014) was an English woman aviator, flight test engineer, air racing pilot and sportswoman.”
    ………….
    She commenced her ATA career by delivering primary training aircraft such as the Tiger Moth, progressing to the Miles Master and North American Harvard advanced trainers. During her ATA service she graduated to fly all categories of wartime aircraft and was one of the first dozen women to qualify to fly four-engined heavy bombers. She was the first woman pilot to deliver an Avro Lancaster bomber and also flew 222 Handley Page Halifaxes and 109 Short Stirlings. She flew continually during World War II from various Ferry Pool locations delivering all types through all weather to various destinations. According to Whittell [pp. 193–94] she flew “thirteen days on, two off, for sixty-two consecutive months”, between July 1940 and September 1945″.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lettice_Curtis

  12. S2,

    “I don’t get it: all this pressure to make money out of your brains, not your body. All very well for us intellectuals, but what if you’re a bit stupid? Why the hell shouldn’t you be able to use what you’ve got to make a living, whatever it is you’ve got? If egalitarianism means anything, surely it means that.”

    The conclusion I’ve reached is that the problem is that these aren’t egalitarians, and this whole thing is about competition and that models can gain advantage by being prepared to, or having the capability to do what they want.

    It’s the same with footballers wages. They don’t half moan about them even though it’s not a million miles from what Marx wanted, as most of the money going in gets paid to the players.

  13. I’m founding a children’s party. Our three demands are:

    1. equal pay for teenagers
    2. no more stories about how modern teenagers are thick
    3. no more smacking
    4. free sweets

  14. The Stigler,

    They most certainly not egalitarians. They think it wrong that clever people can make money by being clever and pretty people can make money by being pretty.

    Because they themselves are neither clever nor pretty.

  15. Have you ever observed how much the left-wing pseudo-intellectual classes hate Forrest Gump? A film about a man who does rather well in life simply by being kind to others and yet, after all he’s achieved, still feels inferior and stigmatised about his sub-par intelligence. Guardian-readers absolutely loathe it, not just on grounds of aesthetic taste, but because of its horrible pernicious portrayal of a world in which someone can achieve something good in life without being an intellectual.

    It’s up there with Knocked Up as a litmus test.

  16. As a right-wing-ish sort of chap who thinks that feminism – in its political, sub-marxist sense* – is bunk, I would be delighted to see a feminist party. It would, at a stroke, remove a lot of people I disagree with from ever really getting anywhere in the political sphere. If history is any guide they would also descend into internecine in-fighting and back-biting within approximately a week, and pretty soon we’d have four or ten feminist parties.

    Brilliant.

    Although if I were a feminist, and a left wing one at that, and had any ambition to influence mainstream politics, I’d probably think this was the shittest idea of all time.

    *I am bored of having to point out the intellectual differences between political feminism to female friends who say “oh, so you don’t believe in equality for women, then?”. So, for the record, yes, I believe in equality for men and women. But 90% of the political commentators who lay claim to the feminism label don’t and also believe in marxism, and can probably eff off.

  17. I don’t believe in equality for men and women, or for any other aggregate classes however defined, or for individuals. I believe in equity for everybody, which means that everyone experiences the same rules and conditions, and then their unique personal talents and preferences are given free rein. You can only engineer equality by imposing rules which prevent equity. It’s one or the other.

    To be fair, many feminists have admitted this. My favourite gal Catharine Mackinnon for instance comes straight out and says so in Towards A Feminist Theory Of The State; feminism and liberalism are inherently incompatible. You have to choose one or the other. As a liberal, I choose equity.

  18. “And if women didn’t know this, and play to it, there’s be no explanation for the boob job, would there?”

    Not to mention bras themselves, which come in hundreds of varieties, all designed to emphasise firmness and youthfullness, ie clues to reproductive fitness: push-up, Wonderbra, underwired, peek-a-boo…think I’d better take a cold shower…

  19. S2,

    Anything written by Aaron Sorkin. I don’t really object that Sorkin makes his alternative universe films and TV shows, it’s the people who think they’re serious dramas.

  20. Squander Two – “Have you ever observed how much the left-wing pseudo-intellectual classes hate Forrest Gump? A film about a man who does rather well in life simply by being kind to others and yet, after all he’s achieved, still feels inferior and stigmatised about his sub-par intelligence. Guardian-readers absolutely loathe it, not just on grounds of aesthetic taste, but because of its horrible pernicious portrayal of a world in which someone can achieve something good in life without being an intellectual.”

    It is interesting to hear this. Because I must be a left wing intellectual. Not only is Forest Gump sickeningly sentimental, it is also a steaming pile of fetid dingos’ kidneys. No, retards do not become billionaires. Not in America. Not anywhere. Gump does not become rich by being nice to people. He isn’t that nice to people by and large. Not until he makes a lot of money. He makes a lot of money because of an Act of God.

    Nor do I see anything that would suggest he feels inferior because of his intelligence. That bit I do not mind. He says repeatedly that his Mother said that what people did was the most important thing, not what they are.

    The real problem with that film, apart from the inherent absurdity of its central claim, is the sentimentalisation of his slut of a female adoration object despite her awful choices in life – supposedly blamed on a White male of course in the shape of her father – and her crass exploitation of Gump’s naive nature.

    I think it is a thoroughly liberal film in every respect.

  21. Tiz power & how to achieve it. You may note how effective it is by the “rape if I say so & whenever I say so regardless of previous consent which can be withdrawn at any time; in case you lied about your wealth, girlfriends, marriage, etc; I need an explanation for my boyfriend, husband, parents, the police when caught in public, etc; or any damn reason I choose” laws.

    On some college campus which I cannot recall, the fem fad is pants so tight & form fitting that frontal cleavage is on display (camel toes I presume) and the fems are calling for punishments for boys who stare as they have noticed much of that.

    One cannot call for all this “stick it to the boys on my say so” while admitting there are body parts & mannerisms of natural great interest to boys and such are commonly flaunted for effect. When you layout the bait, you will catch some trash fish and they want protection from that.

  22. I remember a big debate at the time about whether it was a conservative film or not, since supposedly Gump represents conservative values and the girlfriend represents the failure of liberalism. I might argue that it’s more a puritan film in that respect- Gump prospers due to high morals, the girlfriend ends up in Hell due to bad ones, but as I’ve often argued puritanism is a preoccupation of both proposed sides of the political divide, the modern American “liberals” being the most puritan formation to infest the Anglosphere.

    So in those terms we could see it as the Boomers’ conversion of a notionally hedonist, liberal 1960s/70s value set to a puritan one, also marked in the culture by the song “Hip To Be Square” by Huey Lewis And The News, as they started to implement the new sharia we call political correctness.

    But I tend to agree with SMFS that it’s a steaming pile of fetid dingos’ kidneys, which is its main character.

  23. “Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re going to get” has to be one of the most inaccurate analogies ever. The contents of a box of Black Magic are the same as when that bloke first parachuted a box in.

  24. Ian B – “I remember a big debate at the time about whether it was a conservative film or not, since supposedly Gump represents conservative values and the girlfriend represents the failure of liberalism.”

    So immediately we see that the Hollywood film makers think that conservative Whites are retards – continuing Hollywood’s history of hate against White conservative males. Especially if they are southern. Or English.

    “I might argue that it’s more a puritan film in that respect- Gump prospers due to high morals, the girlfriend ends up in Hell due to bad ones”

    A conservative film must allow people to choose. They can choose right or they can choose wrong. Jenny doesn’t choose because the film goes out of its way to say that she is a victim of her childhood – a liberal point if ever there is one. Even Gump doesn’t choose much except to save his fellow soldiers.

    “So in those terms we could see it as the Boomers’ conversion of a notionally hedonist, liberal 1960s/70s value set to a puritan one”

    I think it is more likely that they wanted to please everyone. What may have started as a paean to small town American values got mangled by the liberal script writers. But it tried not to offend anyone – to the point of not naming the disease that killed the slut.

    “But I tend to agree with SMFS that it’s a steaming pile of fetid dingos’ kidneys, which is its main character.”

    The girl is worse. Especially in the way she treats Gump.

    Peter – ““Life is like a box of chocolates”……it doesn’t last as long for fat people.”

    Funny but I am not sure it is true. As we have got fatter we have also begun to live longer. May be a coincidence.

  25. “When our children and grandchildren look back ” the feminists dont have children.
    By the time the feminists are old most children will be moslem and will regard femiinists in a most ‘unacceptable’ way. Dear me yes.

  26. SMFS-

    “The girl is worse.”

    I actually meant the character of the movie, not the character Forrest Gump 🙂

    A conservative film must allow people to choose. They can choose right or they can choose wrong. Jenny doesn’t choose because the film goes out of its way to say that she is a victim of her childhood – a liberal point if ever there is one. Even Gump doesn’t choose much except to save his fellow soldiers.

    Hence my saying it’s a puritan moral tract. Central to puritanism is the idea that people cannot self-govern and must be governed by an Elect instead. As I’ve oft argued, in my opinion the American “liberals” are modern puritans. Genuine liberalism is associated with individual responsibility.

  27. Ian B – “Hence my saying it’s a puritan moral tract. Central to puritanism is the idea that people cannot self-govern and must be governed by an Elect instead. As I’ve oft argued, in my opinion the American “liberals” are modern puritans. Genuine liberalism is associated with individual responsibility.”

    It is not that either. After all, I think that basically all Hollywood producers are committed to are profits and the casting couch. Thus all their films are attempt to persuade teenage girls that it is fine to blow 50+ year old men they have barely met.

    So a puritan tract? Gump’s mother f**ks the school head – and she is rewarded for it with a long life, approval of the audience and the love of her son. She prostitutes herself so Gump can get mainstreamed. Great. So he gets to hang out with Jenny – and look how that turned out for him? – and beaten up by the normal children. Shirley Williams’ mistake is such a boon a mother ought to bang the teacher for it? I don’t think so. Puritan it is not. Conservative it is not.

    Jenny sluts her way through life and presumably gets AIDS. They are not brave enough to mention it. But what is the moral? If you sleep your way across the US, you will be rewarded with the love of some billionaire retard who will be there for you when you need your medical bills paid and a really nice house. This is Sheryl Sandberg’s advice – bang the exciting bad boys until you need some retarded loser to give you a house and do the dishes. He will be so sex-starved he will happily agree that if he is enough of a loser. Then you can divorce him and take his house I assume is the unspoken subtext.

    Again puritan this is not.

    Hollywood wants 14 year old girls slutting around. It is their one abiding belief. It is the message of pretty much all the films they make these days. Liberal they are, but puritan they are not.

  28. SMFS-

    Well, if Hollywood wants 14 year old girls slutting around (which it may well do), it’s not being liberal [American usage] since liberalism [American usage] is committed to throwing every man in jail who so much as looks at one. So, the contention that the liberals are puritans holds, but not (if you are correct) the contention that Hollywood is being liberal (in this regard), it is being libertine, which is entirely different.

    I can’t offhand think of any Hollywood movies that encourage 14 year old girls to slut around though. Or indeed any media that does, come to that. Can you give me some examples?

  29. Ian B – “Well, if Hollywood wants 14 year old girls slutting around (which it may well do), it’s not being liberal [American usage] since liberalism [American usage] is committed to throwing every man in jail who so much as looks at one.”

    Well no. Liberalism has divided into two camps – those that remain mildly sex positive and those that are not. Both are committed to teenage girls slutting around – it is just that one side thinks that men should have no rights and girls should be free to do whatever they like while the other retains some attachment to the real world.

    Yes, some liberals would like to throw men who so much as look at a teenage girl into prison. Because they hate men. They are still committed to teenage girls exploring their sexuality. Preferably with a lesbian teacher or something.

    “So, the contention that the liberals are puritans holds, but not (if you are correct) the contention that Hollywood is being liberal (in this regard), it is being libertine, which is entirely different.”

    Some liberals hate men. Doesn’t make them puritans.

    “Can you give me some examples?”

    Seriously? How about all of them? Hollywood – and American TV – is unable to defend the idea of a lifetime monogamous union. They have to celebrate everything but.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.