to think it is infuriating that I will be written off as po-faced when I want to protest about the objectification and sexualisation of women??

[Mintyy]

see here

This makes me feel sad and angry in equal measure.

But I know lots of people will say I am old-fashioned, jealous, bitter, anti-women for expressing this. I feel most definitely that if I want to object to this sort of marketing, I will have negative comments made about me and my looks and personality flung at me as a way to shut me up!

Makes me mad, it does.

Calmexterior, I guess they meant 'objectified, submissive, male owned' women are back.

And sadly they do seem to be.

Anyone annoyed by this can find a welcome home over on the feminis chat board btw. Anyone with any ideas on how to reverse this increasing right-wing anti-feminist backlash? We really are all in it together

Minty, you need to tell people what it's about! I clicked ion the link and I've added to the click count for the Daily Mail AND thick, sexist, dinosaur-attitude shite!!!
That hasn't made my day better!
Other than thst, of course you're right.
And I would say that it's not cool.
I think HK has licensed her name and, to utilise an Easter image, she has probably washed her hands of whatever the buyers of her mx me have subsequently done AND counted the pieces of silver.
For the record, women who get individually paid well PRECISELY for doing stuff that makes life a bit harder for women as a class ... Well, I'm not impressed.
On the other hand, I am increasingly thinking that this sort of stuff is less relevant to women's struggle than equal shares of post-children division of domestic labour, right to labour outside the home (irrespective of pay) and leisure.
Thst saiid, it is very crap. It looks do 70s but in a totally unironic way.
Perhaps I should be happy it's just jolly 'Sun' style picture, not some edgy, double anal penetration-style picture.
Yes. It all makes me feel angry and depressed.

It doesn't feel like it, Gibbering, it really doesn't. I'm annoyed by misogyny but I'm equally annoyed when I'm patronised by other women and who feel justified in telling other women what they should be doing and berating them for not doing it.

I think most posters know about the feminist board. Every few weeks there is a thread like this and it seems the purpose is to drum up interest for it. I've looked at it a few times in the years I've posted here but really can't ally myself to it. Anything that displays anger and/or disgust at other women is not ok... not even if it's done under the auspices of feminism.

By the way, Mintyy: you often make me smile. You're not even a bit wrong on this. Or OP-faced. Hope you're having a lovely day.

I am sorry you have been put off, LyingWitch. And others. I completely understand why anger and disgust at other women might put you off. But it is a difficult line to walk when you see stories like this. Do you not feel a little angry at the woman who put those three girls out there dressed like that?

The feminist board posters (btw I had nothing to do with this thread appearing) do try to direct their anger at the system as a whole, and usually manage it, in my opinion. We desperately, desperately want other women to come on board with that, to stop working with this system and help fight it. Come and help tell us how to do it!

I don't feel in the least angry with the models, why would I?

And now I'm guilty of the first bit - telling people what to do - too. It isn't easy, but how do we do it? Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Yes it's po-faced. It seems being in your underwear is only acceptable if you're on a feminist 'slut walk' but god forbid you want you advertise women's garments.

I didn't say angry with the models. I said angry with the woman who put them out there... although no doubt she is herself constrained by the system, she seems to be someone who has the wealth to make different choices, not opt for the easy sex-sells approach.

Twice damned now.

aren't wearing practical cotton underwear for a start

I hope this was you being funny, otherwise it's a stupid point. Like saying it'd be okay if they were wearing underwear you deem acceptable.

choosing to be outside in your underwear - I don't have a problem with that. I have been known to skinny dip or swim in my pants if I forgot my swimming costume, or to garden in not much, and don't expect to be assaulted or raped for it with my lack of clothing as a justification. That's the point of slut walking.

Flogging underwear by making a 'transgressive' (actually highly conventional in a porn culture) image of 3 women presenting a single type of beauty and pornified relationships between them is IMO a different thing. I have no problem with the models nor am I objecting to their beauty out of jealousy - they ARE beautiful. God knows you don't have to try very hard to make an image of human beings not wearing much attractive because human bodies are intrinsically gorgeous even mine

Why does women's sexuality have to be described as 'pornified'?

Oh eeek sorry, yes, I didn't warn it was a Daily Mail link. Apologies.

Funny comment by a Daily Mail reader though "where's the Benny Hill music" that made me lol.

I don't accept that you can never be angry with another woman just because you are one. Not at all.

It is NOT A STUPID POINT! Why don't we see women modelling practical underwear outside in the cold if it is so normal and acceptable to have underwear modelled in this way?

That's the whole point isn't it grays.

When sexuality is put on sale it is pornified. Or prostituted if you prefer. That is the definition. It is the people arranging this sight who have put it on sale. Almost invariably it is women who are on sale.

Oh dear, you can see my ribs and my hip bones. You must all be really sad for me and I must go and eat more cake!

And what LyingWitch said!

I am not the best one with words...

How do you propose we stop misogyny?

Gibbering... you do it charmingly though, I must say. Perhaps we are damned if we do and damned if we don't? I don't know the answer but I do know that I'm completely turned off by women shouting at other women, they become just noise to me and the message, whatever it is, is lost.

When did underwear become something sexual? I ask this because I see perfume adverts - for men and women - and it's the men's fragrances that seem to be dominated by trunk-wearing men. I don't want to see it. I don't want to see them in thongs either or any other state of undress BUT, how can we rail against underwear but not swimwear? How can we empower women to be less subservient... and tell them what to do at the same time?

Am I angry at the female producer of the campaign? No, I wouldn't be angry at a male producer either. It's a campaign and these models are not being coerced into their jobs, those are extremely coveted jobs by many women who would if they could... it really is just a job unless you have evidence to support an underground and coercive industry for supermodels.

Mintyy... to be angry at another woman (as a feminist), surely you'd have to have grounds? You're angry at the woman who lead the campaign? You'd be just as angry if it were a man, I'm sure - but would you comment or is that just because it's a woman leading the campaign?

I'm fed up with women being told what to do, what to think and woe betide them if they don't. That is not justified.

Calm down, I think it is. Your practical isn't my idea of practical though, it's about opinion. The underwear they're advertising is something I'd wear myself, it's my practical.

You may have had an interesting point to be debate but the second you mentioned the type of underwear it demeaned it and made you sound silly.

I'm fed up with being told to think its perfectly fine to have advertising campaigns like this one, and if I don't then I am denying that women are sexual beings yada yada. Of course I would be just as aggrieved if a man were in charge of the campaign, no double standards here.

I don't post on the Feminist boards, haven't done for years.

Agree with lying.

Disagree with me all you like Grays. Try not to stoop to the low cheap shots though eh?

So Fairy reminds me that the models are complicit, and both she and LyingWitch say I shouldn't be angry or patronising.

How about angry that these are the only choices available to women? To be complicit in selling sexuality or shut up and put up?

I see more women putting other women down then men do, this is just another example of it.

I'm also sick people making out female sexuality and our underwear and all the rest of it is something that has to be hidden and if it is out there then people immediately think it's objectifying or we're doing it for men.

I see those photos and think "Canestan", nylon pants up your arse is not healthy.

YANBU