Julia Long on Vine on 5 discussing statue of / about Mary Wollstonecraft

[stumbledin]

Someone let me know that Julia Long was invited to comment on the statue of Mary Wollstonecraft on the JV show. Managed to see most of it on the +1 channel where she sent all the women guests into gales of laughter talking about not statues of men with their willies out!

I cant see any clips of this bit of the show yet, but maybe available later.

Not only JL but the statue with THE t-shirt on!

www.facebook.com/JeremyVineOn5/photos/a.343689200421/10164836171555422/?type=3&theater

twitter.com/JeremyVineOn5/status/1327161347164008449

Keep an eye on My5?

Go Julia.

Thanks for the link - just came to post it!

(I assume its the same looks very different url)

I hope Julia is right and that it doesn't stay up for long, it's an absolute travesty reducing Mary Wollstonecraft to an amorphous blob, it signifies absolutely nothing about her or her legacy.

Great to see this get on National TV.
And the statue wearing an 'women-adult human t-shirt'.

Julia is excellent. She can really think on her feet and talks fast.

And the other woman, totally missing the point. It's not about the female form. Let's have statues celebrating the female form. The actual female form. Not an idealised facsimile of what most women are.

This is a statue representing a woman who believed in education for women. That it would address the imbalance between the sexes. So why is she up there with her tits out?

What is the actual point?

And don't get me started on why we should love it because the artist is sad and it was her dream, or fantasy or whatever. The ego of that.

Quite pleased to see that Dr Sarah Jarvis agreed with JL.

As for the nudity = timeless. Why shouldn't a statue celebrating an inspritional woman from the 18th century depict her in such a way as to make that clear?

I saw it. Julia was spot on.

I am just laughing at the argument about the female form. Does that mean if women are clothed, they are just ashamed of the female form. How far does that go. Nip (sic) to the shop for some bread, go to church, attend a wedding or a funeral. Queenie opening parliament. All sans everything.

Should this not apply to men too? New statues on order, Winston, George VI etc, etc. Or in real life, the Archbishop of Cantebury, Johnson and Starmer in Parliament.

Or, is it really that real woman can be portrayed as slightly lesser than each being an individuals. They are portrayed and the beast in the same generic way as any anonymous mythical figure. This is done in a way that real men aren't generally represented. The full human status of women are not acknowledged in the way that of a real man is. Mary is no more than an idea, some sort of idealised? and fictional formwhereas Winston is to be celebrated for being Winston.

Also pleased to see Dr Sarah Jarvis agree. And the other lady on the link who was laughing at 'Carl Marx having a statue with his willy out'.

@Cailleach1

I am just laughing at the argument about the female form. Does that mean if women are clothed, they are just ashamed of the female form. How far does that go. Nip (sic) to the shop for some bread, go to church, attend a wedding or a funeral. Queenie opening parliament. All sans everything.

Should this not apply to men too? New statues on order, Winston, George VI etc, etc. Or in real life, the Archbishop of Cantebury, Johnson and Starmer in Parliament.

Or, is it really that real woman can be portrayed as slightly lesser than each being an individuals. They are portrayed and the beast in the same generic way as any anonymous mythical figure. This is done in a way that real men aren't generally represented. The full human status of women are not acknowledged in the way that of a real man is. Mary is no more than an idea, some sort of idealised? and fictional formwhereas Winston is to be celebrated for being Winston.

So this!

Nobody is "ashamed of the male form". Male bodies aren't sexualised, certainly not to anywhere near the extent women's are.

And yet, men still don't get statues made of them without their clothes on.

I think it was really good to have had this on main stream tv, though not sure everyone understood the signifigance of the t-shirt!

But also very revealing how with the exception of one, the women guests immediately understood the point about the "willies" ie not just "shocked" giggling at the language.

Sort of shows that all those more liberal / left feminists who think some radical feminists are too "in your face" maybe dont understand that the level of connection between women is some tediously long theoretical analysis, but is about lived experience.

Quite surprised this show would have had JL as a guest as it has become increasing conservative and reactionary. I wonder if they thought oh must be okay she's a "Dr"! Little did they know.

I hope it makes more of the public think about it, the facebook comments seem to think most agree it is just wrong - but more on groups of "good taste" than feminism.

I'd love to see more of Julia Long on the telly. She's an absolute natural.

That was refreshing! Loved all the women giggling away.

If they want to humiliate someone and make them vulnerable they take away their clothes. Julia Long was great.

Yeah let’s all us women trot about naked so we can celebrate the female form

EMPOWERING WOMEN 💪💪💪💪💪

I am just laughing at the argument about the female form. Does that mean if women are clothed, they are just ashamed of the female form. How far does that go. Nip (sic) to the shop for some bread, go to church, attend a wedding or a funeral. Queenie opening parliament. All sans everything.

I know, I wanted Jeremy to ask her why she wasn't on the show naked if that's what she thinks.

@littlbrowndog

Yeah let’s all us women trot about naked so we can celebrate the female form

EMPOWERING WOMEN 💪💪💪💪💪

I think it was on here a thread about when the Loose Women presenters did a nude photo shoot and of course there was a big song and dance about it, and someone pointed out that the Top Gear presenters didn't need to do a nude photo shoot to empower themselves.

How is objectification empowering? They've been sold a lie.

Empowering! Always the same argument for a woman with her tits out. Funny, I feel empowered by my career, my life choices and not taking any shit. I've never felt the need to get my tits out in public to feel empowered.

I don't like it, I think it misses the mark, but it isn't a statue of MW. It isn't a statue at all.

It is a sculpture.

A sculpture which, whether we like it or not, was inspired , in the artist, by MW.

JL is brilliant, speaks so much sense meanwhile the liberal feminists always with the same tired arguments of nudity being empowering...

I love Julia Long and could listen to her speak all day

Raining - this is not the place for the artist to position her pet project
This was supposed to celebrate MW - not the artist. It’s a huge mistake and I agree with Dr Long and I hope it goes away.