Debate on Feminism ~ Pay-gap .

Posted: 7 years ago
DEBATE on feminism lags behind feminism itself

March 12, 2017 01:00

By The Nation

Hollywood actress draws questionable criticism about her dress, raising the same old questions all over again 

Feminism may be at an advanced stage, but debate on feminism is apparently not. Actress Emma Watson has triggered a social media storm after appearing for a Vanity Fair photoshoot with a highly revealing costume, prompting the question whether her remark about women always being sexualised was merely hypocritical. Simply put, many critics are saying she's not as much of a feminist as she has seemed to be.

There were times when women's inability to vote was a feminist issue, but those days are long gone. Today, women can decide whether to boycott an election, just as Watson can choose what dress to wear. Men can show off their biceps without being accused of contradicting any ideology, and feminism in its ultimate sense should accord Watson the same liberty.

Feminism has no dress code and it doesn't prevent anyone from showing off themselves. Most of all, which body parts can be shown and should not be shown has been a flexible or slippery issue throughout history, depending on weather, geography and fashion sense, among various factors. Feminism is respect and equality. It's the right to express and wield powers, be it sexual or political, as much as men do.

In short, Watson can wear anything she likes and still advocate feminism. Sam Smethers, chief executive of the Fawcett Society, which campaigns for gender equality and women's rights, hit the nail on the head by saying that the Vanity Fair incident was just an empowered woman doing what she wanted. Feminism debaters, Smethers said, should look at the fact that Watson was not being exploited, was doing it in a controlling position, and using her body the way she wanted it.

Hypocritical males are rampant. Politicians advocating human rights have turned a blind eye to summary treatment of alleged "terrorists". Football's governing body condemns cheats as counterproductive but refuses to use video replays to help referees and improve the game. Many Buddhist monks preach "detachment" but are accumulating worldly assets like they are the most important thing.

The aforementioned cases pose far bigger trouble than Watson complaining about women always being "sexualised", and then exposing parts of her breasts. For all their supposed virtues, social media outlets have largely failed to address male hypocrisy, which sows bad seeds all over the world, taking advantage of the general perception that it's commonplace.

Debate on feminism often ends up with cynics saying that women want it both ways. On the one hand, women demand equality, and on the other hand, they want "respect", it is said. The point that should be generally accepted by now is the fact that women and men are not the same, so the demands for equality and respect must be treated by taking that into account. In other words, the demands do not contradict each other but they carry with them great subtlety.

Watson's is a case in point. She doesn't want women to be treated as merely a sexual object but her right to wield sexual power must be respected, just as nobody should frown at men who wield their political power or go about advertising their six-pack bodies. Hypocritical feminists are those who say she is not supposed to be dressed that way.

Is today's world a better place when feminism is concerned? Yes. Is there room for improvement? Plenty, of course. Where should we start? With the debate, maybe.


AN - I found this new news article and wanted to know how u all perceive feminism. Share your views! 

Edited by lizzy84 - 6 years ago
Posted: 7 years ago
I think the problem is feminism is confusing concept.. 
I'd much rather advocate gender neutrality, because it has a clear goal IMO.

The way feminism is working these days is just making genuine demand for women's rights look like a hypocrisy. And, I dare say, it has become a largely sensationalised concept fuelled by empty but noisy passions - leaving lots confusion... people are going to an extreme, and the essence of the concept is confusing - and that is why it is attracting lots and lots of backlash. 


The problem with feminism is this -- 

argument 1 --- I will wear what I want to - proud of my sexuality - proud of my body - just look at double standards just because I am female.


argument 2 --- Women are objectified - I will not bow down to it.



^^^^ two arguments made by a same woman. It gives BIG loopholes to people who don't like feminism, and in general - people TEND to see a double standard in it.. 


Instead, if one starts talking along the lines of gender equality and most importantly, neutrality, it becomes a more progessive argument, IMO.


I'll try to explain whatever is in my head in my poor vocabulary, goodluck to the readers.

So, in gender neutrality, let's take Emma as a ...case study. 

There is no speak of woman, or sexuality when it comes to gender neutrality. If a person sees it, he sees it and loves it, if he doesn't like it he doesn't.. there is no speak of 'woman' or 'man' here, there is only 'human'. She was being sensuous that is common to all humans.

Now only when 'woman' or 'man' thing comes into picture do the differences crop up, and the blurry/confusing remarks or statements follow.


..what I envision is that, when gender neutrality is argued for, people are made to shut up when they even raise a remark in the context of 'woman'... you are a human more than a woman or a man. IMO anyways.

I think that should firstly be taught to all people that we are humans before a genders - that goes for both sexes or more.

I think when one argues along the lines of 'man' or 'woman' there are bound to be arguments against it, because everyone has their down feeling of what a 'man' or 'woman' should be like, and there will be an argument and a counter argument against any statement made along the lines of 'woman' or 'man'.. 

As for Emma wearing an explicit dress - come on, this is 21st century, who are we to judge that she is selling her sexuality? What is selling sexuality anyway? I find man in suit and tie very sexy than a man who is semi-naked in briefs, now I cannot make an argument that a man is selling his sexuality in suit and tie can I? 

Finding something sexy or sexually-suggestive is subjective in the first place.

Secondly, she may not even be wearing the dress the way it makes an impression on you - how is reality so definite that what appears to you is actually what is? So that strikes off the argument that she is having a double standard, I say she did it innocent, or may say she just wanted to wear it, what are you gonna do about it?

Thirdly, although we ALL have our own definition of what 'decency' is, we are not wearing the dress, no? Why rub our own judgement on someone wearing it? Don't like it, that's your headache. 

Fourthly, we all think we are smart and know other people, but we do not, high time we stop making judgements like 'she said like this on that day and look what she's doing'  and question each and every act, striking it down with our judgement after a passionate post-mortem of the act(calling on out on others, in other words) - atleast in such petty issues, basically, one has to understand that human is complex, each human is their own universe, let's respect one another, unless there is a visible breach on law... each human is growing, are on their own path of life - let's not force our opinions on others.

This generation has become highly intolerant I tell you, everyone thinks their opinions are universal truths - well, to think so is fine - but to force them down upon others who hold different opinions, doing their character assasination... is just getting ugly. Anyway, why did I digress xD

I'll come back again and write more on this, need to clear my head and my shitty vocab doesn't help
Posted: 7 years ago
On 'objectification' I'd like to say my personal opinions on it..
Firstly, both sexes are objectified, and neither are forced to objectify at knifepoint ( I am speaking of objectification in the show business, not in mentalities in general in people ).

Is there anything wrong with it? IMO, no. Not at all. Those doing it are doing so wilfully, completely self-aware. 

And besides, I have a different opinion on this altogether, people objectify themselves in different ways - some in 'decent' ways, some in 'bold' ways - no difference, their personal choice - if something looks distasteful to me, I will look away. I believe in this - excuse the language but understand the essence of it :p

Posted: 7 years ago
^^


I accept that feminism is a very confusing concept,  people mislead the concept  by their extreme ideologies and notions. But feminism just imply that" All men and women are equal" therefore the women's should get all opportunities as men at par.
The therefore in the defi came only because, during the onset of feminism we lived in the strict patriarchal societies and sadly some continue to do so. 

Coming to the point of extremities 

1. There is no room for extremities in the concept of feminism.
Those who empathize with  even point one percent of such ideologies automatically  forfeit their rights to be associated with the term 'feminist'.

2. The feminazis cannot be confused with feminist. They are hypocrites and can be easily passed off as BFFs of Chauvinists.

Now the argument that you have posed. 
.
 I really can't wrap my head around this delusional notions  of using the term feminist  for justifying their choice of clothes.  Do we, today really need feminism to act as defense mechanism for our own choice? 
No. a big no !
Just go ahead and say 
This is my choice,  I will wear what I want .I fail to see any equality issues when it comes to both sexes deciding their choice of clothes! 


Now the neutrals v/s equal

IMO neutral is unattainable. Let's just agree .
Gender do exist. The two anatomies exist .
 Both Male and Female are biologically  different.
Neutrality goes hand in hand with ignorance, which is worse!
It advocates the all -inclusive ideology but to be able to comprehend the gender,  we really  need to acknowledge the existence of two different gender. We can't just shove it under the rug. 

Gender equality is still  more realistic term. 
the first step is to break through stereotypes .
At least we will reach somewhere. 
So gender equality for me is more realatable.

Now moving over to objectification -

I do agree with you that both sexes are objectified but 
Objectification becomes a problem when it is given lewd tags  (In both real or show business) Just keep your thoughts to yourself and you are good to go. :p don't act on them. 
It is not very pleasant , I guess for either of the sexes to be looked at as mere objects .

In show business 
Objectification here is a very vague word for me. The word  never really decide its boundaries here .
Is there anything wrong in them?  Yes for 
Plain Objectification as it  is  a    degrading term , it just reduces  a person to Sex objects. and 
A plain No for promoting healthy sexuality.
 It is grey for me. 

PS - I can associate with that phrase,  only if it is in Mentalities ðŸ˜›




Edited by lizzy84 - 7 years ago
Posted: 7 years ago
Ohh  I forgot to mention few things :p
I agree with your stand on the whole melodramatic  Emma controversy .
People should just really start minding their own business. 
We don't need moral policing at very damn place! 
'X 'wears a dress,  'Y' does not find it up to his/her liking.. Y keeps the blabbering mouth 'shut'. 
End of the story. 
It's not very appealing when 'Y' or the Media starts this whole 'Hot or Not , right or wrong  debate on X's  fashion tastes'.
It's ridiculous! 
 .They go ahead, somehow link it to 'feminism' (their fav hot topic)  , instigate perceptions or beliefs of people and then v callously throw  parties for the so called humongous' success 'of their controversial shows... ( going off topic :p) 

This whole controversy was 'orchestrated ' for me by the media. 
Feminism,  gender  equality or neutrality cannot be affixed on to  the fashion quotient of celebs;
 fashion quotient does not validates one's ideologies. 



 
Edited by lizzy84 - 7 years ago
Posted: 7 years ago
Ugh, I wrote a novel and lost everything :(
Interesting points, Lizzy :))

Agree with you on gender equality, what's not to agree about gender equality! :) 

Perhaps I can't explain about gender neutrality, but I do not mean to say that our genders would be totally disregarded, it is not an absolute concept.. the way I imagine it to be.. Like there will be basic distinctions on a public level - separate lavatories, health services, police/army training, clothing(to an extent), among other things.. But the aim on a social level is to maintain that we are basically human, not man, woman or transgender. 
I believe gender is a social creation and sex is not, sex of a person is biological and as a social being we are, we need to be respected irrespective of our sex, as an individual or human we are.. That is my idea of gender neutrality, but nothing more. It is similar to gender equality - but I guess the emphasis, or the thrust of the argument would be "respect for the human we are" , rather than "respect us on par with men/woman" .. The thing is, Lizzy, I feel not just women, but men face gender inequality albeit on subtle but very deep levels. And, let's not even begin with transgenders, discrimination against poor fellows is largely ignored, unknown.. 

I shall come back and write more, as I can think clearly.. :p


On objectification, Lizzy, I agree with you, that objectification in 'thought', is none of our business, because - we cannot control the mind of anyone after all. The change has to come from within and we can only preach...

BUT , yes, like you said, it's very blurry... the 'objectification'. Firstly, let me speak about showbiz and the objectification of actors and actresses. Except those rare occasions when the actor/actress is objectified unbeknownst to him/her, anyone objectified is well aware of it. It's not wrong according to me, although I may or may not like a photo or movie - it depends. They may do it for many reasons, one of them being 'body as art', and I have to agree because human body is so very beautiful... I do appreciate the beauty of it, but ultimately, it depends on my mood/feeling upon seeing something. As for reducing to sex objects, IDK, Lizzy, it is also very blurry for me.. the ones consenting to be sex objects have no problem, so I don't see any issue here.. but yes, no lewd messages...again, who can decide what's lewd, I guess these things can be decided on a case to case basis, and I would just say - lewd or decent, if a person (who is a major and not a minor) is well-aware of and has consented to being a sex object - who are we to judge? He/she may have their own reasons. And this is no way associated with feminism, gender equality/neutrality - it is in the end their profession that they have wilfully stepped into.. it's not wrong. IMO.

As for promoting sexuality... eh, that is very blurry more blurry than objectification atleast the way I see it... it's too blurry because, sometimes, something with no sensual intention ends up looking insanely sexy, while sometimes a sexy photo where a person is seemingly comfortable in his sensuousness does not evoke such response from onlooker - it all varies from person to person... and in the end, we'd rather not create drama over anything... Like it, enjoy ...don't like it, atleast don't create an outrage and force your thoughts on others :p 

Outside the showbiz/cinema, that is our real world - like you said, it is all fine if it is in thoughts, I won't even talk about shit-scary ogles, because they cannot be proved and it's hard to talk about it, but the problem arises when the 'range of objectification' falls between opening their crass mouth to physical harassment. I think the line is opening your mouth and anything beyond the boundaries of the brain is not nice.

Objectification, to a small extent is inevitable - because, we all - ALL humans looks at someone or many in a purely physical sense - depends on the person if he is 'looking' at the body as appreciation of beauty or as something else, that is not of anyone's concern unless his actions or speech are bad.



It's such a sad state of affairs when simple photos, movies, etc are subject to fault-finding in many ways by associating it with feminism, gender equality ...as if the said movie/photo is promoting it. There is a difference between showbiz and real world, although cinema is reflection of real world - to an extent, real world is not reflection of cinema. 

It's one thing to dislike a photo or movie scene for not suiting your mentality or opinion on various subjects ranging from gender inequality, but something else to create a public outrage because the movie has so many 'wrong' things... Movie is a movie - is a good movie when it leaves a good social message, but can we forget that it is a movie - afterall? 

Somehow violence is never a problem for movie goers but they start talking about rights and wrongs when characters are seen having opinions like 'Rafi ka voice is sleepy', or 'SRK falls for Kajol when she grows her hair' and nonsense like that.. If we start fault finding, it is endless in movies! It's just a movie - like it - dislike it, others mature enough know what is right/wrong in real world... People can be influenced for innumerable factors in life, not just one movie, and firstly, every child should be taught that, a movie is a movie! 😆 And did you see lately, how feminists are disapproving of Wonder Woman's hairless underarms? ðŸ˜†  ..the madness is showing no limits these days, hope this madness is just a phase O_O

Sorry for digressing... 
Edited by Angel-likeDevil - 7 years ago
Posted: 7 years ago
Originally posted by Angel-likeDevil




The problem with feminism is this -- 

argument 1 --- I will wear what I want to - proud of my sexuality - proud of my body - just look at double standards just because I am female.


argument 2 --- Women are objectified - I will not bow down to it.



^^^^ two arguments made by a same woman. It gives BIG loopholes to people who don't like feminism, and in general - people TEND to see a double standard in it.. 


I do not understand why any reasonable human being should see loopholes and double standard in this. 

Both arguments complement each other. They can be distilled as

1. I own my body. 
2. No one else owns my body. 

The only time they can be seen as contradictory is the regressive mindset that thinks a woman's ownership of her body and sexuality is an open invitation for anyone and everyone to sexualize her. 



Posted: 6 years ago
@Angel-likedevil 
 
If you are not looking at gender neutrality in light of absoluteness,  then I can agree with your aforesaid points .
Like I mentioned before,  when we talk or debate about ideologies I cannot always label  them  as 'wrong 'or 'right', here I will opt-out for something like middle grounds. 

Now on 'Objectification' , I think we both are pretty much on the same page:)

Moving on to movies , I think feminism has become more like a filler word,  
Eg
Why the movie was good? 
A-Feminism

Why the movie was bad? 
A-Feminism 



So, I conclude that  feminism Is the 'IT'
and has   to be said or debated at every press conference. 
And then the influences of sensational movies,  I  cannot debate about feminism  using  Raj, Rahul or any Mr R as my masterstroke , it's  a 'Daft Analogy '.

Now to the shaving business,  when does one has to resort to feminism to take care of their personal hygiene, it's insane. ðŸ˜†
I will invent a new term for this controversy 

#shavism#waxinpolitics ðŸ¤£(ignore, if you didn't find it funny:p)


Feminism is much more than personal hygiene decision,  fashion or Mr Girls can't play basketball falling for Ms I now have long hair:p

People don't talk about Feminism when movies resort to 
Beti =Debt
Beta=ghar Ka ATM 
And the list is endless. 

I hope I have put my point across , ignore the ramblings.😛

PS - Can you tell me what should I call you by,  it's awkward to decide BTW Angel or Devil. :p


Edited by lizzy84 - 6 years ago
Posted: 6 years ago
Originally posted by lizzy84


@Angel-likedevil 
 
If you are not looking at gender neutrality in light of absoluteness,  then I can agree with your aforesaid points .
Like I mentioned before,  when we talk or debate about ideologies I cannot always label  them  as 'wrong 'or 'right', here I will opt-out for something like middle grounds. 

Now on 'Objectification' , I think we both are pretty much on the same page:)

Moving on to movies , I think feminism has become more like a filler word,  
Eg
Why the movie was good? 
A-Feminism

Why the movie was bad? 
A-Feminism 



So, I conclude that  feminism Is the 'IT'
and has   to be said or debated at every press conference. 
And then the influences of sensational movies,  I  cannot debate about feminism  using  Raj, Rahul or any Mr R as my masterstroke , it's  a 'Daft Analogy '.

Now to the shaving business,  when does one has to resort to feminism to take care of their personal hygiene, it's insane. ðŸ˜†
I will invent a new term for this controversy 

#shavism#waxinpolitics ðŸ¤£(ignore, if you didn't find it funny:p)


Feminism is much more than personal hygiene decision,  fashion or Mr Girls can't play basketball falling for Ms I now have long hair:p

People don't talk about Feminism when movies resort to 
Beti =Debt
Beta=ghar Ka ATM 
And the list is endless. 

I hope I have put my point across , ignore the ramblings.😛

PS - Can you tell me what should I call you by,  it's awkward to decide BTW Angel or Devil. :p



Haha.. you are funny ðŸ˜› ..agree with everything :)

You can address me by anything you wish, upto you :p
Posted: 6 years ago
Originally posted by return_to_hades



I do not understand why any reasonable human being should see loopholes and double standard in this. 

Both arguments complement each other. They can be distilled as

1. I own my body. 
2. No one else owns my body. 

The only time they can be seen as contradictory is the regressive mindset that thinks a woman's ownership of her body and sexuality is an open invitation for anyone and everyone to sexualize her. 




While I agree with you, RTH, that is what is happening in reality.. people are bashing the same woman who owns her own body, when she says women are objectified.. Not everyone has same thoughts, as to what 'should' or 'should not'. The world would be a peaceful heaven if it were the case.

What do you mean by 'sexualize' a woman? 


Related Topics

doc-text Topics pencil Author stackexchange Replies eye Views clock Last Post Reply
Debate Mansion Chit Chat Corner #1

pencil carisma2   stackexchange 4   eye 1680

carisma2 4 1680 2 months ago K.Universe.

Topic Info

8 Participants 67 Replies 5526Views

Topic started by lizzy84

Last replied by lizzy84

loader
loader
up-open TOP