Mary Beard on Radio 4 now with Point of View about Miss World 2011

But you haven't engaged on this thread Mary.

You haven't explained why you think of this in terms of anger and enemies. Do you really think that Julia Long who organised the protest was simply angry and nothing else? Do you think that was their only motivator? You haven't said why you equated protesting Miss World with seeing Miss Venezuela as your enemy. You haven't explained why you thought it was necessary to go on to Radio 4 and undermine other feminists' actions, saying that their protests should be about something else, an argument which you restated on this thread.

To me you sound like you're making liberal feminist arguments about "choice" which completely ignore the structures that in place to put women in the position of being objectified and judged by men for their looks and bodies and that's what you are basing your non-objection to Miss World on - the idea that something is OK if women are seen to be choosing it. Miss World is sexist institution that dates back to the 1970s which feminists have so far been unable to stop, although earlier feminists did manage to get it off terrestrial TV in the UK, it's right that feminists were outside it protesting it and pointing out what it actually is.

I'd be interested to know about the Miss Venezuela/enemy thing though.
Do you think when you were a younger feminist you DID see other women as the enemy? Or do you think other feminists (the protesters) do now?

It's interesting because it's one of the classic digs non-feminists love making at feminists (ie that they're all about criticising other women) and yet it's not something I see among the ones I actually know, though as I said upthread one of the older women in my local feminist group does reckon there was more of it about in the 70s than now.

pseudonymous aggression? well .. in spades in the early comments on this thread. They were pretty aggressive against me (as ES said) .. and pseudonymous, because you are all using pseudonyms.. I am here as me.. talking to a load of people whose identity is obscured (ie pseudonymous).

I am very happy to disagree and debate.. I dont think you are talking 'rubbish'.. that is quite different. But it is a bit odd talking to a load of nicknames!

crumbs I was going to bed an hour ago.. Look I am doing my best.. and happy to engage, but this isnt an inquisition or a viva. I am here because I am interested in discussing these issues, not because I have been called to account!

I am sure you all know the feminist debates on the burka and veiling (some of them have surfaced on Womans Hour, for heavens sake!)..el Guindi's book would be one obvious place to start a discussion of the pleasure and empowerment of veiling. NOW.. dont get me wrong; some Islamic women see the veil as a mark of oppression (and yes I would help them), but that is not the only was hat the veil has been discussed in Islamic feminist literature.

Dont - it isn't aggression, or stuff being personal. I have no desire to upset the current FS status quo - there seems to be a mis-match so I'll opt out.

Pseudonymous aggression? Where?

rather like me... engage, be polite, explain where you hadn't been clear enough, dont be afraid....

it's odd: i think that quite a lot of people who write/broadcast now will have nothing to do with the internet follow up.. that seems to me to be part of what it s about.

But, honestly, I am slightly unnerved by the pseudonymous aggression..

This discussion has been disappointing because I don't think you have been 'arguing it out', Mary, if that means 'engaging with the critical points others have made about your APOV piece'. I don't think you engaged with Bea Campbell's points either.

If you don't feel angry or particularly bothered about Miss World these days, fine. But you still haven't explained why you felt the need to undermine the actions of feminists who are still bothered about Miss World, and you still haven't explained what you meant by your closing remark: the one about Miss Venezuela no longer being 'the enemy' which definitely did imply that others (your younger self? or other feminists?) do think of Miss Venezuela as an enemy. Nor have you explained how the burqa can be spoken of - as you did - in terms of 'choice' and 'pleasure'.

How do you think Roman rhetoricians would have dealt with people who answered them back on the interwebs, Mary?

Pan, you always come across as notably more aggressive towards Thunder. It's getting a bit boring.

not at all, AW! Nothing 'personal'!! Personal attack? It's the debate that is important, not egos and the like. I only asked re the 'bar' being possibly set as that was the implication. I know I would have asked the same in any event of anyone else. nothing specific to thunder.

Pan, can you stop with the personal attacks.

Your rudeness/aggression is an obstacle to the discussion

Pan.. I would like to know when the stats stopped.. I havent watched since .. well the 1970s/... possibly 1970 itself..

of course, one might well argue that they were still there as a hidden text in all this stuff.. I was not at all meaning that MW was totally clean..just that the headline presentation of the numbers had gone

Pan we're aware you're not keen on thunder but please stop the personal attacks. That's not what thunder said and not how Mary took it. You're coming across as stirring.

oh no - I recall those vital(?) stats as 36-24-36, in 1973, as a competition standard.

thunder - why should MB be unable to discuss/argue out here, even if she has 'support elsewhere? Are you wishing to introduce a 'bar'? "if you have support elsewhere, you can't argue here." (esp. if you disagree with me). Risible.

Thunder .. because I think what you are saying is damn interesting even if I dont agree with you.. that is why.

I am happy to have got lots of emails from people saying thanks.. it shows one isnt totally barking (I think).. but also very keen to engage (else why else would I have been piping up all these days??)

ES.. ONE way is a demo.. but there are other ways, no better no worse; different ways.. horse for courses.

Ciceronian rhetoric should never be forgotten...always useful.

Yes I said you were. If I understand you correctly you are saying that your broadcast was received the way you planned, because of the letters and emails you received.

So if you're confident in that, then why does it matter if a few feminists on Mumsnet thought you were acting in an anti-feminist manner by undermining an action taken by other feminists?

ES has forgotten most of what she ever knew about Cicero, unfortunately.

And if you want to protest objectification you have to stage your demo at an event that touches a chord, otherwise you will just find yourself noticed by other feminists. Miss World was a damn good one and it worked. Well done London Feminist Network and Object!

And thank you for discussing this with us Mary, good night

thunder.. I thought I WAS arguing it out here!!

PS .ES.. I made exactly the same point about makeup in the original broadcast...and about as briefly...

Pan.. I never said that 36 24 36 was standard size (I have no idea what standard size is) .. I was only reflecting that this year's Miss World had none of that.. which is what I remember as one of the most objectifying practices from the past (along with the 'turn around' to show the potehr side of the body).

I think I could probably do without a thread on the euro (if this is what a thread means, cripes??).. but I thought you people might be interested in the vaunted imagery of rape not only on the Greek euro, but also on the UK residence permit!

But is anyone talking about ageing? I get the principle of luring the audience in but the likely perspective on miss world is far removed from the ageing issue. And it depends who you want listen. I'm sure lots of women would be interested in something that engages with their experience that isn't often talked about. Miss world discussion appeals to the people who don't lack voice in the first place thus marginalising the hidden voice of ageing women again.

If you're sure of your support and the interest you generated elsewhere Mary, then why are you arguing it out here as a matter of interest.

I am going to bed.. but I do think that if you want to talk about aging on the radio you have to go into into with an example of change that gets people interested. Otherwise they SWITCH OFF... you really have to engage people with an issue and a development that touches a chord.. else you are likely to be embarking on a broadcast that will be listened to only by others in the same boat.

To judge from the emails and letters I have had that worked.. it's not about titillation; its classic Ciceronian rhetoric (as ES will confirm).