Feminism and Glamour Modelling

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I’d like to post a rather bizarre comment expressed by a female during a discussion about a radical feminist on the radio yesterday evening

Now if anyone can explain this allegation to me I’d greatly appreciate it because the last time I checked Jordan (famous British glamour model) had made several million pounds from her modelling career, was one of the most envied and famous women in the country and (crucially) was perfectly happy with what she’d done and how she’d presented herself. Not once did she say anything about feeling exploited by an anti-feminist backlash.

Whatismore such comments detract from the attention made to real problems, such as the actual exploitation that takes place (of males and females) in the adult ‘literature’ industry and the prostitution business. By making out that ALL images of women that portray them as sexually attractive are somehow anti-feminist is an extremely conservative attitude which essentially says ‘we approve of the liberation of women, but not the freedom of women to do anything we deem degrading’

What hypocrisy!

Feminists who disagree with a woman’s right to pursue the career of her choice! Whatever next? Black people who are racist? Oh, of course, they already exist, just they’re ignored by the press.

The prejudices of the groups against whom there is (apparently) great prejudice are hilariously irrational and mindless. In the last week I’ve heard women on the radio say (over 50 times) that men are, on the whole, incapable of looking after a home. If that’s not blatant sexism I don’t know what is, yet they are supported and encouraged to say this sort of thing.

‘Yep, civilisation is definitely doomed’ (Mark, Peep Show)

2

Jordan may be famous for getting her kit off but she is not envied by woman dear, it’s men that masturbate over her picture that essentially pay her measly wages. Would they want to marry her? hmmm…you’ll have to ask the men among us.

You do have a point though. Women should be left alone to choose their career path - but this is an issue for the woman to introspect on personally and everyone else should mind their own business.

It sounds as though you need to switch radio stations.

3

Dear Someonsatthedoor,
(Al-wight Angel luv, Watsup…?)

Wouldn’t want to marry her personally, but I would like to have her locked up in my basement for a while… :evilfun:

I think there’s still a backwash of slam-the-man attitude running through the media (magazines like ‘loaded’ fuel the hopeless gadget/tits/beer obsessed modern ‘lad’ image - But I think they try to come from the angle that “okay ladies, men are clueless masses of hormones connected to a penis - but ya gotta luv 'em anyway, WE SHALL REVEL IN OUR BLOKENESS !!! etc…” wether or not it’s a convincing angle I don’t know) Give it a few more years (decades…? :frowning: ) and hopefully the balance will settle down to “men are slightly better at some things than women and women are slightly better than men at some things”… Let’s face it, men ruled the roost for a bloody long time (I still love the really old 50’s adverts about women crashing cars because of lipstick emergencies etc…) So it’s unsurprising that the backlash is slow to fade.

Though ladies: in grabbing the brush we tarred you with and slapping us repeatedly about the mush with it in revenge - have you not learned from us poor blokes’ mistakes…? In fighting with monsters have you yourselves become monsters…?

Of course they are encouraged - ratings man ratings…! Would anyone have bothered listening if those same interviewed women had said:
“Well, my man’s quite handy in the kitchen and he always takes the rubbish out if I remind him… Bless.”

The media will always show the worst sides of an arguement by default, until the tide turns, and then they hop onto the other foot, wring their collective hands, and say - look, isn’t all this blatent anti-[insert noun here] just OUTRAGEOUS…?

I think there will always be a skewed angle apparant in the media, as it cannot afford to have everyone happy at the same time. It thrives on conflict major or minor, and is not above creating it when none exists. Fact of life, adapt, move on, don’t watch TV. :wink:

4

Watsup - an African form of Catsup?

I wouldn’t want to marry her either, I’d just want to see the expression on her face when I turned her down

I’m not convinced. The more we legitimise sexism against men (of the type we’re discussing) on the grounds of past mistakes and wrong actions the more it’ll persist.

Also, on the subject of men ruling the roost - true enough, but it was also men who were enslaved to the land (women weren’t agricultural labourers, on the whole) men who fought in the armies (against their will - conscription) and men who bore the brunt of an absurdly violent and inconsistent justice system. Men were at the top and the very bottom. Do you see what I’m getting at?

The more intelligent women and feminists acknowledge this - I’m fortunate enough to have met and fallen in love with one.

I love TV, but I don’t tend to watch it for news - I prefer the internet and the radio. TV is best for edutainment(sic)

You are right, media thrives on controversy and provoking opinion rather than reasoned discussion, and I have no doubt it will settle down. One law I’d like to see introduced is one protecting men against women lying to them about being the father of a child, which at present a woman can do (and therefore oblige the man to certain money, time, effort and inevitbale pain when he finds out) without ANY legal criticism or punishment. Since men cannot do the same to women it would be a gender specific law, but so what?

Here’s to a future without this sort of bullshit

5

The crux of the matter. It’s not about a battle of the sexes, it’s about recognising what role each of us plays within our relationships with each other and within society as women and men. The art of living, how do I play a good daughter, mother, wife, brother, grandfather, friend? Bollox to feminism.

Ain’t nuffink up Tabula innit!

6

Measly wages? :astonished: Compared to what, investment banking? The most successful and famous pornstar (arguably) in the world, Jenna Jameson, has a new worth of millions of dollars and owns a huge mansion in Hawaii. I’d wager she pulls down about 100 times more per year than the average guy spankin’ it to her videos. BTW, she is married (to a pretty lucky guy! :sunglasses: ).

7

It has nothing to do with condeming a woman’s career choice. The problem is the message sent to women who live in a society where their likelyhood of financial independence is increased if they choose a career that relys upon their appearance. In the corporate and political worlds, we struggle for equality and advancement, yet in the world of selling beauty and sexuality, we are the reigning Queens. The message is: if you focus on being attractive to men you will be rewarded and if you focus on being powerful you will struggle every step of the way. We just need to see more examples of successful women who acheived through intelligence and talent to balance out the flood of pretty-girl successes.

As far as a woman choosing to model, why not…it’s great money and a pretty fun job. However, women are not the ones starting a career in modeling, teenage girls are. Teenage girls who get to travel all over the world with a big chunk of coin,lax chaperones,and charming photographers/agents/actors/clients who try to get in their pants. Eating disorders are discreetly encouraged, plastic surgery is very overtly encouraged, and drug use is overlooked. The only thing that matters is how you look and and how you"play" (look angry,sad,sexy,confident…etc.) to the camera/audience. Plus,being as skinny as you need to be to find work is really,really,really difficult. 15-20lbs underweight is about the average,and can be much more depending upon body type. I don’t think it is a job for a 13-17 year old girl, and this should really change.

8

Part of the problem here is that sexy women are more entertaining then intelligent ones, because everybody gets and understands sex-appeal, while it takes someone of relatively similar intelligence to get an intelligent person. But this has more to do with the current nature of our society… look at one of our current cult heroes, Homer J. Simpson.

Intelligent people are made fun of, not just women, if anything it’s made harder for them by this fact. People don’t like to feel stupid and for men to feel stupid because a women is their superior is the ultimate weakness if you’re a man, as man are meant to be strong and successful. Of course this has to do with gender role assignments and nothing to do with their true capabilities. These are the stereotypes that need to be addressed, but this is difficult for men as it’s reinforced that if you’re not one of the Lads you must be gay, or maybe there’s something else wrong with you. People just want to be popular and accepted.

If you look at arguably the two most successful / popular intelligent people it’s Einstein & Stephen Hawking. One was willing to be a clown with funny hair, while the other is in a wheel chair and uses a computer to talk which lots of people are amused by, i.e. they don’t intimidate! Intelligent people can be intimidating. Most people aren’t entertained by being intimidated and that’s part of the problem for these “intelligent” people. General society will always be a reflection of the magazines, if anything its gotten worse as focus groups know exactly what the lowest common denominator is and exploit it.

All I have to say is, I wish all you intelligent women a lot of luck and be intelligent without being intimidating.

9

One of the problems here is the way women are portrayed in their glamor photos etc. If you flip through a magazine you quickly realize that women have very inocent poses that just cry out “take power over me,” whereas most popular male photos stress athletic ability, power prowess… etc.

10

I hope so too - but I think there’ll always be a whole new brand of bullshit in it’s place. It’s a sad thing but on the one hand there’s a lot of people with a lot of money invested in bullshit, and on the other a lot of people just waiting to lap it up. One hand washes the other.

Yes - but they had a lot more choice of where they ended up. And there’s a difference between living an awful life of your own making, and being forced through marriage to live an awful life of someone else’s making don’t you think…?

Yikes more Laws - men and women have been screwing eachother over since the dawn of time… It’s difficult enough to forge relationships in this media-stricken age, without worrying about yet more legalities - you may as well slap a ban on men saying “Here’s your Tangas love - I’ll call you tomorrow” Any man with half a brain (Damn - that covers all of us doesn’t it) would just get a DNA test done… Problem solved. No law required - just common sense.

Always nice to hear an expert expound upon his favourite topic… :wink:

With the upsurge of ‘metrosexuality’ (thanks Beckham) I think this will hit both the sexes with increasing force - Good-looking = Good wages - Already the amount of totally unecessary cosmetic surgery is booming (MTV doesn’t help much with it’s ‘look like a star’ shlock-horror make-overs) ensuring weird times ahead for our kids… I wonder exactly when both-gender ‘uglyism’ will finally come out of the closet (if it hasn’t already)

Pretty much academic to me anyway, I’m handsome. :smiley:

It’s worrying that society feels the epitomy of beauty resides in the forms of almost pre-pubescent girls… :frowning: Or has that always been the way and I’ve just watched the wrong movies all my life…?

Err… No. How old are you Pax…?

Subtext: [size=75][pat on tushie] “and get back into the kitchen luvvie…”[/size]

So it would be okay if we dressed them in kevlar knickers and gave them guns…? Doh - stupid me - it’s been done already ‘bikini babes with automatic weapons in American firepower monthly’… :astonished:

The problem is sex-education (and I don’t mean the nuts and bolts)- porn and fantasy is fine, and let’s face it, is NEVER going to go away - but kids (esp. young men) should get told - “these women are not real - real women are not like this - real women get spots, scratch their arses and usually wear tatty marks-and-Sparks undies on week-days” Every damn day of their lives from about the age of 13 - 30.

That said - I’m off, late for a quick hand-shandy at the Worldsex site… TTFN. :wink:

11

Yeap checkout the history. The Egyptians and Romans like to get them between ages of 12 & 15 as this way they are still virgins. Likewise for the Greeks, but they just preferred boys. Socrates had his own little loverboy, even mentioned in one of Plato’s dialogs. That said anything younger then this was considered abnormal, but it did happen, certain sicknesses have always been with us.

You’ve taken this out of context, the rest of the line reads… [b]because everybody gets and understands sex-appeal, while it takes someone of relatively similar intelligence to get an intelligent person.[/b]. Everybody can get turned on by some sexy pictures of some sort, these magazines play on this fact. Dumb people don’t get what intelligent people are on about most of the time. Some then use humour to cover up this inadequacy and belittle the person who is acting intelligently.

LoL, I think not, personally I like intelligent strong-minded women as they’re interesting to talk to as well as other things. :wink: You don’t get that with the dumb ones, the ones that have been programmed by the media; this is also true of men. About 95% of the lads I know don’t like smart intelligent women! That’s only 5% which like openly intelligent women, while they don’t say it out right you can tell by the women they like to date and have fun with. Another thing I’ve seen is women who are intelligent but hide it, not because they are trying to deceive, but the couple I’ve asked out right said some men had found it intimidating.

People are obsessed with beauty as it opens lots of doors. You don’t need to talk just look good and you’ll be accepted. Wit and Intelligences only adds to this. Depending on your worldview, i.e. Creationism Vs Darwinism you can draw different conclusions. Beauty in Darwinism adds in reproduction & survival as you can attract a mate for sex, ugly people don’t have this ability so requires other means to attract. Again beauty is a sign of a healthy person, if you figure in the idea of an Extended Phenotype, crudely stated as “a form of mind control”, genes can make a body that will be soooo sexy, that others of the opposite sex won’t be able to control themselves when it comes to longing for them. There mind is full of hormones and all they can do is lust after this other person they want to shag. But end up having a quick one off the wrist. Because this is pleasurable people enjoy this type lust so the magazines sell well, the pictures vary based off what gets people hot, all sorts of fetishes are out there for those who go looking for them.

12

I was mostly objecting to ‘entertaining’ - sexy women are nicer to look at agreed, but good lord, don’t let them speak… :smiley: So many times in my teens I’d read/see an interview with my latest fantasy girl - and just cringe at how inane they came across. Like The Victorians said of children - glamour-models should be seen but not heard…

What do you think Pax…: Is beauty all that important a trait…? That the majority of people out there are not drop-dead-gorgeous/handsome
(or while we’re at it - super intelligent) - would seem to suggest that it isn’t. Unless way back in the mists of time everybody was really ugly/stupid and we’ve been slowly getting more beautiful/smart on a species wide level ever since…? Or is it that the ideals of beauty fluctuate so much with the era and/or society in question - that what is ugly now/here was beautiful then/there and it evens out…?

Ahh - the vernacular of the homeland… It almost bring a tear to the eye. :wink:

13

Yessiree, and cosmetics/beautification was born to make women look more like teenage girls. It is why we shave our body hair,use make-up, inject botulism into our foreheads…:unamused: With the exception of the Botox, this “youthification” has been happening for a looonnnggg time.

Oh my God…it’s like you followed me through my first 9 years of social interactions in public school.

I have a formerly single female professor buddy who would make sure men she liked did not know she was an Academic until she had dated them for 2 weeks.

A big part of this is media conditioning. Great big lips were not sexy back in the late 70’s and early 80’s;then we were exposed to images of women with this characteristic and we were told that these women were considered attractive, so now it is considered attractive. It was good to laugh at the people who used to laugh at my big fat lips, especially those who had injections to make their lips bigger. :laughing:

Symmetry of the face is something we inherently consider attractive, but most of the rest (body type,hair colour,skin tone,etc.) is a result of conditioned response. Attractive today can be ugly in 20 years and vice-versa. And everyone will become less attractive as they age if they accept conventional standards regarding beauty, which includes a youthful appearance.

Being considered conventionally beautiful is being in the right place at the right time combined with symmetry. Heck, now with surgery, we can always be considered “beautiful” (or we could end up looking like mutants depending how the surgery goes)

I got over judging people by how they looked, sexual partners included, long ago. I still notice physical beauty, but it’s just something nice to look at, like a sunrise. I wouldn’t be a friend or lover to a sunrise,though,just as I wouldn’t be a friend or lover to someone based on looks.

14

Dear Troy

That is highly dependent on one’s reading of a position. Let’s take an easy example: the pose where the woman in question is facing away from the camera, legs straight, torso bent over a chair/sofa/car/DVD player

You’d probably interpret that as a pose of submission - a presenting of the rear for the viewer (typically male) to have his way

Maybe so, but I’d say it’s equally as valid to interpret that as a pose of confidence ‘I’m confident enough to turn my back on you without fear’

Another common shot is where the camera is on the floor, looking up and the woman in question is again bent forwards, facing the camera to give a cleavage shot. I can’t see how such an image (which from my extensive reading of magazines in the shop is very common) could be interpreted as an expression of submission.

I could carry on and demonstrate the same thing about most other common poses but hopefully I’ve made my point

15

Yes - I’ve noticed in many social situations that women, just to demostrate their self-confidence and dominance you understand, find the nearest upright object, turn round and wave their buttocks in the face of their percieved rival… :astonished:

Sorry to commit a willful fallacy of ad hominem - but ‘what are you on mate…?’ :unamused:

Agreed - but over and above that, I think we’re over-reacting, in that though it is galling sometimes to have some mad person on the TV say - “men stink” with no particular contextual proof - the truth seems to me that sexism toward men is simply irritating rather than damaging in most cases.

Would it be better not to pick at the scab - in the hope it will heal itself…?

The only bone I would pick would be the tendency of courts to almost automatically award custody of children to the mother post-divorce… That does disturb me - and should be taken seriously. It smacks of hypocrisy - for a femminist to turn round and say “I’m naturally better at looking after kids than a man” if the same arguement is damned as sexist when a man uses it to justify something else. “I’m naturally better at X. task because I’m a man”… :confused:

Just a thought - don’t go throwing any shoes at me now… :smiley:

16

Turning ones back has, both in the animal world and on the stage, long been taken as a symbol of bravado

Imagine if the feminists had said that. The point is not about sexism towards men but the legitimisation of sexism within the gender rights discourse.

No shoes. Women have complete and total legal protection when it comes to children. They don’t have to inform the father of the child that they are pregnant, they aren’t obliged by law to give him any access, they can lie to their partner about the fatherhood of a child without that man having any legal recourse should he find out the truth, should the relationship come to divorce she’ll (in over 90%) of cases be given both the children and a large alimony settlement so she can look after them.

For some men (maybe a lot, I don’t know) the reality of family life is that they are expected to work full time (hence don’t get to know their children as well as the mother, in many cases) and aren’t expected (or encouraged to or supported if they try) to play a major role in parenting. If their wife gets bored of them (for whatever reason) she’s given complete, unwavering legal backing to divorce him, take their children and at least half of his assets.

There is a presumption that the well being of the mother is automatically linked with the well being of the child(ren). If she wants to move to the other side of the world then the father cannot stop her, even if it means never seeing his kids again. If she becomes depressed then the father has to pay for her new wardrobe to cheer her up…

Women want an equal role, fair enough. But they have to surrender their monopoly of the house and family. You can’t have everything you want in life.