It makes sense, then, that so many women jump through hoops (cups?) to ensure that our breasts retain that smooth curved look via specially padded and strategically seamed bras. But like the corset before it, it’s high time we lose the padded-for-modesty bra. Are nipples really so offensive that they can’t make an appearance even under clothing?
Outrageous to have them in the newspaper of course but just fine to be perky in the park of a chilly morning?
Fine by me but it is an interesting way of looking at the world, isn’t it?
It’s also true that Ms. Valenti should get out a bit more. She’s writing for an English newspaper and this obsession is more American than it is European.
“She’s writing for an English newspaper and this obsession is more American than it is European.”
There is no left-wing American obsession* that is not rapidly picked up by the British left.
Which is a bit ironic for people so avowedly anti-American…
* See: whole-word reading, “trigger warnings”, conspicuous displays of sensitivity, etc etc etc.
So England is European? England quickly picks up on a lot of American foibles that then take an additional 5 years to never to make it across the channel. Vide abacab.
Typical Feminist (deliberate) misunderstanding. It’s not that nipples are “offensive” it’s just about the clothes looking right.
It might seem weird for me to remember this (Ironman will certainly think so) but I had this male schoolteacher who used to wear those nylon turtleneck jumper things (1970s) and his moobs and nipples were genuinely offputting. I wish he’d worn something with “modesty padding”, frankly.
“It’s exhausting to have to worry about looking properly alluring but not slutty.”
The problem with feminists is that they’re just incredibly spoilt women. They wanted liberation, to not be passed from father to husband, and well, unsurprisingly, men are more likely to approach them or wolf-whistle them when they’re out on their own. So again, they want the world changed for them. If they win and men start getting arrested for harassment and figure that they might as well pay for hookers, they’ll then want society changed again.
Stig, that’s why my preferred term for modern mainstream Feminism is “Princess Feminism”.
Are nipples really so offensive that they can’t make an appearance even under clothing?
I don’t recall anyone, certainly not men, saying that women’s nipples showing is offensive. But I know a lot of women who are self-conscious that men will oggle if they are showing, and would prefer that they don’t. Not for the first time we have a dimwitted feminist assuming that what women do out of preference is forced on them by the desires of men.
The Stigler: “The problem with feminists is that they’re just incredibly spoilt women. “
“She’s writing for an English newspaper and this obsession is more American than it is European.” The Young (and the undereducated) speak subAmerican anyway.
Just think how often some mutton-head uses “moot” in the comments in the US rather than the UK sense. Or witters about “left field” or “stepping up to the plate” or a “curve ball”.
“Fine by me but it is an interesting way of looking at the world, isn’t it?”
Nipples in The Sun are there to entertain men, and are therefore a manifestation of the oppressive patriarchy keeping women down.
Nipples visible through clothes at an unexpected time are none of your business Man, hope they make you feel uncomfortable, and if you keep looking at them it is an opportunity for me (Feminazi) to complain.
I must be a case of arrested development!
Quite like nipples showing through. You are not doing anything for me if you use a bra which disguises them.
However, no problem if they are not perceivable.
It’s your personality I’m interested in, darling!
Or summat like that.
Or maybe I’ll just be arrested! Who knows these days?
I think it’s basically the same as camel toe. It’s not “offensive” or anything, it’s just not a good look most of the time.
Ian B – “I think it’s basically the same as camel toe. It’s not “offensive” or anything, it’s just not a good look most of the time.”
Well the last time I said this I got lightly toasted and not just by our resident Guardianista Ironman. Humans are a species that hides a lot of its sexual signals. Women hide ovulation for instance.
I think this is necessary for us to work together in a group. We are not constantly challenged by other men displaying their sexual prowess. Nor are we constantly wondering whether the woman next to us is fertile. We pretend not to notice what is quite hard to notice anyway and so we can all get on with the day’s work.
Male teachers showing their nipples (and when I am Lord High Pooh Bah of these Blesss’d Isles, a nylon turtle neck will carry a retrospective death penalty. But then so will pretty much everything else) are just creepy for that reason.
“Just think how often some mutton-head uses “moot” in the comments in the US rather than the UK sense. Or witters about “left field” or “stepping up to the plate” or a “curve ball”.
I think about it, dearieme, but I don’t let it worry me, overmuch. There’s a strong argument US English is a lot closer to proper English than English English. And I do prefer the American tendency to say “talk with” rather than “talk to”. it says so much.
Tim N says ” But I know a lot of women who are self-conscious that men will oggle if they are showing, and would prefer that they don’t.”
And i can think of several women of my acquaintance who’ve had surgery done, ensures they stick out like chapel hatpegs.
Women (or wimmin) are a varied bunch.
Feminism is becoming more interesting. Let me moot a little here in order to suggest it is reaching peak stupid. They have just driven the leftist but fairly talented c*nt Joss Whedon off Twitter for not being feminist enough and then they have produced this, arguing that in fact Yes means No:
“consent is a privilege, and it was built for wealthy, heterosexual, cis, white, western, able-bodied masculinity. . . . When you’re poor, disabled, queer, non-white, trans, or feminine, ‘no’ isn’t for you.”
That’s actually standard radical theory, though I daresay Matthew L will be along shortly to say I’m straw-manning. Under the radical formulation- which is the only theory of sexuality feminism has, so it’s not “just one feminist approach”, it is feminist theory, no woman has consent under a patriarchy; since our society (and all societies) are patriarchies, “all sex is rape” theoretically, though they’ve learned to avoid explicitly stating that in public because they then sound as batshit insane as they actually are.
The only way to evade the patriarchy is to free one’s consciousness by becoming a feminist. Which is much the same message every other similar religion works on; until you join the cult, you are not free.
The Whedon thing just shows how bad the situation thing is. If there’s anyone out there who’s spent his career making strong female characters, but which also succeed with a male audience, it’s Joss Whedon.
The problem with nearly all political campaigns is that once the main goals are achieved, the sensible people move on. You’re then left with leaders who really don’t want to have to find a new job and support by the crazies and scumbags. Look at most feminists and ask yourself how many you’d hire (and I’m not defining feminists as people who believe in equal opportunities).
Outrageous to have them in the newspaper of course but just fine to be perky in the park of a chilly morning?
It makes perfect sense from their point of view, which is that men enjoying female beauty is oppressive male gaze, but feminists endlessly obsessing over lady-parts (e.g. The Vagina Monologues) is empowering.
Besides, she doesn’t mean perkier, younger, more attractive women than she should show off their tank top bumps. That would be… emm… objectifying themselves for the Patriarchy, y’see.
She means older, fatter, hairier women should show off their lumpy, pendulous, National Geographic bosoms.
Whether feminism makes women ugly or just attracts them is an open question.
Wasn’t it The Mikado (or, arguably, Ko-Ko) who concerned himself with capital punishment? Pooh-Bah was overwhelmingly interested in being ‘insulted’.
I would get out more, but Flatland has fewer possibilities.
Whedon is a feminist crawler. His shows are full of scrawny females-who in real life couldn’t knock the skin off a rice pudding– wiping the floor with hulking male thugs. Any show he has created will always have several episodes in which a poor “ordinary” female is stalked or otherwise abused/terrorised by some nasty male who gets his comeuppance at the hands of said skinny heroine.
If the sadsack sisters have turned on a femmistooge like Whedon then they are indeed over-reaching themselves.
Steve: “She means older, fatter, hairier women should show off their lumpy, pendulous, National Geographic bosoms.”
Steve – “Besides, she doesn’t mean perkier, younger, more attractive women than she should show off their tank top bumps. That would be… emm… objectifying themselves for the Patriarchy, y’see.”
Yet again Steve Sailor’s law of female journalism is discovered in the wild:
Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism: The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.
Mr Ecks – “If the sadsack sisters have turned on a femmistooge like Whedon then they are indeed over-reaching themselves.”
No more than Stalin over-reached himself by killing Trotsky. If they can come for Whedon, they can come for any one of us.
The sad thing is that he is unlikely to learn. He will just grovel for forgiveness and include even more kick ass fake female characters. Gutless.
Truly it is impossible to tell the real from the fake these days. Take this from The New York Times:
The New York Times reports:
Petition Calls For ‘Shulamith Firestone Memorial Apartment’ For Low-Income Feminists
By MARY REINHOLZ
Acquaintances of Shulamith Firestone want the rent-stabilized apartment where the author and activist died this summer to be preserved as a residence for a low-income feminist, according to a petition obtained by The Local.
The petition, which can be read below, outlines a plan to earmark her fifth-floor walk-up at 213 East 10th Street for tenants doing “important” feminist work, who cannot afford current market rates in the rapidly gentrifying East Village. The rent would be no more than $1,000 a month.
Women’s liberation stalwarts like Kate Millett along with East Village literary agent Frances Goldin and Annette Averette, co-director of Sixth Street Community Center, are among those who have signed the petition directed at landlord Robert Perl, owner of Tower Brokerage.
Written by Fran Luck, executive director of the WBAI radio program “Joy of Resistance: Multi-Cultural Feminist Radio,” it notes that owners and developers of housing in formerly working-class neighborhoods have for decades “set aside” affordable rentals. Ms. Firestone paid about $400 a month, according to Mr. Perl, who said he had been planning to increase the rent of the next tenant in order to offset rising taxes imposed by the Bloomberg administration. A one-bedroom in the building, between First and Second Avenues, was recently leased for $2,095, according to StreetEasy.
Ms. Firestone, who in the 1960s helped organize women’s liberation groups such as Redstockings, New York Radical Women and New York Radical Feminists, was found dead in her apartment in late August. She was 67 and had long been afflicted with mental illness in the years following the 1970 publication of her influential feminist treatise, “The Dialectic of Sex.” Her book embraced technology as a way of freeing women from “the tyranny of their biology.”
“I think she was a difficult tenant,” said Ms. Goldin. “She was a disturbed person and would leave the water on and flood other apartments. She didn’t mean to do this, but if we could persuade the landlord that we could guarantee him a reasonable tenant, maybe he could become a hero. It’s worth a shot.”
Mr Ecks – Mongolian saddlebags.
SMFS – Steve Sailer is one of my top ten Steves.
How can the ravings of someone so obviously driven by loathing of self and sex be taken seriously?
The main mover of the Radicals, Kate Millett, was also clinically insane; indeed she went on to campaign in her more lucid moments for “Mad Rights”. The small group of New York Nuts around them were the origin of the theoretical base of 2nd Wave Feminism, the same theories used today by mainstream/princess feminists, femiservatives and even churches (sex work as marxist exploitation etc) and which is hegemonic.
This should be born in mind when people excuse the Feminists of being a good movement that has gone off the rails. It never was on the rails. It only looks like it’s “gone nutty” because it’s achieved most of its goals and is pitching for the end game.
Andrea Dworkin was never diagnosed with anything, but was pretty obviously delusional. Anyone looking at the core movement generally will see a bunch of women who were numerous sandwiches short of the full picnic. And these are the people whose ideas are now enshrined in the laws of all Western nations.
It’s a very scary thing to have happened.
It is, of course, vitally important that this pioneering feminist work be done in a rent-controlled apartment in a funky part of town rather than somewhere cheaper a few miles away.
All the sisters who signed the petition can chip in a few dollars a month to subsidise the rent. Problem solved.
They should have packed the sandwiches in the saddlebags.
‘And these are the people whose ideas are now enshrined in the laws of all Western nations. It’s a very scary thing to have happened.’
It is. The really interesting question is How.
My theory is that more intelligent people were too busy doing actual stuff, and inventing and making and earning, to pay attention.
Still, they did it. However, they cannot maintain it, and they are jumping the shark so often now that even fairly thick people are seeing it.
(The likes of Ironman are the next rung down – expect him to spot it in about 2018. Then we’re on to the cast of Jeremy Kyle some time in 2019.)
That they can only exist in a world created and protected by the very white males whom they affect to despise must increase the self-loathing by an order of magnitude.
“Can you tell what it is yet?”
Oh the irony.
Yes they will fall–the only question is how much more damage will they do first?
The basic reason for the rapid success of the Feminists was that they were very well networked- to political activists, publishing and the other media, and academia.
To be any more precise than that will get Ironman calling me a thick.racist.prick.
“The basic reason for the rapid success of the Feminists was that they were very well networked- to political activists, publishing and the other media, and academia.”
Yes. When mainstream media describes you and your beliefs as reasonable and sensible, even though you clearly are batshit crazy, people tend to believe the former.
A parallel example – it is (or at least was) received and sensible opinion that to want to be governed primarily by your own Parliament, accountable to your countrymen, was a batshit crazy idea and you were one step away from being Hitler.
People don’t like to be seen to be out of line. Mavericks (I.e. People capable of thinking independently) are by nature rare.
There’s a sentence quoted above, got me to pondering:
“She was 67 and had long been afflicted with mental illness in the years following the 1970 publication of her influential feminist treatise, “The Dialectic of Sex.”
The cause & effect seems to be running in the wrong direction.
Reading it…now I can see that.
Nipple enhancing bras, their availability or not is just a question of fashion. There is nothing so arbitory as fashion and it will certainly be tested in the marketplace at some point. It may well even be a Valenti feminist dialectic that is credited with the novelty but equally likely to be a butterfly flapping her wings in brazil.
“When you’re poor, disabled, queer, non-white, trans, or feminine, ‘no’ isn’t for you.”
No isn’t for you is probably due to the lack of people asking.
“1. I Have the Privilege of a Short Morning Routine…
3. I Have the Privilege of Peeing Standing Up”
I bet he doesn’t exercise privilege number 3 though, you know solidarity and all that.
Why is it a privilege to piss standing up? I can’t be the only chap here who has an occasional seat sprinkling issue, with all the resultant bending down, getting hold of a bit of bog roll and wiping the seat hassle?
Ironman pisses sitting down – maybe that’s why?
Really? I’ve been mugged twice, and once (this is my one heroic story) managed to stop a man on the tube getting the shit kicked out of him by a superhero-like intervention. A friend of mine was so badly beaten in a No-Reason Attack that he developed epilepsy. Like everyone else, I worry about dangerous environments, particularly at night, and do not seem to have a protective shield of privilege.
He obviously “moves about” somewhere other than the average urban environment.
“Like everyone else, I worry about dangerous environments, particularly at night, and do not seem to have a protective shield of privilege.”
Protective shield of a hefty Krooklock’s usually more effective. Then you can get down to the decision about who’s mugging who.
Perfect illustration of the British left aping their American cousins:
– obsession with believing there’s some kind of rape crisis on campuses;
– “safe spaces”
– redefining consent
– no-platforming comediens etc. with un-PC views