Let's get something straight here, can we?

Ms Harman said she did not think it was the right thing for women in the 21st century to be seen as sex objects "posing in their knickers to be leered at by men".

When most men look at a picture of a (half) naked woman, they either ignore it, or they might choose to indulge in some mental fantasy. The woman pictured becomes the subject of desire, probably woven into some fantasy.

She becomes the subject of desire. She is fantasised about doing, being, behaving.

She is not an "object" in most men's fantasies.

Women who choose to pose in pictures for the enjoyment of men (and for the enjoyment of those women who also enjoy looking at the female form) are making a subject of themselves, not an object.

Feminists would have people believe that men only see women as (sex) objects whereas I suspect that it is feminists who objectify men, and men who treat women as real beings, even in their fantasies.

Harman can tell them to keep their skirts down and their tops up, can't she?

But no: it's men at fault for 'leering'.

But...but.....does she support the slutwalk?

Of course, the cynical Herod Harman* doesn't have the courage of her convictions to call for an outright ban. That would alienate too many Labour voters. That is, the 'leering' men who buy these papers.

Isn't it odd that photos of beautiful women stir the wrath of so many other women who claim that it treats 'women' (i.e. ALL women) as sex objects, and degrades the sisterhood? Isn't it also odd that when a woman achieves something they perceive as positive she is doing for the sisterhood and is a role model for ALL women, and that she has achieved what she has BECAUSE she's a woman?

In this regard, men are far more rational and realistic. We do not consider the achievements of Thomas Edison, Abraham Lincoln, Henry Ford, Gandhi, Albert Einstein, Christian Barnard, Tim Berners-Lee, Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela, Lennon & McCartney, Christopher Wren, Brunel, Steven Spielberg, Neil Armstrong, Lance Armstrong, the Wright brothers, Alan Turing, Barnes Wallis, Columbus, Martin Luther King, Mozart, Steve Jobs, Isaac Newton etc, etc, etc as by and on behalf of men, but as human achievements for the benefit of the human race. Though perhaps they SHOULD be held up as role models for young men in this feminits age where men are encouraged to feel guilty for being male.

Harman is nothing more than a man-hating busybody Leftie who has no time for opinions other than her own.

OK, now where did I put today's copy of 'The Sun'???


(* 'Herod' Harman, because if she had her way, all male babies would be killed at birth. Merry Christmas!)

Quote from Bigger Brother

Isn't it also odd that when a woman achieves something they perceive as positive she is doing for the sisterhood and is a role model for ALL women, and that she has achieved what she has BECAUSE she's a woman?

That made me think of Tiger Woods. He was always presented as "black" first, and "golfer" second. Did anyone see the Dave Chappelle Racial Draft skit portraying Tiger?

Would anybody in the Labour Party like to change the record?

Or do they still believe that the peasants will always dance to the "golden oldies"?

Maybe they're right. Or maybe they're wrong but haven't got the message yet. Either way they show their stupidity.
Perhaps their voters are equally stupid? Or is there an alternative explanation?

Quote from outdoors

But...but.....does she support the slutwalk?

I almost missed the importance of this point but you're very right to bring the subject up.

After all, are feminists right in that it acceptable for women to (un)dress how they like (and not even be considered sluts, or to be considered sluts and not thought less of it, or ... oh, hell, I don't know quite what the point of those things is) .. or are feminists right in that it is unacceptable for women to (un)dress how they like?

If a woman undresses for her own self, is that empowerment (= good)? I guess so, which is why it has to be men's fault that she gets paid for posing naked, rather than her fault for posing naked. Kind of like how a drug pusher isn't at fault, it's only the people he pushes drugs to .. no, that's not right, is it .. oh, dear, I see I'm having problems understanding feminism again..

Quote from outdoors

But...but.....does she support the slutwalk?

Good question!

Quote from Douglas

After all, are feminists right in that it acceptable for women to (un)dress how they like (and not even be considered sluts, or to be considered sluts and not thought less of it, or ... oh, hell, I don't know quite what the point of those things is) .. or are feminists right in that it is unacceptable for women to (un)dress how they like?

Behold, the inconsistency of feminist logic. The only consistency is in the outcome: namely, the demonising of men.

If a woman undresses for her own self, is that empowerment (= good)? I guess so, which is why it has to be men's fault that she gets paid for posing naked, rather than her fault for posing naked. Kind of like how a drug pusher isn't at fault, it's only the people he pushes drugs to .. no, that's not right, is it .. oh, dear, I see I'm having problems understanding feminism again..

Kind of like how they call for prostitutes to escape punishment, but for their punters to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.