bizarre definition of woman

[parietal]

I've followed the GC debate quietly here for years, but this is the first time I've seen the other side actually provide a definition, and it is pretty bizarre & insulting.

So here is the tweet, from @graceelavery, somewhere further down this thread

twitter.com/graceelavery/status/1405661319903289344

-----
well, i think it’s like your definition of “firefighter”—quite circular, as it goes, because it is a messy, socialized term. a woman is a person who is, or has been, presumed to adopt a passive role in sexual intercourse and a reproductive role in economic life. it’s not perfect
-----

Gasp0de

Isn’t it.

But then I have a profile shot that is more than 10 years old on my social media because I can’t be arsed changing it. So I have very different hair.

But that recent shot of lavery shows the publicity shot was very well touched up, wasn’t it, and a very long time again. And I was always surprised to see the coy hand to cheek, duck pout, dreamy looking to the side pose with a one shoulder bare outfit being used as a professional profile shot. That shot would never be acceptable for professional use by women unless it was for modeling or acting or the like.

Nice to see the latest general Berkeley site has a more up to date shot with a lovely scarf worn high on the neck.

What I find infuriating is that if a female academic put out similar stuff on social media she would be hung out to dry

Indeed. I was complained about for retweeting radical feminist/gender critical feminist material. The complaint asserted that no student was safe in my classes and that if I continued to hold such beliefs (oh yes, censoring my beliefs!) I "should not be permitted to teach."

Imagine being a female student in Lavery's classes. Imagine wanting to discuss George Eliot's subtle and compassionate imaginative positioning of the frustrated Maggie Tulliver in The Mill on the Floss - Maggie confined & stunted because she was born a girl.

Imagine trying to discuss women's writing in that hostile environment.

@Clymene

For anyone who hasn't come across Lavery before, there is a long thread on an agricultural website which is quite enlightening

Absolutely Clymene, pages and pages of it.........

This Twitter account has some insight into why this definition may have eventuated. For those who are not farmers.

twitter.com/artofhunger75/status/1405840749246169088?s=21

It looks like Lavery’s partner has a bite mark in the face on one picture in that Twitter feed. That is appalling 🤮

Yes. That is a sign of their healthy love life. wool

Yes. That is a sign of their healthy love life
🤮

That and that in all pics with past partners one person has a tight grip around the back of the neck of the other.

I really think that those pics are like a thousand words.

Those pictures are quite upsetting. Such abusive toxic male dominance.

Exactly that @Erikrie.

So I think we can assume that the “definition of woman” tweet was actively & purposefully very much part of the fetish too.

From time to time in various mainstream places online, even on MN, you see posts apparently from women saying stuff like “I’m worthless and only good for having babies but I’m even shit at that”. I always think they’re the performative part of some man’s fetish, and hope he is writing them directly and not making some poor captive woman do it.

The sad fucks are driven to be performative about their dysfunction, and yes I am shaming their abusive, rapey “kinks”.

Was I just deleted for “shaming” domestic violence masquerading as a sexual preference?

Have you seen the photos we are discussing @MNHQ? They are abuse images. A woman with a large hand being forced far into her mouth. The same woman with a clear, angry bite mark on her cheek. She looks terrified.

Is there a thread in site stuff about the moderation of this thread yet?

There is now;

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/4274920-Your-moderation-of-the-thread-discussing-Lavery-s-abuse-images?watched=1

And about why we can't mention the well recognised and researched phenomenon of Autogynephilia even though it features so large in many of the issues that are discussed here just because certain people exhibiting traints of the condition are in denial about them and don't like it?

Are you reealy comfortable with this level of silencing and denial of women's voices on your platform in today's climate MNHQ?

Well they've just very kindly reinstated mine with a small edit, so I’ve floated the idea that more edits and fewer deletions might be a good policy for the future (I’ve said this over on the site stuff thread).

I think that there is no excuse for domestic violence. It is awful and horrific, whoever the perpetrator is.

I do find the tweets problematic. Talking about “the passive partner” in a sexual relationship, picture of the tweeter’s partner with a bite mark on their cheek and picture of the tweeter’s partner with a hand stuffed into their mouth.

This, in my opinion, seems to glorify domestic violence and I find it disturbing and inappropriate.

That picture looks like actual choking, doesn’t it? Not faux choking or some fingers in a mouth.

Ok well that explains a lot

In using that definition the person who made it is stating their view of women, which doesn't seem to include them.

I found those pictures increadibly disturbing, but it seems to be a trend that misogyny like this is fuelled by extreme porn that is now seen as perfectly normal and acceptable.

I was listening to the FDS podcast yesterday and they were talking about how it used to be said you get hairy palms if you masturbate a lot, which obviolusly is not true but what is true is that when a person becomes porn sick it is clear to see in their words and interactions.

Funny isn't it how sex work is work and no kink shaming are included in the wider beliefs to be imposed.

Now I understand why TTC took so long. As soon I said "I'm ovulating! We have to have sex NOW!" to my husband my lack of passivity turned me into a man.

Although my manly sexual non-passiveness did eventually result in DC, so perhaps it's true - men can get pregnant!

The pictures indicating that the passive role is not the role of the person who wrote the definition of woman.

Only makes sense if

The person still thinks of women as a different group, really

Or. Probably and.

Enjoys telling women that's what they are. Enjoys being able to post that deeply offensive drivel with no consequences.
Enjoys thinking of, reading the reaction of women to it.

If you take pleasure from controlling and dominating and humiliating women, especially related to sex, then posting that will feel pretty good.