The Body Shop has fallen

[Cismyfatarse1]

Just seen this on Twitter.

For those who like their Ginger Shampoo, can I suggest MooGoo.

Also, Aveeno is a good replacement for their Shea butter.

Other thoughts welcome. Feel free to suggest other ideas.

'Seasidetrains* - you ask a question about the oppression of women, and then go onto speaking about males who want to wear dresses.

The wearing of dresses is something that has been inflicted on women for hundreds of years. It is/has always been an aspect of our oppression. Women wearing trousers was controversial when I worked in a bank in the 1990s. When I was in sixth form in the late 80s, girls were not allowed to wear trousers.'

i obviously didn't express myself well, because people are missing my point quite spectacularly.

my point is: when the way you behave coincides with what is considered to be 'how women behave', you become a target of hatred and violence.

yeah i guess that's what i'm saying. i think expanding and blurring the ridigity of these categories that have done so much harm can only be a good thing

Barring some strange evolutionary leap, it will always be possible to tell which people are likely to become pregnant, and which people will go through male puberty.

Have you thought about this much?

The world is going mad. No more body shop for me

@Seasidetrains

'people who want to play with dolls and wear dresses are also at risk of (male) violence

Do you think that all men who identify as trans wear dresses or play with dolls? You need to keep up.'

no, i didn't say that and i don't think that. i'm making the point that behaving in ways that are perceived as 'female' makes one a target of violence, regardless of one's biological sex.

That's because being female has always been thought of as being less than a male. It is therefore not a surprise that sterotypical female things are also viewed as such.

What does the bag say?

When men are attaked for liking feminine things it is usually driven by homophobia rather than sexism.

@Seasidetrains

'Seasidetrains* - you ask a question about the oppression of women, and then go onto speaking about males who want to wear dresses.

The wearing of dresses is something that has been inflicted on women for hundreds of years. It is/has always been an aspect of our oppression. Women wearing trousers was controversial when I worked in a bank in the 1990s. When I was in sixth form in the late 80s, girls were not allowed to wear trousers.'

i obviously didn't express myself well, because people are missing my point quite spectacularly.

my point is: when the way you behave coincides with what is considered to be 'how women behave', you become a target of hatred and violence.

So do you think females who don’t present as feminine are less at risk to male violence?

*stereotypical

We need a full list of shops to boycott.

Marks & Spencers
Top Shop
The Body Shop
Primark

Where else hates us?

A question.

JKR posted that the people who have period are women.

(For which she received horrific abuse such as ‘suck my *ick’ and other disgusting abuse).

The Body shop bag is about being positive about periods, and accepting that they are bloody natural.

If the Body Shop tweeter wanted to insult JKR (which I am sure they did, from the evidence in the accompanying words), then didn’t they chose the wrong object?

my point is: when the way you behave coincides with what is considered to be 'how women behave', you become a target of hatred and violence.

There are plenty of examples of cultures where make up and dresses are normal for men. There is no reason why men shouldn't wear both.

Quite a lot harder to the mammalian reproductive system.

Trans ideology as it currently exists does nothing but reinforce incredibly strict and rigid gender roles based firmly on stereotypical male and female ideals. If you can’t see that you really need to do a lot more critical thinking.

And absolutely, all oppression of women begins at birth and is firmly rooted in the biological class we are born into as a result of being of the female sex.

my point is: when the way you behave coincides with what is considered to be 'how women behave',

No, that's not the way it works. Men behaving in ways that are traditionally regarded as feminine does not make that man a woman. Women have a reproductive role, determined by the sheer biology she is born with - and that very reproductive function, her potential fertility, is the reason for the 2,000+ years of oppression women have faced. For being born female.

i see it as femaleness being the object of hatred and violence, not just people who have specific female physical characteristics.

So if a woman is wearing jeans, a t-shirt and trainers, do you think she is safe from male violence?

'Women have a reproductive role, determined by the sheer biology she is born with '

is this your feminism?

When a 60 year old man stuffed his hand down my bikini bottoms when I was 12, he didn't do it because my bikini was pink. Nor did he do it because I had chosen not to wear swimming trunks, he did it because of my "pussy".

That is why I am angry. Because it happened to me in the open with men in the 70s and 80s. And I don't want it to happen to our daughters in toilets and changing rooms.

And, yes, not all men. But all are men. Even if they dress up in pink and call themselves by female names.

And even the nice ones can scare us, and make us feel uncomfortable.

And besides, they are our spaces.

And gender and female essence are codswallop. It is the female sex that gets her pussy grabbed by Trump, not some gender feeling.

Surely you understand that statement in the context of biological sex? If not then I think you might be a lost cause...

Wearing dresses, liking pink, liking dolls, wearing makeup, wearing heels or having long hair - none of that is inherently female. That's just what society puts on women.

Men are violent to all humans, adult males are the most dangerous of all animals on the planet. Their reasons for violence to other men are not reasons for women to be forced to pretend those men are women. That's profoundly sexist in that it relegates women to a lesser category with the boundaries entirely controlled by a conflict between men. Modern gender identity training is designed to socialise women into accepting this colonisation by men and to do the work of shaming women that won't comply. Which is what is happening to JK Rowling right now.

my point is: when the way you behave coincides with what is considered to be 'how women behave', you become a target of hatred and violence.

You claim that a man wearing a dress can be the subject of male violence because, so the converse must be that a woman can dress and behave in a particular way and avoid male violence. Please could you explain what behaviour and dress can protect women from male violence.

My last comment was to @Seasidetrains, in regards to women having the reproductive role as the female sex of the human animal.

Or is biology really that difficult to understand?

is this your feminism?

Part of my feminism is a recognition of this being the reason women are oppressed.

Preferable to thinking the intrinsic part of feminism is "anyone who likes pink and dresses is a woman" I think?

that's disgusting and horrific. nothing i'm trying to say is trying to belittle that level of violence and the trauma it must have caused for you.

i don't think men do these things only because they are physically stronger, they do it because they are taught that they can. if you think it's all just biologically driven, doesn't that give men an excuse to get away with whatever the fuck they want?

Ooh yes, if there is some magic clothing out there that can protect all girls and women from men then please do share it, or at least put it on the market - you would make an absolute fortune.

No of course it doesn’t.

You need to tighten up your thinking.