Women's rights general conversations - Thread 4

[Kucinghitam]

Continuation of Thread 3.

There is so much excellent information and so many active discussions on FWR that I wondered if it would be useful to have a thread to sort of "cross-fertilise" between them - airing little thoughts or vignettes that wouldn't themselves merit their own thread, to highlight other posts/threads of particular interest or to point to notable developments on fast-moving threads so that casual observers know where to look.

(For example, "the X thread has meandered onto a fascinating discussion of Y" or "Poster P's amazing analysis on thread Z might have relevance to the scenario in thread W" or "Has anybody noticed this recurring theme that keeps coming up??" or even "Random bloke asked me to smile while I was choosing onions, grr"- that sort of thing).

I've only just got around to reading this from Eliza Mondegreen and it's powerful. Quite a few things stood out for me: the detransitioner realised that she wasn't doing the right thing for her at the magical age of 25, how she felt when she wore modest clothing* and her overall eloquence and kindness. This phrase though, oh my days, just hit me with a big loud, "YES!"

"Never treat a software problem at the hardware level."

Here's the full piece: "If that was my true self, then why did it take so much work?"

*This is very much apropos of nothing but that's where my brain took me because I'm watching way too much Next In Dress or whatever it's called. One of the designers creates women's wear that is incredibly tight, full of cutouts, incredibly "sexy" and "Hello, my breasts are here and I must shave my lady garden completely or the flowers will be peeping over this edge here". She's good at what she does, and her skill is if not exceptional pretty much up there and close to it but her clothes leave me cold to the extent that if she is the winner - I'll find out this evening - I'll be really disappointed. It's all about putting the body on display to be seen as a sexual object. I know, not necessarily, one can put one's body on display because one is proud of it, because one wants to because one can, but I hate that this is her speciality to the exclusion of just about everything else unless that's been reined in a little by a project they've been given on the show. When that's been the case I like what she does so much more.

Tl;dr I'm not suggesting that we all need to go around covered up all the time because that's insanity but watching this show has made me realise how uncomfortable I am with fashion when it's about having it all nearly hanging out.

That's a brilliant piece - thanks @NotDrowningJustCrowing

Tl;dr I'm not suggesting that we all need to go around covered up all the time because that's insanity but watching this show has made me realise how uncomfortable I am with fashion when it's about having it all nearly hanging out.

I always find it interesting how desperate we are not to be prudish or judgemental about women's clothing. I also always notice how much more covered up men are so much of the time.

Women have a double whammy to deal with. It's the show off skin to be attractive but not too much. Whereas men are covered up most of the time but can also strip off to boxers and still be considered decent.

Plus all the e.g. bingo wing shaming that men simply don't get. Entire fucking wardrobes of cardigans because God forbid anyone should see a middle aged woman's saggy upper arms!

I started covering my arms about a decade ago because I thought that no wobble should be shown. About five years ago I looked at myself in the mirror, held my arms out horizontally and moved them about. The amount of wing was bloody minuscule and I thought enough of this bloody nonsense so now my arms are out when it's warm and much as I do love a cardigan they are only worn when there's a bit of a chill in the air or I want the cardigan to complete my look. I haven't learned to love my body yet but I have learned to stop hating it.

I have MASSIVE bingo wings, and it's hard because there is a part of me that really minds, but I am determined this year to be FUCK THE BINGO WINGS THIS IS ME. I have to say, it's slightly terrifying.

That’s a great article, Crows. I wonder how many referrals to GIDS were made under the assumption that all that stuff would be covered in depth before finally starting hormone blockers/replacement therapy? 3 hour-long sessions was the average, according to Hannah Barmes.

BarNes.

Just a heads up in case anyone on this thread has missed the BBC Antisocial program yesterday on RSE in schools- a discussion with The School of Sexuality Education and Safe Schools Alliance (there's a thread on this board). It's worth listening to the program and also then reading this link posted on that thread that's the twitter feed of a parent referred to in the program by SoSE:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4765114-tanya-carter-from-ssa-live-on-radio4-at-noon-today-rsedebate?reply=124747950&utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

Thanks for the Mondegreen article @NotDrowningJustCrowing - as you say, powerful (and heartrending) stuff.

I was reading that thread @DameMaud, really interesting.

I was undecided about sharing the link that I read on the RSE thread because obviously people can just go and read it there, but just in case any lurkers can't be moved any further than here, this is how TRSOH operates against parents they decide are TWSOH.

twitter.com/NoSecretLessons/status/1637187426605989891

DameMaud · Today 01:08

Just a heads up in case anyone on this thread has missed the BBC Antisocial program yesterday on RSE in schools...

Good call, I've been on that one. Bloody sneaky, underhand BBC.

Just putting a link here to a thread I created (probably too obscure to deserve its own thread really). There was a section on sex workers and how it interacts with their religion. Incredibly depressing how the constant the push to accept prostitution as empowering is.

R4 Sunday religious sex workers www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4766388-r4-sunday-religious-sex-workers

From the No Secret Lessons thread, this extract from the 'research' paper is horrifying.

Let's get children to recreate their abuse, spontaeously, in an unstructured situation with no support.

How the fuck did that pass an ethics panel?

twitter.com/NoSecretLessons/status/1637211552519471105?s=20

I'd also be rather interested to know what the sex ed organisation means by an 'inclusive definition' of consent. Because judging by the above, it includes 'lack of consent'.

How the fuck did that pass an ethics panel?

Perhaps it was a Righteous ethics panel.

Yes, an ethics panel from the right side of history.

I’m speechless. Where to start? It seems as if they’ve confused boundaries with stigma, and destigmatisation means the dismantling of boundaries.

Well, that's at heart of queer theory. Queering all the boundaries. It's just that they avoid either the actual facts of early theorist's lives, and the logical consequences of the theory for the adult/child boundary.

But we mustn't say that, must we? Esp in certain places.

After 23 years on GUT/JTT I had my first ever deletion of a post yesterday, and I have no idea why, unless the word “transphobic” is the new Thor/rapey alert klaxon.

Crikey. What did you say? (Nosey)

I said in response to a long rant about transphobes “I’m afraid that if clinicians working for GIDS can be called transphobic the word has lost all meaning. If you over-reach you topple.” (The last bit I’d stolen from a post I saw on here.)

And that was deletion worthy? It’s not even fighty. Pretty pathetic really, considering the amount of actual abuse flung in the other direction. Oh well. Another incident that belies the idea that it’s not women discussing the issue that is the problem, but their tone. You expressed yourself in a perfectly measured way, and even that wasn’t good enough.

I saw that Mavis. I think your crimes were numerous, and included being female, being more intelligent that that mob (not high praise, alas, they are shocking dimwits), being more serious minded than them (again a low bar) and having a sense of humour that goes beyond being spiteful about fellow posters.

I did a catch-up read on that thread over the last couple of days (still haven't gone back to the that issue thread since it was made obvious most of them had not a single clue what it's about and don't want to find out) and was exasperated by the people saying plaintively 'I don't know what's been going on on JtT over the last three months . . .' it doesn't seem to occur to them to try - reading the relevant threads.

That sounds as though I don't think you are clever, wise, funny, and a general delight. Obviously you are all those and more, and wasted over there.