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

I love the FS. The rudeness/ aggression that it suffers from, from time to time, is an obstacle.

I thought the stuff about make up in the Woman's Hour broadcast was interesting too but again I rather felt like you were casting Other Feminists, Like The Ones Who Protest Miss World as being much less subtle about these things than they actually are.
Bea Campbell put it very well, I thought.

I think my generation of feminists have thought quite hard about all the appearance stuff because we've had to arrive at our own syntheses of the Second Wave view that this stuff matters and the 'post-feminist' painting of high heels and make up as empowering. In fact of course women get a variety of things out of beauty practices but that doesn't stop them having real and often harmful consequences.
I'm also not sure make up or burqa wearing is the same as Miss World. It's related of course, but Miss World as a ritual that involves women having their appearance judged (for patriarchy compliance....) is quite different from women having fun expressing themselves creatively with make up. (The latter could still exist in the feminist utopia, and men would play too; Miss World would have to be unrecognisable....)

Tbh I thought thunderwhatever was rude.

36-24-36. Standard size? So that bit isn't there but of course the swimsuit bit is. Apparently.

Thanks all.. I hope that I have not been rude to anyone.. at least I think I would say any of what I have said to any one of you if we were to meet. (and as I said ES was generous enough to concede that was not true of some of the earlier comments).

Crumbs... where I come from "I'm not really sure that ...' isnt much of a criticism.. it a gentle demur aint it??

And do remember that an under 10 minute radio personal view does not encompass the presenters full view of the subject! I'm very pleased that there are still all kinds of angry people.. politics depends on people being angry about different things. My point is/was that I dont feel viscerally angry about Miss World any more.. and the point of my piece was to reflect on that ...

and none of you have yet seen what I have raised about rape and the euro...

thunder re Mary - "Although I'm sure what you meant to say was "I'm not angry about sexism any more but thank goodness there are still some women around who want to protest sexist objectification".

that is really unfair and not in the spirit of FS - it just reads as a personal dig, and nothing more.

Mary if it was primarily about ageing, why obscure it with a reference to the much more titillating miss world which is now all that is discussed about the piece?

I don't feel angry about Miss World. That doesn't mean it's not sexist or doesn't deserve protesting. It does.

Feelings aren't always the best guide to political action. It requires analysis too.

You mean you feel the fact that people are using pseudonyms makes you ruder Mary? That's a shame. Referring to someone as "whatever" is rude after all.

This was a criticism of the protestors:

"So I'm not really sure that the Miss World competition - for all its slightly old-fashioned tackiness - is where we should be protesting."

Although I'm sure what you meant to say was "I'm not angry about sexism any more but thank goodness there are still some women around who want to protest sexist objectification".

Pan .. absolutely right.

Yes I found the line about Miss Venezuela being the enemy very problematic too.
I think it all came over a bit more clearly in the Woman's Hour discussion. I was particularly pleased by the bit where you said you were glad that people were still angry. That was what I was waiting for in the Point of View and didn't get (and instead there was the line about how it was worth protesting in 1970.... as if it wasn't in 2011).
Even if it is just about why you personally are no longer angry, though, I think there is much further to go in exploring it. There are so many possible reasons why someone might get less angry about something, ranging from complacency once you're not affected by it yourself any more, through things getting worse so something which once stood out looks less important in comparison (even though it is just as wrong as it always was), to just getting tired of fighting and giving up, as well as the intellectual reasons you cited. It's tempting to try to find intellectual justification for one's emotional reaction to things.

I am not seeing the 'anger and enemies' as an either/or re radical feminism. RF isn't the sole repository of these things.

I don't think I was criticizing exactly.. I was saying I didnt FEEL that way.. It was, as I have said before, principally a reflection on personal change with age..

Thunder... I have written quite enough on this thread about what I feel about these soubriquets, which I think that encourage a style of rhetoric that seems to me to be pretty unhelpful, and on times pretty down on other women. I think I have had said nothing in all this discussion which I would not be happy to say to anyone face to face.. I am not SURE that goes for everyone (as Elderberry Syrup was generous enough to concede). So allow me a bit of the stick in the mud attitude...

Being crosser about other things doesn't mean you need to criticise the people who do protest about them. I am crosser about misogyny than i am about vivisection but it doesn't mean I stand by their stall telling people they are wrong. Why would I undermine a cause I wasn't opposed to?

"Thunderwhatever"

That's rude.

Actually I was referring to your "dont just lump me with the enemy" schtick on this thread. Saying that Miss Venezuala wasn't your enemy was problematic too, because it implied that that would be the only reason to protest Miss World.

Can you explain why you can only see this in terms of anger and enemies rather than in terms of radical feminist analysis of men's objectification of women and action against the same.

Julia Long who was interviewed on YouTube didn't sound angry. It's reasonable to protest high profile sexist events.

thanks Pan.. I think I was saying that it was HEADLINED as different (which is partly encouraging.. but I did say that I wasn't entirely convinced by this rhetoric, which is what the beauty queen got cross about! .. attacked from all sides, which shows that it hit some kind of spot)

I guess I am easy on MW because I am crosser (now) about other things... !

ah, Mary, I referred to the single piece - where MW wasn't so much as an enemy any more.....could be wrong there. It's been known.

The discussion of the use of the word enemy starts prior to any discussion of women's hour.

sorry Mary, I thought a point of difference you were making between 2011 and, for eg 1973 ( which I can just about remember ) was that the contestants were graduates, or studying to be so. So by implication, it was in some way 'better' than back in the day.

Rhetoric on live radio? I have been in that position a couple of times, R4 and local radio,( in really fierce debate over criminal justice issues) but I heard your piece as a single item, an opportunity to be a polemic? I do 'catch your drift' (lovely 70's phrase) but I was a bit vague in understanding why you were so 'easy' on the whole MW thing, as if the politics of it were less important anymore.

and obv. your audience was not soley or specifically the MN FS.