Double Standards When Posing in your Pants

[DuchessOfDisaster]

I just read this article about Leah Washington, who lost her leg in the Alton Towers accident several years ago.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9914177/Alton-Towers-amputee-Leah-Washington-looks-sensational-poses-black-bra-set.html#comments

She's the "new face" of a lingerie brand. All the comments on the article are positive, on the lines of "you go girl".

The same rag regularly prints pictures of Sophia Peschisolido, who is Karren Brady's daughter. She is an "influencer" modelling underwear for various organisations and has been absolutely slaughtered and told to "get a job".

My personal view is that both these women have the ability to do something more than pose in their pants. But the double standards and hypocrisy make me sick.

What are your thoughts?

[CBUK2K2]

This always smacks of women being jealous/insecure above all else, you cant really post that so take to picking fault with them. I can only assume they are less intimidated by Leah than Sophie.

[ChaneySays]

Only joking. However, I would have said it was about gender perception which is still what is being discussed, albeit at a slight tangent.

[ChaneySays]

@DuchessOfDisaster

This was originally about underwear modelling as a lifestyle rather than getting into discussions about the Taliban!

Feel free to start a new thread about underwear modelling.

[DuchessOfDisaster]

This was originally about underwear modelling as a lifestyle rather than getting into discussions about the Taliban!

[ChaneySays]

Your view is that this is essentially irrelevant because it's not fair to note that in conflicts etc

Your plan of ignoring this sort of dynamic as of any relevance because it's 'not seeing the wood for the trees' and is irrelevant to real life.

No offence, NiceGerbil, but you're putting a heck of a lot of words into my mouth!

I think part of the problem (in general, not just meaning you) is that people observe a topline figure and then use that fact to extrapolate a lot of conclusions which may not necessrily follow. For example, arguing that terrorist attacks are male violence, only men are responsible, my grandpa is a man, ergo he must be somehow culpable for male violence. It's not dissimilar to the way in which you are taking statements of mine and then extrapolating a lot of beliefs which do not follow (when your point about the Russians also carrying out many atrocities actually supports my point that generalisations often don't really work).

I do broadly consider myself a feminist but it seems to be around discussions about male violence where I often find myself somewhat disagreeing. I think what led to my questioning it was a thread where posters were basically saying it must be great to be a man and not have to worry about walking alone at night. Somebody pointed out that men are actually much less safe than women and much more likely to be assaulted. The reply from several posters was basically "yeah, but who's attacking them....men".

The above didn't sit well with me in all honesty. Aside from being a bit victim blamey, I felt it was missing the dynamic of victim/attacker and lumping all men together. I could understand people saying it if a man had been trying to somehow blame women, but in these discussions it's usually that women are trying to say that men have it really easy and somebody then responds that they're actually the main victims of violence.

I guess it's mainly what we call class analysis that I disagree with, especially when it's used selectively. I mean, you could equally say that a Taliban member and a black male from Hackney are both 'people of colour', but it seems illogical to then argue that black males in London are somehow culpable for terror attacks in Mosul, or that the Taliban share any responsibility for drug related stabbings in Hackney.

I find it can be entirely misleading to use a broad banner to categorise groups. It's like how the police now lump the violence committed by trans women (i.e. men) in with the violence committed by cis women, because they're all 'women'.

[NiceGerbil]

Anyway back to the Nazis.

You seem to have overlooked that women were party members, supported etc. I'd be interested to know why that is.

The main thing though is this bit about the men who fought the Nazis being responsible for their actions as they're all men. Again putting aside the women who worked in the resistance, spied and all the other roles.

I'm sure you're aware that the Russians were involved in the war against the Nazis. And that those men who fought them, as a group, carried out the rape of Berlin.

(General note not to read if upset by atrocities of this nature):

'As Allied troops entered and occupied German territory during the later stages of World War II, mass rapes of women took place both in connection with combat operations and during the subsequent occupation of Germany. Scholars agree that the majority of the rapes were committed by Soviet occupation troops'

'The exact number of German women and girls raped by Soviet troops during the war and occupation is uncertain, but historians estimate their numbers are likely in the hundreds of thousands, and possibly as many as two million.'

So both the Nazi men and this group of men fighting them. Carried out mass/ organised rape.

Which is something that tends to happen in war/ conflict. And has also gone on for an awfully long time.

Your view is that this is essentially irrelevant because it's not fair to note that in conflicts etc. Rape is not uncommon. And the main commonality is that men mostly rape women and girls. Men and boys are raped as well of course but again. It's men doing it.

Your plan of ignoring this sort of dynamic as of any relevance because it's 'not seeing the wood for the trees' and is irrelevant to real life. Means naturally that recent events that have resulted in organised or mass rape, forced 'marriage'/sex slavery and so on should not be. Reported on? Have specific action about? Recognised? Would be a pretty strange move IMO. And all because it's not fair to say men did this to women because for reasons I can't comprehend it makes men who have nothing to do with it feel as if they are being blamed?

I'm pretty sure that's what you're saying.

[NiceGerbil]

Chaney I doubt we will agree but anyway.

Nazis. Well lots of men in the Nazi party including high up tried to stop him. Worked against him etc. DD just read a book by paddy ashdown on it and has been enlightening me at great length

You say that eg noting that men as a group are way more violent than women as a group. All over the world and as long as we know. Is an unfair generalisation of men.

Yet you seem to be quite keen to see other groups as homogeneous.

All Nazis bad. (I mean unless you're defining Nazi as supporting everything that was done. Rather than member of the Nazi party or similar. Which would render your point. Um. Pointless!).

'Some people would argue that the men fighting against the Nazis were collectively responsible for the actions of said Nazis, due to them all being men. I think that's a bizarre conclusion.'

And it's not what I'm trying to say. Obviously badly.

Men are men and women are women. We are the same all over the world. Some are brave some are not. Some are ruthless some easily exploited. Some generous some mean. All are heavily influenced by factors like religion, social norms, family, peers etc in the society/ies they are born in and grow up in and live in.

I don't think you'd disagree with that?

The collective responsibility thing I find very weird. When people talk about eg a terrible thing the English did in the past. I don't feel got at or responsible. Why would I? I find the way some people take broad analysis backed up by stats etc personally very very odd. Trying to think. Ok I think in the UK when it comes to killing young children, it's mostly done by women. That fact does not make me feel as if anyone is saying all women are child murderers at all. In the end I think those who take it personally are simply unwilling to face up to the facts and use this snoffair stop being mean thing to make others stop talking about it.

[Branleuse]

@NiceGerbil

Oh sorry I didn't read the SP thing I don't know who she is

And. While the comments might say so brave and wow.

Fact is that average man will not be thinking that. Average man is very very specific when looking at women in their underwear. And very judgemental.

The issue here surely is why power for women seems to be taking your clothes off and looking hot.

And why it's pushed. To the detriment of all women esp the large numbers who don't make the grade.

Personally I get inspired by I dunno. Paralympics. Malala Y shot in head, PPE Oxford articulate passionate. Women who press to get the police in the UK to bother investigating sex offences committed against them. Women just doing amazing brave stuff all the fucking time.

The Alton towers woman should be on telly being interviewed about the whole thing. Safety standards. Recovery. Coming to terms.

But no- wahey she's still fuckable!

I can't remember men who have lost limbs doing sexy shots and the press going thank fuck. Women still want to ogle him. I mean maybe there are some. But generally. Their experiences are taken seriously.

It's just all so... Dull. You know?

When will we be seen as people? With value?

(To reiterate- no issues with her or other women doing what earns/ makes them feel good in a grossly sexist society).

Every word

[ChaneySays]

@NiceGerbil

The reference to emancipators meant the taleban?

I assumed it meant some combination of the Afghanistan army/ USA/ UK etc!

Well one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and whatnot I suppose!

You're missing the forest for the trees.

You could easily replace the Taliban with the Nazis. Some people would argue that the men fighting against the Nazis were collectively responsible for the actions of said Nazis, due to them all being men. I think that's a bizarre conclusion.

[ChaneySays]

Your belief is that oppression of women and girls globally and through history as far as we know.

Is pretty trivial compared to other types of oppression.

I didn't say that. Are you replying to somebody else?

[NiceGerbil]

The reference to emancipators meant the taleban?

I assumed it meant some combination of the Afghanistan army/ USA/ UK etc!

Well one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and whatnot I suppose!

[NiceGerbil]

Your belief is that oppression of women and girls globally and through history as far as we know.

Is pretty trivial compared to other types of oppression. And that recognising that eg males are much more likely to commit violent crime and sex crime than females is unhelpful and with no relation to the real world?

You'd be against eg initiatives related to boys in certain areas getting involved in gang activities and violence? You'd see it as an issue to be approached by seeing at as an issue generally. You don't think that would divert and dilute any efforts to improve things?

You don't agree that in Afghanistan under the taleban previously the laws etc were different for men and women? And with different impacts and punishments?

Or for example in some areas. It's not useful to note that when children are taken. The boys are trained to fight while the girls are 'brides'?

Have I missed something?

[ChaneySays]

@NiceGerbil

You're the one who positioned one side as 'emancipators' (still not sure who you were referring to) and said they aren't the 'same men'.

That's pretty much bundling them into homogeneous groups as far as I can see.

Well, if you're going down the route of 'not all Taliban' then that's definitely an interesting take.

What I meant was that a lot of people use extremely wide umbrellas to categorise groups, which then allows them to implicate, for example, a white middle class British pensioner in the atrocities committed by the Taliban on account of them both being male. You could zoom out another stage and call it 'homo sapien violence' and then women would also be culpable (it's definitely not the cats or fieldmice!).

I just think class analysis as employed by feminists has very little useful application in the real world tbh. It's far too broad and lacking in nuance, which obfuscates more detailed analysis.

[NiceGerbil]

Did you mean the emancipators were the Afghan army, the USA, Brits, other allies, or some mix?

[NiceGerbil]

You're the one who positioned one side as 'emancipators' (still not sure who you were referring to) and said they aren't the 'same men'.

That's pretty much bundling them into homogeneous groups as far as I can see.

[NiceGerbil]

I don't think page 3 was outlawed was it?

They just stopping doing it. Can't remember quite why. Think with nuts etc then internet porn it wasn't a big draw for them any more and seemed outdated.

[ChaneySays]

The idea that one side (your side) is 'good' and the baddies are bad and that's that is a comic book approach.

Yes, of course that's a ridiculous approach and it's not what I'm saying. But by acknowledging that there are 'sides', we are already accepting that there are greater divisions than sex before we even get into 'right' and 'wrong'.

Whilst many people seem to lump all men together I'm sure many of them might suddenly be able to differentiate between them if they had to choose which regime they'd rather live under.

[Tommika]

@DuchessOfDisaster

I just read this article about Leah Washington, who lost her leg in the Alton Towers accident several years ago.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9914177/Alton-Towers-amputee-Leah-Washington-looks-sensational-poses-black-bra-set.html#comments

She's the "new face" of a lingerie brand. All the comments on the article are positive, on the lines of "you go girl".

The same rag regularly prints pictures of Sophia Peschisolido, who is Karren Brady's daughter. She is an "influencer" modelling underwear for various organisations and has been absolutely slaughtered and told to "get a job".

My personal view is that both these women have the ability to do something more than pose in their pants. But the double standards and hypocrisy make me sick.

What are your thoughts?

On the face of it they are double standards (assuming that it is not different people voicing from a different point of view)

Leah Washington can be celebrated for her accomplishments going from a horrific accident to moving on with her life

Sophia Peschisolido has it much easier, so it wouldn’t be double standards to not celebrate her but it is double standards to put her down for modeling (if the same people are making the distinction)

[DuchessOfDisaster]

@Gingerkittykat

The real feminist question is why a national newspaper fills its pages with pictures of women in their underwear.

Exactly when Page 3 wad outlawed years ago. It's Page 3 by the back door.

[Sunbird24]

OP can I introduce you to some of Michael Stokes’ photos of amputees?
mymodernmet.com/michael-stokes-always-loyal-veteran-amputees/
Ok it’s not a national newspaper, but the project did get quite significant media attention at the time

[NiceGerbil]

It sells papers.

Women are decorative. We've prob just had the telegraph girls jumping exam results front page pic.

So dull.

Men like it. They're used to having this stuff everywhere.

I used to think. On my commute.

If every image of a woman in articles adverts etc was replaced by an attractive young man. In same way. Heads cut off. Submissive. Half naked and coy.

It would totally freak them the fuck out. It would be intolerable.

But women like that everywhere. Most people don't even notice, just normal background.

[Gingerkittykat]

The real feminist question is why a national newspaper fills its pages with pictures of women in their underwear.

[NiceGerbil]

@ChaneySays

And who is doing all the awful things in Afghanistan? It's men isn't it.

Well, yes. But it's not the same men as those fighting for emancipation, so this point only really stands if you view all men as some homogeneous group with universal culpability. But I'd no more do this than suggest that the average UK Muslim is responsible for the actions of the Taliban.

Not talking about you personally, but a lot of feminists seem to only think in terms of male/female and downplay other key factors like race/religion/politics/nationality/etc, which are often more unifying than gender.

Ok so fair enough. I haven't seen feminists saying send in the troops. Maybe some have. In general though war / combat situations are awful for women and children as well.

It's just a hopeless feeling really.

I don't agree with this though.

'But it's not the same men as those fighting for emancipation, so this point only really stands if you view all men as some homogeneous group with universal culpability.'

But it's not these men good those men bad.
Men are men, same as women are women. Any group or individual has their views shaped by a massive amount of influences. Yes personality as well, there is always disagreement, those who speak out or fight against the status quo. Those who are reckless and those who keep their heads down etc.

But you must know that when it comes to any situation which is chaotic/ there is conflict/ there are vulnerable people. That atrocities are committed all around. And that the women and children are impacted in specific ways. And that it's often been ignored/ unrecorded.

The idea that one side (your side) is 'good' and the baddies are bad and that's that is a comic book approach.

In your comment when you say the men fighting for emancipation we're still talking about Afghanistan? Do you mean UK troops, all the allied troops, the Afghan armed forces?

[ChaneySays]

@SquirryTheSquirrel

I think with the Mail it's any excuse to print pictures of beautiful women in lingerie. The story is an afterthought. They choose the pictures and then decide what spin to put on them.

In the case of Leah, she's been courageous in learning to live with her amputation, it's obviously going to be a positive story because the public will overwhelmingly be supportive of her.

In the case of celebs/influencers, they have no such universal popularity so the Mail is more likely to choose a sneery angle to write from.

All they care about is which will sell the most papers/generate the most clicks.

Yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head. People are being supportive because it's about more than just stripping off for attention for Leah, but the Mail are likely just using it as an excuse to post titillating pics.

[SquirryTheSquirrel]

I think with the Mail it's any excuse to print pictures of beautiful women in lingerie. The story is an afterthought. They choose the pictures and then decide what spin to put on them.

In the case of Leah, she's been courageous in learning to live with her amputation, it's obviously going to be a positive story because the public will overwhelmingly be supportive of her.

In the case of celebs/influencers, they have no such universal popularity so the Mail is more likely to choose a sneery angle to write from.

All they care about is which will sell the most papers/generate the most clicks.