Chat thread - come chat, rant, or celebrate, here!

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

With thanks to the lovely timetosmile - here's the new and rejuvenated Chat Thread.

Space to yak on, rant, post any of the good and bad stuff ... just basically any chat that you don't feel fits into a specific post. With a side order of reclaiming the word 'gossip'.

It involves 'financial risk', therefore it's essential to discuss it. Unless of course your DH makes this type of decision without consulting you, in which case ignore me. :)

It's only fair to discuss it with your DH, I think. Why do you think you feel "weak"?

NT, I think I am maybe assuming this man doesn't discuss with his DW! Yes my DH would discuss with me.

I think it feels weak because it sounds like "hang on, I'll ask my husband..."

Would you view your DH as weak if he said to someone "hang on, I need to discuss this with my wife first"? I don't view it as weakness, I see it as knowing you're in a partnership.

I do understand where you're coming from here. You're looking at the problem from a feminist perspective, which is fine if all the money you need to invest in this venture is yours, but if it's joint money (which it should be) then it should be a joint decision.

No, I wouldn't view DH as weak.

I may be overcompensating because the vast majority of men I know professionally never mention their wives in that kind of context.

It is time for more John Stuart Mill.

After saying why the subjection of women was to be abhorred, and why it was a bad thing, and why it would be difficult to overcome (see earlier post somewhere), he went on to talk about the "modern, civilised" society, which had the feature that one was not born in one's place and had no chance to change status, like in the bad old days. Hence this is another injustice: if we believed in this principle, that an individual ought to be able to better his/her circumstances, then "we ought to act as if we believed it", and "not to ordain that to be born a girl instead of a boy, ... shall decide one's position all through life".

And one of my favourite quotes: "In all things of any difficulty and importance, those who can do them well are fewer than the need, even with the most unrestricted latitude of choice: and any limitation of the field of selection deprives society of some chances of being served by the competent, without ever saving it from the incompetent."

And a nice positive statement: "... nobody asks for protective duties and bounties in favour of women; it is only asked that the present bounties and protective duties in favour of men should be recalled." How about that?

And there was a lot more rather sarky comments about what men say they want for women and what they really want, which I enjoyed a lot. So more later!

Hello! Quiet here!

Just written long letter to John Lewis about toys "for boys" and "for girls" on their website...

Can I bump this or is it bad etiquette to bump something this old?

I don't think it is bad form at all, it's a thought provoking thread. I'm all for that.

Did JL ever answer LordCooper?

No reply from JL. I've just filled in another feedback form to complain.

And how is everyone enjoying the summer?

I wanted to have a chat about the question of exposing bodies. I'm afraid this is about a thread - someone objected to a little boy apparently exposing his willy and apparently teasing a little girl. It got me thinking about why it's so bad. A man exposing his genitals to a woman is playing some sort of power game, no? It is the patriarchy again, is it not? How about a woman exposing her genitals to a man? How about children? Sorry I'm not being very coherent - which is why I didn't want to start a thread and get pounced on ... >

Kim - I know that this is a highly complex and personal area. But it must be very strange to come up against stereotypes about what it means to be female in that context. Do you find yourself battling that there are lots of ways to 'feel like a woman' and it doesn't necessarily mean X or Y?

Good for you. It must be very hard not to play along to smooth the path to where you want to be.

I'm pleased you wore a top.

Even Rupert Murdoch is starting to realise that topless is "so last century"

I'm a bit at a psychiatrist (what's a gender psychiatrist?) not thinking through the gender issue. Just goes to show (something) ...

I'm less inclined to "go along" with things these days. I remember when I was young and stubborn all my elders and betters told me to "go along and don't be so troublesome", that "when you grow up you'd understand" but I think I'm even more stubborn now. Old and stubborn. And have learned more swear words more expressive now.

Lord Cooper that's an interesting thought on exposing oneself. Where is the boundary between nudity and exposure?

I know I wouldn't worry about nudist beaches, or the naked rambler etc, as they are simply wandering about unclothed, rather than "exposing themselves". Certainly for children, little children running about unclothed wouldn't worry me, but a little boy deliberately taunting a little girl with his genitals would.

Exposure seems to imply some sort of deliberate act, and as you suggest some sort of power play, which is different from simple nudity.

Is it because when a man exposes his genital to a woman there are implicit threats of further violence?

For little children is a "look at my willy" style taunting different from other types of taunting (not sure what, like "look how far I can spit" or something equally disgusting??) Or is it only different because we read other things into it? Or is it really different?

I think it comes down to intention. Like Woodhead said, little children running round with no clothes on is completely different to a single boy waving his genitals at a group of clothed girls, of which he is not part.

It's demanding their attention and almost "territory marking" behaviour that we've been talking about on the rant thread. Almost like practice for all those million other distracting and vaguely offensive things adult men do to women minding their own business and not paying sufficient attention to them.

I don't know that it has to be a threat per se; but as SmallClanger says it's a demand for attention.

Is it any worse as an attention seeking behaviour than say, spitting? Intinsically I'd say not, but the small boy has clearly already learnt that willy shaking is provocative behaviour in a way which is different from other gross behaviour, and he has probably learnt this from parents/siblings/peers. So he is deliberately performing an act which he has already learnt is taboo in some way. So it is worse, but only because of the cultural norm associated with that behaviour.

Somehow I've totally missed this thread. Anyone had any successes (or teaspoons as Melissa from Shakesville calls them) lately?

Some dick walked past me, looked me up and down and said "Very nice" this morning as I was going to work. So pleased he felt like he was in a position to assess my success at looking fuckable when I was listening to the radio and generally minding my own business.

Hmm, I think willy shaking at that age as an attention seeking thing is more determined by toileting being private than anything else

Thanks all. I'm also inclined to think that for small children willy-waving is to do with toilets and wees and poos rather than sexual harassment. I was a bit disheartened to see people sexualising children's acts and reacting accordingly. I think the thing is not to react and later have a quiet word about public/private etc. (too cowardly to participate in an AIBU thread with controversial view but want to seek clarification - someone once posted that to judge what MN is like by AIBU is to judge how nice fish is by a tank of sharks and I think I concur. )