Warwick University rowing club women's team calendar

[duchesse]

Are they being ironic?

bale what bit about men being objectified is not true?

This:

Images of semi-naked men could objectify an individual man but in our society, the picture would not contribute to the objectification of men as a class because men as a class in our society are not pigeonholed as the decorative sex class.

The rest is merely your opinion.

bale my apologies if my explanation was not in depth enough for you. I was aiming for the Feminism 101 level based on what I perceive to be your understanding of feminism. I'd be happy to discuss this in more depth. Can you give me a counter-analysis to work with, something more than mere denial?

Buffy - I said I understand that your perception of things will lead to your theory and analysis, that you have stated. What has happened to society because of previous calendars from uni's? What are the negative changes? Were there quicker changes in year where more of these calendars were released?

It's a good deal more analytical than any of your posts, bale - which barely manage coherence.

Flora - I follow your opinion. So what are the results of more photos in circulation? Can you show me?

I think that the perception of nakedness is the problem. In that, people assume a naked body is something more than just that.
I don't think that a naked body leads to women being thought of as decorative

Sab - they are more analytical. Is it just a case of believing the theory? Taking a leap of faith. I've had many coherent and analytical posts from Christians. Doesn't mean I agree

Yougotbale it is not the perception of nakedness. Please don't make that boring old mistake of accusing feminists of being prudes. It's tired and wrong.

The problem is the commodification of women's bodies. This calendar was made to be sold and make money. It was made to be bought and enjoyed.

You don't think women are the decorative sex class? Has there been any national leader who described a male national leader as an "unfuckable lardass"?

Buffy - you don't have to show stats. I'm just saying it is all down to your interpretation and perception. It is hard to measure impact, if any.
Hilary Clinton is hardly being treated as decorative. Maybe they should have asked her about football, like her husband has been. Maybe they shouldn't ask anything.
The clothes is debatable, it comes down to what your perception of showing flesh is. This is the main area I have a problem with.
The tabloids comment both sexes. I don't see why they need to do this.
Maybe some images won't help, but it depends on the viewer.
The example you gave is wrong but I haven't seen anything like that and I wouldn't take that way of writing from looking at an image.

I am reminded of that repulsive Scottish Sun article where a female professional musician was interviewed and got cross because the interview was solely concerned with her appearance and whether she'd do a page 3 shoot. It was so utterly disrespectful! No male classical musician would have been treated like that by a tabloid. Imagine if the sports pages had an interview with a footballer and devoted it to his body. The male readers would be in uproar!

Flora
Yougotbale it is not the perception of nakedness. Please don't make that boring old mistake of accusing feminists of being prudes. It's tired and wrong.

I haven't. I think it in general.

The problem is the commodification of women's bodies. This calendar was made to be sold and make money. It was made to be bought and enjoyed.

Do you enjoy filling out a calendar? That is the perception that I disagree with. I would be keen on selling you one of these calendars. You think like a small minority of weirdos. Sorry if that sounds harsh.

I'm sure that at times both men and women are decorative. And the example used is bad but was she solely there for her looks. Was she voted in for her looks? Did he not communicate with her? Was she not allowed to discuss politics?
One comment, however, nasty does not mean she is decorative. Nor mean that the one saying the comment represents society. Nor does it mean the comment was made because of naked images

Bale: I've had many coherent and analytical posts from Christians. Doesn't mean I agree

Yes, bale, that's why I wrote "Even if you don't agree with them, they are coherent" at the end of my original post. Do you actually read anyone's posts properly?

Buffy - what is your perception of showing extra flesh?

You said decorative is a woman being there solely for her looks. I'm sure Hilary was there for success in politics. I'm sure she was wearing a mic.

Buffy -
You think like a small minority of weirdos

I know, the very idea that women are humans too and should be treated with dignity and respect. Crazy!

The above referred to flora wanting to enjoy a calendar. The minority of weirdos are people that enjoy calendars

What has happened to society because of previous calendars from uni's?

This isn't about calendars from Uni. By themselves their impact would probably have been low. It is about how it is feeding into the bigger picture within our culture where showing half naked women in a newspaper is OK; where 'sexy' women sell products on a highly regular basis; where men think its OK to cat call women on the street; where women's fashions regularly involve less material than men's; where weddings are all about the brides being beautiful; where the Secretary of the State for the US gets asked about her favourite fashion designers and when Teresa May was first appointed to the cabinet the talk was of her shoes; where Mary Beard expresses an opinion and she gets abuse about her looks; where women's self-esteem and body images are low because of constant bombardment of images of how we should look; where girls are pointed towards being princesses, boys towards train drivers and pilots; where there is a Miss Universe competition.

Need I go on? That doesn't even cover porn, lap dancing clubs and prostitution.

It's all around. You only have to open your eyes. To deny this is insulting and a sign of your privilege. I accept you don't want to lose your privilege to look at naked and attractive women with impunity, Yougotbale but that is not a reason to deny us our reality.

Yougotbale

"Do you enjoy filling out a calendar? That is the perception that I disagree with. I would be keen on selling you one of these calendars. You think like a small minority of weirdos. Sorry if that sounds harsh."

What does that even mean?

You seem to struggle with thinking at the class level. You sound like a member of a privileged and entitled class who refuses to acknowledge the privilege and feels entitled to tell members of another class that they are weirdos for examining class relationships.

Lol. I said 'extra' because you assumed that the male dress showing hands, face and neck was 'normal'. Extra flesh I mean more than that.