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?

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9884139/Karren-Bradys-daughter-Sophia-Peschisolido-sets-pulses-racing-skimpy-halter-ord.html#comments

Above is the article about SP - I forgot the link.

This was in the papers a year or 2 ago as well I think?

Whatever the challenge. If you're a woman and you can still give men a hard-on when you're in your knickers. Then everything is good.

I mean she can and should do what she pleases IMO. If it earns her money and makes her feel empowered then whatever.

It's the pernicious idea that goes back forever that our worth is in our ability to make general het men think mmm phhwoar yep nice etc. Before turning the page.

Surely this is fairly obvious.

Sophia Peschisolido is the daughter of a baroness who also happens to be stunningly beautiful and an influencer. The epitome of privilege.

Leah Washington is an ordinary person who lost a limb in a horrific accident and spoke publicly of her insecurity thereafter.

Of course people are going to be more supportive of Leah, especially if the circumstances are such that they are actively combatting her insecurities about her physical appearance. It's not dissimilar to how a fat person will usually get much more praise for running a marathon than an ex triathlete will.

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).

Who is supportive though?

Women being women and nice and kind.
The media ooh look she's in knickers.
Men thinking. Yeah ok I'd still fuck her.

Where is this support for men who have lost limbs?
What is the message to those who are not attractive in pants and/ or have various physical disabilities?

It's same old same old.

If she was 50 or not good looking or not in her pants who would be putting her in the news?

And in the end. The pressure the idea presented is that anything less than amazing looks body is not any good. For women. But it's bollocks. It really is. I mean she's good looking must be v strong etc. Young. No way men she meets will be put off unless they're arseholes anyway.

It's all just bollocks to keep us paranoid and spending and grateful to men.

@NiceGerbil I share all your views. The double standards are rife - men and their comments yes. I'm about to start research for a book about how the 70s started a change in women's lives through women's rights. Then I see articles like this as well as those about Love Island and think we haven't moved on from TV shows like On the Buses and Richard O'Sullivan trying to cop a feel in Man about the House and the girls giggling coyly. As you say "The issue here surely is why power for women seems to be taking your clothes off and looking hot."

I haven't seen Jonnie Peacock, JJ Chalmers or the like in Speedos. Maybe they have been photographed but the point is they're not in the press every day. Both these women are doing exactly the same thing, but SP is called disgraceful names whilst LW is lauded. Whilst not actively supporting the stance of either of these women I respect everyone's right to choose their 'career' but like you, I would rather them 'empower' themselves fully clothed and brain engaged. But that's me.

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 take your point but let's be honest, most young women aren't feminists, especially not rad fems. Average 17yo who loses a leg is going to be more worried about being perceived a freak than about proving some patriarchal point. This is clear from her statement below.

You could argue it's the way women are objectified but honestly it's the same for men. Recent research suggests that one in ten gymgoing men have bigorexia, so it would seem that body dysmorphia is more common in males - it just gets missed because if a guy spend five days a week in the gym (as many do) people applaud them as 'health conscious' rather than seeing the problem.

"Joe came down to see me in intensive care the next day. It was not the amazing, warm reunion you would expect of two people who had gone through what we had; it was cold and stilted. We had no words to communicate. Instead, his parents had to make conversation to fill the silence. The truth was I had no words to give Joe, because I wasn’t sure he would want to be with me now. I was aware it was still very early days for us, and it would have been so easy for him to walk away. After all, what teenage boy would want to be with an amputee?"

Where is this support for men who have lost limbs?

What is the message to those who are not attractive in pants and/ or have various physical disabilities?

It's same old same old.

Well, yes it is the same old. Men usually lose limbs in war and these men are seen by society as disposable, even if nobody will say it out loud. Look at all posters on here saying 'we' should be protecting the women of Afghanistan - they mean men should. Tellingly, it only seems to be the military wives on here who are saying they don't want to see any more husbands/sons/brothers killed or maimed.

Talking about her injury and recovery has nothing to do with feminism!

I'd like your stats that in the UK men usually lose limbs in war. I mean maybe that's the case but I don't know. There are so many reasons eg

Industrial/ work incidents
Car/ bike crashes
Various cancers
Diabetes smoking and etc I think can result in loss of limbs

Women also go to war!

I knew a boy in hosp who had all his toes on one foot amputated that was due to spina bifida. Just as anecdata.

Everyone in Afghanistan needs protecting.

The situation for girls and women is particularly heinous though. If it's the same as last time. Which I'm sure it will be.

I don't think sending troops in now is a good idea at all. Personally. The threads I've seen on here about it have been saying what can we do and charities mentioned. Maybe on other threads it's all send troops back in. It's not true that feminists are keen for anyone to go anywhere and be killed.

And who is doing all the awful things in Afghanistan? It's men isn't it. It's not feminists saying oh yes girls should not be educated women are property. Shouldn't work. 'their' men can do as they please with them.

Of course women in general are upset at the plight of women in dire situations everywhere. To read that as wanting men to be killed and so what is an extreme interpretation.

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.

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.

@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.

@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?

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

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.

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

@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.

@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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?