The Body Shop has fallen

I’ve always used Superdrug Vitamin E products. No idea if they match up to BS stuff but I like them and they’re only £3.99

So if a woman is wearing jeans, a t-shirt and trainers, do you think she is safe from male violence?

Such a poignant question. A survey a long while ago asked women what they were wearing when they were raped. A large number of responders said "jeans and trainers" ad "pyjamas" - a very poignant art exhibition was set up for it.

"Women" are not people who conform to feminine standards of liking dresses, or makeup, or whatever. Women are that 51% of society born female. Everyone can wear or express themselves however they like - but wearing dresses or nail polish or some internal feeling, does not make one a woman.

Magical thinking, cultish behaviour and complete negation of scientific fact. What a world we live in.

(Which is why I would argue they are the same thing)

Over priced tat anyway.
No loss to me.

Honestly, the number of people inventing whatever scurrilous things they can imagine then attributing them to JKR....
Jesus wept.

To scoff at feminism here because you can't understand a sentence about the biological function of the female in human reproduction is not the clever thing you think it is. You just sound like you are struggling with words.

Hilariously, Susie Green was on Talk Radio this morning decrying biological existentialism to much mirth in the comments on YouTube.

I don’t even know what an identity really is and so much drivel is spoken by them that have that mystical and mysterious identity am glad I don’t.

Identity politics can do one

And take gender studies and that drivel with it as well

male (sex) people who want to play with dolls and wear dresses are also at risk of (male) violence. i see it as femaleness being the object of hatred and violence, not just people who have specific female physical characteristics.

They are at risk of male violence because they are male (sex) and not conforming with societal gender norms. The implication is that the perpetrator of such a crime would not have done the same if the person playing with the doll was a girl. They are not equivalent. The male violence against the boy has nothing to do with femaleness and everything to do with the perpetrator feeling personally threatened by the boy breaching gender norms. We need to know that the child is a boy (sex).to be able to make sense of the violence. If we described the child as a girl (because we were describing the gendered activity), then how would we describe the reason for the violence? We need everyone to know that the words female/male, woman/man and girl/boy refer to sex in order to make sense of sex OR gender based violence, because the latter derives from the former.

no, i didn't say that and i don't think that. i'm making the point that behaving in ways that are perceived as 'female' makes one a target of violence, regardless of one's biological sex.

Holy shit it's not complicated.

Women are oppressed because of their biological sex. Gender is the tool in which that oppression is enforced.

Gender is a hierarchy whereby things (completely arbitrarily mind you) deemed 'masculine' are at the top and things deemed feminine (also arbitrary - and subject to change, high heels were invented for men etc) are at the bottom.

Because in a sexist society women (the sex) are deemed shit and inferior, therefore all the things they supposedly like (gender norms) are shit and inferior as well.

A man (top of the heirarchy) who actively pursues "feminine" interests or has "feminine attributes" (bottom of the hierarchy) is not only stepping outside his gender role but actively degrading himself. Other men - with "masculine" interests and attributes therefore consider themselves superior to these "feminine" men and treat them accordingly the same as the other inferior class of human (that would be women of the biological variety).

Because gender is such a useful tool of oppression people stepping out of their gender boxes - in either direction - must be strictly monitored and ridiculed. Gender then becomes a prison where many people are unhappy.

Sensible people realise Gender is a harmful nonsense that needs to be abolished - people can like and be whatever they want, there is no hierarchy. However sex class remains unchanged - you are either part of the class who can get impregnated or you are not - and that will have an affect on the material reality of your life. Whether your sex organs work correctly, or whether they are removed has no bearing on your sex, hysterectomies are a part of the female experience, penectomies are purely male.

Absolute fucking idiots do not draw the same conclusion. They see rigid gender roles as negative (so far so far so good) but think that the answer is creating more genders, or allowing special people to opt out of their prison and go in the other one. But that can only work as long as most people remain confined in their own gender prison (otherwise you're not special for breaking out). It is a system that says changeable stereotypes are more real and more important than actual bodies and forces women people into roles against their will whilst telling them this is liberating and they are "choosing" the role.

It's not - it's oppression. There is nothing progressive about claiming gender is more important or more real than biological sex. It is just more misogyny and more policing of women. If that is what you want fucking own it

Someone's just posted a picture of The Body Shop's 'Men's Shaving' web page and asked Did you mean 'People who shave'?

is this your feminism?

I think you might be misunderstanding the meaning of the word 'reproductive role' here. It doesn't mean that a woman should have that role, it means that, like any other mammal that is the role that her body will perform if she is impregnated.

Because I am lucky enough to live in society where I have access to contraception, abortion and legislation to protect against rape, I have some control of pregnancy. Take those things away and I have no more control than any other mammal. My ability to participate in society depends completely on access to sex based rights, and I will fight to protect the language I need to defend them.

Sigh. I guess I should be bothered to quote...

No, of course a biological basis to oppression doesn’t give men an excuse.

'Women have a reproductive role, determined by the sheer biology she is born with '

is this your feminism?

What do you think is the basis of women's oppression then? The fact that they inherently love pink and glitter?

'Preferable to thinking the intrinsic part of feminism is "anyone who likes pink and dresses is a woman" I think?'

oh PLEASE! i didn't say that. i don't think that. i was using a stereotype to make a point. i never even mentioned pink, yet lots of people are quoting it back at me?

No of course it doesn’t.

You need to tighten up your thinking.

Ooh yes, if there is some magic clothing out there that can protect all girls and women from men then please do share it, or at least put it on the market - you would make an absolute fortune.

that's disgusting and horrific. nothing i'm trying to say is trying to belittle that level of violence and the trauma it must have caused for you.

i don't think men do these things only because they are physically stronger, they do it because they are taught that they can. if you think it's all just biologically driven, doesn't that give men an excuse to get away with whatever the fuck they want?

is this your feminism?

Part of my feminism is a recognition of this being the reason women are oppressed.

Preferable to thinking the intrinsic part of feminism is "anyone who likes pink and dresses is a woman" I think?

My last comment was to @Seasidetrains, in regards to women having the reproductive role as the female sex of the human animal.

Or is biology really that difficult to understand?

my point is: when the way you behave coincides with what is considered to be 'how women behave', you become a target of hatred and violence.

You claim that a man wearing a dress can be the subject of male violence because, so the converse must be that a woman can dress and behave in a particular way and avoid male violence. Please could you explain what behaviour and dress can protect women from male violence.

Men are violent to all humans, adult males are the most dangerous of all animals on the planet. Their reasons for violence to other men are not reasons for women to be forced to pretend those men are women. That's profoundly sexist in that it relegates women to a lesser category with the boundaries entirely controlled by a conflict between men. Modern gender identity training is designed to socialise women into accepting this colonisation by men and to do the work of shaming women that won't comply. Which is what is happening to JK Rowling right now.

Wearing dresses, liking pink, liking dolls, wearing makeup, wearing heels or having long hair - none of that is inherently female. That's just what society puts on women.

Surely you understand that statement in the context of biological sex? If not then I think you might be a lost cause...