Warwick University rowing club women's team calendar

[duchesse]

Are they being ironic?

Buffy - these are governed by law?? If you want to pass laws that restrict women then that's up to you

I don't know if this question is a stupid one and therefore being ignored, or it just got lost amid other conversations. So, I'll ask once more and then I will drop it if no-one answers.

Where do you draw the line between allowing women to act as they please, and curtailing their actions for fear of the adverse affect that it has on other women in society? This is with reference to getting glammed up for a night out, and getting nekkid for a photo shoot as in the calendar.

I have noted that Buffy is fending a lot of these questions - I am not trying to gang up on you , just wondering what you think.

Bale - no nakedness does not equal sexy, I agree. A woman sat topless to breastfeed her baby is not being 'sexy'. A woman lolling about on the beach to get an all over tan is not being 'sexy'. But most images of women in the media that contain nudity or partial nudity are posed to be 'sexy' - bum out, boobs thrust forward, mouth open, hands in knickers etc etc. This is the standard look in lads mags etc and female nudity is normally used to titillate male viewers, and this is why female nudity such as that in the calendar is troubling: because there is already a very sexist framework in place that these images get sucked into, even though the women involved are not posing in that way.

Even if you have eaten tea?? Lol. No, but you have process. You may see that you don't recognise the face, you may see if you find them attractive, you may see the composition/colouring, etc

Buffy
Sorry phaser I thought I'd answered your question. I don't think that we should tell women how they can behave at all, I think that's just as oppressive as any other limit on women's freedom. And it's one of the ways that anti-feminists try and discredit feminism's ideas.

Even if that woman was stealing your car or being naked or violent on cbeebies??

I was highlight how ridiculous your point was. I was just turning your point round on you. You seemed to laugh at it so I thought I'd give you another laugh.

No need to get offensive because of a point you made early

Buffy - I respect your views. I can question them and have my own opinion.

I think your views are reductive to back up your point of view. I worry about your perception of men, women and sexiness of the photos. I worry about how you feel people about how these images affect the behaviour and thoughts of the viewer.

I worry about how you feel these images affect the behaviour and thoughts of the viewer.

Sorry my dyslexia

So what are the perceptions of the society? Who decides what these are, feminists? If you can not identify individuals reactions it's impossible.

I understand you believe in your theory? And believe in its reductive stereotyping and reductive view points.

Passing that on to the women in the calendar on the bases of your analysis and the view point 4 blokes, isn't fair.

My analysis is that the pigeon holing you use to back up your theory aren't the case. Your analysis of the view points of men and women, to back up your theory, aren't true (but you have admitted this, to your credit).
Your analysis of how men and women perceive images, to back up your theory, aren't true.
I don't think your analysis of society, when it comes to objectification, is true. But if you can prove it, I'll change my mind.
I understand why you have these views but they are very narrow because you are bound to the theory.

I think the analysis of what does and doesn't make an image objectifying is flakey. I don't think women are the only ones that can be objectified.

I don't think images of these rowers change people's morals, behaviours or attitudes.

I was saying my views. I said I understand where your analysis comes from. You analysis is no more or less valid than mine. I was telling you what I thought. I don't think I can step out of myself. Not everyone will agree with you, discussion and questioning makes a theory stronger.

It is less likely that with such strict stereotypes and values, for men and woman, to be the case.

On the men being objectified, I got you confused with another poster. Sorry. I would have thought that the objectification of men, backing up your stereotypes of them would also be detrimental to women.

I thought you did because you were avoiding that question a few times. I assumed otherwise there wouldn't be any point of discussion. I thought you were saying that because your theory pressures that the images affect society and therefore people's behaviour. If society did not affect the people within it then why is your theory so concerned about any impacts made on society

*presumes

So you'll protest about a group of women doing a tasteful nude photoshoot, that doesn't show anything, but will defend to the death their right to go down town on a Friday night with a lot more hanging out?

This is where I have the problem understanding, there's no consistent message here.