Page 3 -Smut Or A British Institution?

funny cos people who do well in academia arent "big bang theory" socially inept nerds.
they're smart people who are social butterflies and can charm senior staff and funders into helping them.

 

Exposing children to inappropriate sexual imagery isn't child abuse?

 

I didn't say it was, I'm saying that it's not just feminists who engage in collective whipping.
It's worth noting however that you take a nuanced view of this scenario and not of the other.

 

That ring any bells for you?
Why isn't the flak Tayler got "the internet being the internet"?

 

...

 

I mean the feminists who don't want equal rights but instead would prefer to demonise men and belittle other women who don't conform.

 

If you had breathed in you would have got back onto one page

 

This...I get what you're saying and there may be some truth to it, but it's one of those points that frankly has been hammed up to the point it just doesn't feel credible any more.

Now I read a huge number of articles and watched pretty much every news video on the topic (both the landing and the controversy). There were a fair few mentions that this might be the case. And you know what? Not one single video or article could actually quote a source from a young female saying this was the case in the slightest. All of them were people hypothesising that "it must be true!".

True. I'm not going to argue that the shirt may have been in poor taste but I genuinely believe that the whole thing has been blown up so much that it's arguably done more damage to the cause than good.

Lol, that's just harsh .

Haha, to be fair I don't think anyone who has commented thus far has attempted to defend it as a legit quality news source .

Sorry, let me try again.

If people genuinely claim to be feminists and support women's rights, what gives them the right to suddenly decide that certain choices and opinions of the women they claim to represent as disadvantaged don't matter?

Turning round and saying "Oh yeah, well Jodie Marsh and some others don't matter 'cos they were involved in the shoots!" is frankly ridiculous. And yet, that has already been said in this very thread.

As far as I'm concerned if you genuinely believe in the right for women to have the same rights, opportunities and treatment as men, then you HAVE to respect the rights that women also choose to take part in these shoots.

It only counts if you're standing in a queue waiting patiently for something.

 

Gah, I think I'm slowly catching up with the thread .

Bollocks.

Sorry, let me try again.

You don't need to think about it.

...Yeah, you kinda do. You've been harping on about how it's representative of a wider problem within STEM. How he "obviously tried to show off how cooky he was and knew he was going to be interviewed" (paraphrased). Fine.

Find me a good example of women who are/were seriously considering going into STEM, saw that shirt and went "Oh, obviously they won't take me seriously and I'll always be second class because this guy, like most others in STEM is part of the problem". Then find me any kind of evidence that he chose that shirt for that reason and that he knew that he specifically was going to be on camera.

I'll be waiting.

Again, if someone is actually genuinely considering a career in STEM and suddenly sees that shirt and goes "Well, it's obviously a problem. I'll go do something else"...then they probably didn't want a career in STEM.

Wait...you're going to have to help me out. What kind of odd harmless jokes about curries have you heard that might construe a hostile environment for minorities to work in?

Where did I say that?

It is as much about the "stupid shirt" as it is anything else. If the shirt wasn't the trigger of the controversy, then he could have come in wearing a batman onesie and the reaction would still be the same.

Except it wouldn't because it's got everything to do with people seeing women on a shirt and crying "SEXIST!".

Because apparently people can't seem to figure out the difference between sexism, objectification and sex appeal for sales purposes. Or that you can objectify a person without being innately sexist. the two are not completely dependent on each other.

 

I'll reply tomorrow slothy because I'm on a tablet and can't properly reply as I'd like.

 

Twisted man!

 

Southpaw

it was sending out an awkward message to young girls interested in science when they see one of their (could-be) heroes wears a shirt that sexualises their gender and their bodies, in one of the few interactions they see him have with a female (the reporter).

and again, the guy was wearing a shirt that would get him a slap from his mum to work. in any normal office, you would be called in by your manager and explained that the shirt isnt appropriate because you have female colleagues and it is sexualising females. he consciously chose to wear that shirt.

but we wont agree on this so lets leave that there. he got made an example of, maybe that was harsh but it needed to be done.

i havent actually heard any mainstream feminists say this. maybe only the internet ones who occupy social media and shout the loudest but thats not representative of all the men and women i know who have studied feminism at university and are part of the current wave of "modern feminism".
even germaine greer didnt say this when questioned about her thoughts on page 3.

like i said, its not about those women who enjoy modelling. thats their choice, nobody said they are being exploited or "brainwashed by the patriarchy". they can model all they want. its not about them but how the images they produce are used.
its the influence/reflection the images of them in the context of an unbalanced news paper has on wider society and how we perceive the roles of women

comparable to race. say you had a newspaper that had a page 3 but only featured black people, we wouldnt argue that those black people were being exploited, we'd argue that the newspaper isnt showing a healthy balance of black people in a variety of roles. they are only ever showing black people doing one thing regularly - modelling.

jodie marsh isnt to far from Bojangles and the "dancing negro" trope. its fine for bojangles to dance, he can dance all he wants. but they/media used his image to push this odd idea that the roles of black people were as entertainers and never showed the ones who were slowly amassing business or doing anything except dancing. the issue isnt with bojangles but how the media has used bojangles image.

 

sorry!
i was gonna PM you asking if you want to start a new thread on sexism in gaming and "gamergate" and all that stuff