Warwick University rowing club women's team calendar

Are we meant to be burning our bras then?!

I'm willing to give it a go but I won't be running for any buses any time soon

Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out, then martinedwards.

Really - men being firemen and posing for a calendar is very different. Do we really have to go through that again?

clearly VERY different....

as obviously no women buy a male calendar to look at the hunky torsos, its all OBVIOUSLY purely artistic, a celebration of the human form.

and of course the Fireman calendar had a load of fat ugly blokes with disfiguring scars.

what twaddle!

sod that, I can't stand the bra burners.

I'll be outside getting some fresh air.

it stinks in here.

I've just written out three questions, and deleted them all. I think I am too tired for this. But I am confused about whether you think women have pre-defined roles within society, whether they are all destined to be the sex class, subordinate to men, and how much autonomy they actually have. I'll read your comments again in the morning - perhaps I am just missing something obvious.

Flora - do you think there will ever be a time when these or any images of naked women (or men) will be acceptable? Be that a completely equal society for all or a matriarchal society (in theory)?
Or do you think that even in an equal society for all it is too hard to seperate the 'implied sexiness' of the images from say just a naked body.

"I think it is misrepresentative to suggest that women do these projects purely for the gratification of men, or that all men will lust endlessly over such pictures, or that women might not even pose for such pictures to show off to other women"

Yes that would be misrepresentative if anyone actually said it. No-one has said that on this thread.

"Feminism - or the bit we have discussed in here so far - seems to have everyone's role in society so firmly nailed down, so pre-defined, rigid and uniform, that there seems to be no room for self-expression, for freedom of though or action, for any chance to break the mould."

Wrong again. Feminism challenges societally-defined roles. Conforming with societally-defined roles is not breaking the mould.

"If everybody is to be judged by such rigid, unbending standards - you as a woman MUST be oppressed and lusted after, you as a man MUST oppress women and lust for them"

Again no-one said this.

Who knew class analysis was so hard??

I'm by no means a feminist academic, nor a gender studies expert nor claim to be.

Oh really, and here's us thinking that you were

Really - men being firemen and posing for a calendar is very different. Do we really have to go through that again?

Vesuvia, that is a fair point in this case. I said that, in my opinion, it's a tired cliche. But conversely, aren't we now saying 'Bloody hell, another nudey calendar! Enough already!', rather than, 'Phwoar, look - tits and ass!'? If so, it's engendering boredom rather than sexualised imagery.

And re breaking the mould - how do you get to the point where women's nude calendars are as ironical and downright hilarious as men's if you can never see women as anything other than the sex class, oppressed and subjugated?

Vesuvisa - I think they were talking about roles in society, in general. Ooops

Phaserstostun wrote - "there seems to be no room for self-expression, for freedom of though or action, for any chance to break the mould."

This thread is about yet another calendar of nude young women. How is that even close to breaking the mould?

I don't think there is much evidence that other women would be put off the rowing team if they didn't feel themselves up to scratch in the beauty stakes. It would be like saying men wouldn't join the fire service unless they looked like a bodybuilder. And I would also say that the women who have chosen are a fair assortment in terms of physique, looks and musculature.

I think it is misrepresentative to suggest that women do these projects purely for the gratification of men, or that all men will lust endlessly over such pictures, or that women might not even pose for such pictures to show off to other women. Feminism - or the bit we have discussed in here so far - seems to have everyone's role in society so firmly nailed down, so pre-defined, rigid and uniform, that there seems to be no room for self-expression, for freedom of though or action, for any chance to break the mould. If everybody is to be judged by such rigid, unbending standards - you as a woman MUST be oppressed and lusted after, you as a man MUST oppress women and lust for them - then what hope is there? Do you only see a bleak, unchanging, subjugated future for women?

If you understand it, why do you keep repeating back incorrect summaries or nonsensical analogies? Why would huntmasters lock up foxes for their own good? I doubt would make sense to anyone.

The alliances point is a total derail. Prudish right wingers are against paedophilia, so lefties should be against it? The Catholic church is against the death penalty - should aetheists be for it?

I don't think its so much not understanding as not agreeing with your type of feminism. I'm by no means a feminist academic, nor a gender studies expert nor claim to be. I still find the alliance of the prudish anti-female right and radfems over nudity problematic.

To me its akin to hunt sabs joining huntmasters in locking up foxes for their own good. It makes no sense to me, but I'm happy to accept that others don't agree

:) touche!

NotDead - it is clear you have not understood even one of flora's arguments. Or anything of feminism.

"Its a strange target. Warwick has both claimed that figurative art with nudity is offensive and that pornographic videos are acceptable in lectures, that right wing cults presenting on campus are expressing freedom of speech but that art that could offend muslims (nude females) should not be viewed by administrative staff but can be viewed by academixs in a mature way."

what's your point?

You are continually failing to understand these arguments. I did not say it was "ok" for old women or men to pose nude. After you failed to understand this the first time, I clarified again. Don't let that stop a good straw man argument, though.

No. I'm not saying anything like that. nice attempt to set up a straw man though! its like debating with Boris himself!

Is the objection based on class, 'prettiness' and race then?? Are we now adding 'its ok if they are 'ugly' (define please!), not white, short haired' to ' old women or men' ??
please, this isn't helping..surely!

NotDead are you saying we cannot discuss one thing unless we discuss all others you consider more important? How not novel from a man discussing feminism.

...and those ^ shouldn't be pre-requisites for a rowing club.

Well personally I think that nudity can be beautiful and nor sexual and non-sexual nudity is what this calendar seems to be about. To me there is something that sits badly about attacking what feels like a rational informed choice by sensible educated women who clearly want to be involved in an experience they are in control of.

Its a strange target. Warwick has both claimed that figurative art with nudity is offensive and that pornographic videos are acceptable in lectures, that right wing cults presenting on campus are expressing freedom of speech but that art that could offend muslims (nude females) should not be viewed by administrative staff but can be viewed by academixs in a mature way.

They were all, without exception, white, conventionally pretty girls, with long flowing hair.

I wonder if it will put off young women who want to go on the rowing team who don't feel they are conventionally pretty? If a young girl with say a disfigurement from burns on her body..will she feel shit if she wants to join, knowing she isn't society's typical idea of conventionally pretty and have to feel horribly awkward when she doesn't want to to do it?

I am well aware that there are men who don't care about feminism but who like to tell women that they don't need to worry about x, y or z or tell them what battles they should be fighting. I am aware that there are men who tell women that they feel "sad" or "depressed" about how prudish those women and if only those women could be less negative they would see it's all fine. I am aware that there are men who call it an attack when a woman expresses a view they don't like about how women are treated in society. I'm aware that there are men who like to jump into discussions and, despite failing to grasp the concepts being discussed, carry on telling everyone their simple view of why there's nothing to worry about.

It happens all the time and it troubles me. However since I don't know you, your own personal view is neither here nor there to me. I could say "it must trouble you greatly when women are not concerned with your approval" however I don't have enough information about you to make that statement, as you don't with me.