Representation of Women in the Media

by Emma Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:27

This is great news - that somebody is taking this important issue seriously!

Well done.

by gender bender Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:04

1 in 5 women have now had sex with a woman, while these lads mags may represent a male view of female bisexuality, they have also helped women to explore their sexuality, and each other, for their own pleasure and sexual satisfaction.

This is a new sexual revolution, and the reality is that this sexual revolution predominantly involves women having sex with women in a very profound, and rapidly developing manner.

The shame of those campaigning against this reality, is that in reality they are seeking to repress female sexuality, and put them back in the nice, tidy, unthreatening box of a repressive victorian morality which desexes women.

by jill Thu Sep 18, 2008 14:31

The most oppressive sexual force I experienced in my teens, as I grew up in the 80's and 90's was feminism. Being told by other women that I should only like sex within a very narrow context, of demanding respect from men, that rough sex was a male domain and fantasy, that us softer women were being bullied by aggressive male demands etc, was a very depressing phase of my life.

I'm more highly sexed than many men, and it was such a relief to have an alternative face of female sexual liberation in the form of women like Jacqueline Gold, of Ann Summers, to help brush away that sexless face of feminism that women have thankfully largely escaped from.

Equality in pay, and other issues, still has a way to go, but please, you women who don't like sex, and think that only men have sordid fantasies, and sex lifes, really, just grow up, or shut up.

Thanks.

by jill Thu Sep 18, 2008 15:03

ps: the worst sex i have ever had was when i attended a few feminist meetings, and those bloody wimpy new men (thankfully a dying species) who would attend meetings like wet, blankets could never get proper erections, or last more than two minutes.

Do you know why? Because they weren't having any fun being pathetically 'nice' either!

Not that I don't like men being nice as people, but being 'nice' below the belt is a waste of everyone's time.

by kaitlin Thu Sep 18, 2008 16:46

Agree with the above. The legacy of feminism is that it desexed men and desexed women, and the noughties have been a backlash against that. Feminism died because it alienated women from their own sexuality.

Everything in society gets commodified, whether it's sex or chocolate, or anything else, so why have such a big hang up about sexual commodification? There aren't many images of men in their panties because the demand simply isn't that big, lol. But both men and women enjoy seeing women stripped down to the underwear :)

Sexless feminism is dead! Long live sexual feminism!

And don't get so hung up on the inevitable way in which parts of it will be commodified.

by nickleberry Sat Sep 20, 2008 14:37

I'm completely flummoxed by the above posters who suggest that feminism is somehow an anti-sex doctrine. What the fuck? There have been some pretty extreme thinkers within the very broad church of feminism who could be characterised this way (think Andrea Dworkin) but they are hardly representative of the vast body of feminist thinkers and actors.

Feminists have sex, trust me. With men, with women, with whoever. And I'm sure plenty of it is fine and filthy. Gender Bender's suggestion that feminists would somehow be against women having sex with women is absurd. Equally absurd is the idea that a new openness to sexual experimentation among modern woman is due in any way to lad mags like Nuts.

In fact, like Emma, I think this article describes essential research for modern society. The images of women that are daily thrust into my vision via bill boards, advertising and other dross are not really images of women at all. They are android constructions designed to sell products; their form is incredibly uniform and their correspondence to reality is tenuous.

The effect of this incessant imagery (for me) is to create a hell of a lot of "noise" in my mind; these images warp our concept of beauty, they warp our concept of sex. Sex and beauty become associated with 19 year old leggy, skinny blondes with perfect bikini lines, which is brilliant if you're that blonde (not that anyone is, this side of an airbrush), and kind of shite if you're anyone else.

Forget the billboards, and Nuts' babes. The glorious diversity of humanity beams out at the world from every bustling street in Bristol - this is where there's real beauty, and feminism has recognised this. Indeed, far from restricting people's sexuality, feminism has given many ordinary men and women the confidence to be beautiful, to be assertive, and to express their sexuality in any way they want.

by emily Sat Sep 20, 2008 16:14

"The effect of this incessant imagery (for me) is to create a hell of a lot of "noise" in my mind."

Maybe that's just the noise of your brain trying to awaken from the drab, sexless, comotose torpor that feminism inflicted upon the world ;)

by visitor Sat Sep 20, 2008 19:15

"Sex and beauty become associated with 19 year old leggy, skinny blondes with perfect bikini lines, which is brilliant if you're that blonde (not that anyone is, this side of an airbrush), and kind of shite if you're anyone else."

No they don't. Have you ever been on sex sites?

All shapes and sizes, everything under the sun for whatever you're looking for.

People are having sex for themselves, and desire each other in every form you can think of.

I really think you're too fixated on a very narrow set of images.

Millions of people are out there doing it, including the leggy blondes, who a lot of people actually find a bit boring if anything, probably because of the umaginative mindset of many adverts, which keep reheating the same images, with only a very, very, very soft hint of sex, compared to what people are really getting up to.

by poster girl Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:26

"Equally absurd is the idea that a new openness to sexual experimentation among modern woman is due in any way to lad mags like Nuts."

How can you be so wilfully naive!?

These are the kinds of images men leave on coffee tables for their girlfriends to look at!

Or even up on their walls for when they get us home!

All good stuff to chat about on those 'girls nights in' these lads mags actively encourage ;)

http://www.boomspeed.com/epog/ebay/33135zoo2.jpg
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_nTsUzoonjfc/Rt72G1TVnOI/AAAAAAAAA...d.jpg

by Emma Sun Sep 21, 2008 13:14

It seems to me more that somebody posting on the site has a hidden agenda of attacking feminism rather that the questions raised by the original article. Only only that, attacking feminism by inventing what is do/does not say (without citing any evidence) than attacking the unfounded allegation. I suggest we stay on topic.

by jill Sun Sep 21, 2008 14:24

No Emma, it's 100% on topic. I'm a feminist, and it's only that frumpy breed of sour faced feminist who are being attacked, who hijacked the movement, and dragged it down an all too english cul-de-sac of sexual hang-ups and neuroses.

Much like the Talibaneque Socialist Workers Party, who would happily force women into burkhas if it meant a few more votes for their equally hijacked (Dis)Respect party!

The least those women could do now is leave the stage with some dignity, because when new revolutions come rushing in, those who thought they had controlled (hijacked) the earlier wave, find they have been swept away by the inrushing tide, and that they are in tune with nothing.

Feminism lives.

It's just your breed of it which is already dead and buried.

x

by Puzzled Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:19

I'm really confused by some of the comments on here. Why do so many people seem to think that feminism is about rubbish sex and controlling people?

The people (men and women) who describe themselves as feminists that I meet in Bristol are lovely people, doing things like raising funds for a rape crisis centre in Bristol and trying to support families who are victims of domestic violence. Why do they attract such critisism?

If you believe that Nuts and Zoo are actually really good influences on women, representing body image and sexuality in a good way, then put your money where your mouth is - take part in the research!!

by nickleberry Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:33

@visitor has this to say: "Sex and beauty become associated with 19 year old leggy, skinny blondes with perfect bikini lines, which is brilliant if you're that blonde (not that anyone is, this side of an airbrush), and kind of shite if you're anyone else."

No they don't. Have you ever been on sex sites?

All shapes and sizes, everything under the sun for whatever you're looking for.

C'mon! What are you talking about? Yep, I've visited sex sites. You're right there are some out there which represent humanity in all it's glorious diversity. But there are plenty which conform to exactly the sort of steretopye that I described above.

And, in any case, my comments did not refer to sex sites in any way! I was talking about images of women in the mainstream media. Are you going to try and tell me that the media accurately portrays the diversity of female beauty that exists on the streets of Britain? Bollox! Nuts and company have an extremely narrow, even warped, concept of what a beautiful woman looks like. It is this narrowness of vision that I, and plenty of others, have a problem with.

So let me repeat again: Feminists have sex. They visit sex sites. They are not anti-sex, no matter how many times you repeat the accusation. I, personally, have no problem with people shagging their hearts out, taking pictures, and sticking them on the internet. What I do have a problem with is the media promoting a single vision of what is beautiful to the exclusion of everything else.

by jill Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:36

"Why do so many people seem to think that feminism is about rubbish sex and controlling people?"

Where are the anti-femists on this thread!? There aren't any! As repeated, it's just anti that victorian breed of feminism which hijacked the movement with its oppresive sexual mores, and also often nowadays outrageously colludes with a deeply oppressive islamism, particularly in the form of the SWP, so as to cynically garner votes.

"doing things like raising funds for a rape crisis centre in Bristol and trying to support families who are victims of domestic violence. Why do they attract such critisism?"

Where has anyone criticised these things!? Talk about being completely dishonest, and conflating issues, so as to not have to face up to talking about sex in its own terms!

"then put your money where your mouth is - take part in the research!!"

Millions of people are already putting their money where there mouth is, and having sex, within the context of a new sexual revolution. Your research will be skewed, because your starting position is to not even accept the reality of the sexual revolution which is already in full swing, and which has left this outdated sexual navel gazing, out of touch, and limping many miles down the road.

by a feminist Mon Sep 22, 2008 14:06

Point taken. While many women may feel unfortable with the prominence of lads mags on shelves, while having whatever sex life they choose for themselves, we have to be cautious that we aren't aligning ourselves with islamic shopkeepers who want lads mags of their shelves, not because of any sensitivity towards women, but because of their opposition to female bisexuality, which these lads mads openly promote, and which islam probably detests more than male bisexuality.

Uncomfortable bedfellows indeed, and of the variety which could choke feminism to death.

by jill Mon Sep 22, 2008 17:18

thank you sister!

i can live with that as a well nuanced summary ;)

x

by imcvol Tue Sep 23, 2008 15:41

This thread has obviously aroused some strongly held beliefs regarding feminism, sex and religion, and debating these issues should be a part of what this site is about...

However can users be reminded of our editorial policy which can be found at

http://bristol.indymedia.org/editorial

While debating issues is to be encouraged, abusive comments towards other site users or groups of people are not tolerated here. Consequently several posting on this thread which breach the editorial policy have been hidden in the last few days, most of which have been islamaphobic. While a critique of the specific sections of a group of people which you have a problem with, with references to support your claims are to be encouraged, simply homogenizing the entire (in this case) religion appears to be racism, which is not tolerated on this site.

Furthermore this thread displays a worrying tendency for people to present straw(wo)man arguments, railing against a perceived enemy which does not exist, and these arguments with no evidence appear as attempts to start arguments and derail meaningful discussion of the issues which the thread brought up and so will be hidden under the disruptive guideline.

by nickleberry Tue Sep 23, 2008 16:06

This thread has taken a bit of a turn. Let's take some of the comments one at a time. The first couple from @Jill:

Where are the anti-femists on this thread!? There aren't any!

Good. Forgive me. I concluded from your comment "the most oppressive sexual force I experienced in my teens, as I grew up in the 80's and 90's was feminism", that you must be against feminism. Hell, I certainly would be if I felt this way. Equally @Kaitlin said "the legacy of feminism is that it desexed men and desexed women", and, again, I figured that would be enough for anyone to disavow feminism.

The fact that you have not disavowed feminism suggests that you recognise that feminism is not necessarily (in fact, should never be) an oppressive sexual force. If it has been used in this way then that is a real shame; feminism should be, and is, about sexual liberation.

Is everyone just going to ignore how the SWP, and (Dis)Respect is becoming an anti-woman, anti-sex, anti-abortion doctrine, while disgustingly still pretending to hold onto the trappings of Feminism!?

No, I'm not going to ignore that. I was defending feminism, not the SWP. Just because a bunch of people say they're feminist doesn't make them feminist. The SWP has a spectacular history of co-opting legitimate traditions of thought and action for their own purposes; this shouldn't reflect badly on the tradition, it should reflect badly on the SWP.

To be clear: It's quite possible that the SWP is anti-woman and anti-sex (I really wouldn't know. I don't give a flying fuck about the SWP). That's got nothing to do with legitimate feminism.

Now for the @Jacqueline Gold Fan who asks us to choose between the new, and vibrant face of fabuolous feminism in the form of CEO Jacqueline Gold of Ann Summers fame (pictured middle)? Or the old and hairy feminism in the form of the Bristol Feminist Network which welcomes islamic women haters and homophobes into their fold?

The picture you posted of the hairy legs is, I'm thinking, supposed to imply that men can participate too! I don't take it to mean that all feminists have hairy legs, for god's sake. Having said that, I know nothing about the Bristol Feminist Network - if you can give me an iota of evidence to suggest that it is a bastion of homophobia, then I'd be interested to hear it.

Oh, and by the way, I don't find Jacqueline Gold an inspiring figure, sorry. She's a very rich business woman. Cool, but it doesn't really turn me on.

And finally, regarding the various comments regarding Islam. Perhaps best summed up by @eyes wise open (sic): Feminism getting into bed with islam is definitely an insane of case of sleeping with the enemy!

You're treading on very dangerous ground here. Specifically, you're suggesting that all Muslims are sexist which is bullshit. You're vilifying people because of their creed and that, frankly, is not on. Now it is certainly true that, within the breadth of the Islamic tradition, there are strands which are sexist and homophobic; indeed, one might well say that these strands have become dominant in recent years. You could say exactly the same thing about Christianity, or about Hinduism.

I think we should call a spade a spade. If someone promotes sexism, or homophobia, for whatever reason, religious or otherwise then it should be condemned. But if you assume that someone is sexist or homophobic because of their religion then you are being just as prejudiced as the people you condemn.

If you want a magnificent example of Islamic thought and art, which embraces sex and sexuality, then try reading Rumi. In particular he's got a splendid little story about a woman, her maid servant, a donkey and a gourd, which will make your hair stand on end (don't try that at home...)
http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/the-im...ting/

by Patriarchy + Religion = Sexual Oppression Of Women Wed Sep 24, 2008 08:12

Patriarchy + Religion = Sexual Oppression Of Women

by imcvol Wed Sep 24, 2008 08:17

Actually Nickleberry posted to the BIM list yesterday asking for someone else to moderate this thread. As he was involved in the debate he felt uncomfortable with the notion of also having to moderate it, so I jumped in.

Islam out of feminism now
Jews out of socialism now
Asians out of Britain now

All of the above statements are examples of racism. Racism is not tolerated on this site. The examples above are racist statements as they call for the exclusion of a specific group from a movement or larger social structure based on race/religion. If that is not racism I'm not quite sure what is.

Religion out of feminism now would be acceptable to me, as you are not singling out one particular religious group, which just happens to be a group which has been demonised by the right wing media in this country for the last seven years.

While many forms of Islam, such as some aspects of Sharia law are undeniably repressive towards women, your blanket condemnation of all things Islamic reads as little more than an insult to the thousands of women across the Islamic world who campaign for equal rights for women under the feminist banner.

Quite how this relates to the Bristol Feminist Network, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with any religion is utterly beyond me. The issue appears to have arisen in the comments here as part of your pet hate project and even if the posts were not hidden for racism, they are off topic and will continue to be hidden. If you wish to discuss feminism and religion in a way which is relevant to the SW and is not overtly racist you are welcome to start a thread on that issue rather than trying to hijack this one.

by woman at work Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:46

My comment about this was hidden on an article which was also hidden about this, so I will try to repeat what I wrote.

i find it disturbing that an imcvol should post such sexually oppressive patriarchical religious poetry under the guide of 'feminism'. However you decide to dress it up, the comparison of animalistic sex to having sex with animals is completely un-feminist in every sense of the word!

Comparing women who have animalistic sexual desires, as equivalent to having sex with animals is the message the poem contains, and which is unfortunately rife within islam, and no-matter how you dress up, excuse, or analytically chew the fat of this kind of patriarchical religious poetry, the message is overwhelming that of a hatred and suspicion of female sexuality.

I would be deeply disturbed if this was also hidden!

by nickleberry Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:38

@woman at work writes: i find it disturbing that an imcvol should post such sexually oppressive patriarchical religious poetry under the guide of 'feminism'. However you decide to dress it up, the comparison of animalistic sex to having sex with animals is completely un-feminist in every sense of the word!

Comparing women who have animalistic sexual desires, as equivalent to having sex with animals is the message the poem contains, and which is unfortunately rife within islam, and no-matter how you dress up, excuse, or analytically chew the fat of this kind of patriarchical religious poetry, the message is overwhelming that of a hatred and suspicion of female sexuality.

This comment is so absurd that I don't know whether I should bother rebutting it. But what the hell, here we go. The poem that I linked to does not equate women's sexual desires with having sex with animals. You should read more of Rumi's oeuvre and you would realise that you don't know what you're talking about. His poetry is full of men and women having sex with each other, and enjoying it. He has a sense of humour, perhaps this is the bit that you don't understand.

Rumi is not suspicious of female sexuality, he celebrates it. The same can be said of many Muslims. Let me say again: you are utterly mistaken if you think that Islam is a monolithic block of thought which disparages women. In fact you are not just mistaken, you are being racist. You would do well to read histories of countries like Lebanon, or Iran; in both countries, women have played a rich, prominent and assertive role in the affairs of a Muslim nation. It is all the more tragic that extremists in Iran have now reversed this situation and, in the name of Islam, are busy repressing women left, right and centre.

by woman at work Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:43

It is clear that those who run bristol indymedia have a very disturbing view of female sexuality, and a deeply condesceding and patronising view of female concerns regarding religious sexual oppression.

I will be discouraging all women i know from visiting.

Goodbye.

by Emma Wed Sep 24, 2008 13:56

The topic is supposed to be representation of women in the media. I have to say that that I am of the opinion that most of what was written should have been hidden by the moderators as off topic as what this person (jill and the other names used - perhaps people? but to me it looks like the work on one person, and I am not convinced it is a woman, the writing style makes me suspicious the name used give the incorrect gender) is hijack a topic that is very important in a frankly bizarre way.

by nickleberry Wed Sep 24, 2008 14:08

OK, folks, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have posted poetry on this thread. I think it's a way cool poem, but people aren't getting it.

Or are they? Because, @Jill, your misinterpretation seems so willful that I wonder whether you've any interest at all in a mature debate on feminism. I thought your earlier posts seemed kind of reasonable, but now we have this:

Maybe if Islam stopped dismembering women's private parts, I would have a more thorough read.

So now female genital mutilation is an essential part of Islam, is it? Well, fuck me, that'll be news to a few Muslims around the world. Are you introducing ludicrous new elements into this debate because you can't make your point reasonably? Maybe your point isn't actually very reasonable?

Let's return, as @Emma suggests, to the topic at hand: the portrayal of women in the media. Now, where were we?

by jill Wed Sep 24, 2008 14:10

Back on topic and asking how well Bristol Indymedia is doing at attracting new women into the collective?

by Tory Monarchist Wed Sep 24, 2008 14:25

Isn’t this whole thread turning into a jolly little outing?

Funnily enough, I suspect that Nickleberry and I disagree fundamentally about a lot of things… here however, I have to say I agree with his every word.

In another related piece posted earlier today (and now removed), the author seemed to be under the impression that Nickleberry was implying that “...anyone who gives into their animals passions is no different to having sex with animals!!!”(sic).

Now, I’m no great expert in Islamic literature, theology or culture… fortunately however, in this case, that isn’t really necessary. Nickleberry was simply demonstrating that, some schools of thought within the Islamic tradition have felt comfortable enough about sex to use it to illustrate stories about other, unrelated issues - something not really found in Christianity. From my (very limited) knowledge of Sufism, I understand that the stories and poems contain lessons… bearing this in mind it is quite clear that the intended lesson is not that giving into animal passions is no different to having sex with animals (though it could be interpreted by the crass as saying “if you intend to have sex with a donkey, bear in mind the size of said donkey’s member”), but rather that one should learn ones craft properly before attempting to exercise it.

As for the idea that Jacqueline Gold is any sort of feminist icon or role model for women… if I put that idea to my wife, then I’d better make sure I’m ready to duck first - my wife has quite a good left hook.

by Imcvol Wed Sep 24, 2008 16:07

'how well Bristol Indymedia is doing at attracting new women into the collective?'

Not too badly. We have had 3 new female collective members this year.

by Woman with half a brain Wed Sep 24, 2008 16:43

Some of the hysterical sloganeering, both present and removed, is just shameful and a hideous embarassment as it reflects very poorly on the mental capacity of women (and I am one, thankyou).

Unfortunately, Nickleberry, you made an understandable, but dangerous error, particularly in our secular and confused age, which was to place esoteric teachings before the ignorant. Pearls before swine.

Rumi was a Sufi sage in an era and a culture very, very different to our own:

"The general theme of Rumi's thought, like that of other mystic and Sufi poets of Persian literature, is essentially that of the concept of tawhīd – union with his beloved (the primal root) from which/whom he has been cut off and become aloof – and his longing and desire to restore it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalal_ad-Din_Muhammad_Rumi

Sufism must in no way be confused with the vulgar and puritanical Wahhabism or Salafism that is being exported all over the world, and to far too many British mosques, from Saudi Arabia, thanks to our vast consumption of fossil fuel oil and the Kingdom's consequent overweening wealth.

Indeed, Sufis have been viciously persecuted down the ages in countries where the sword of Islam (submission to Allah) holds sway. Sufism is often categorised by the more literal-minded and dogmatic as "Shirk", a form of heresy, for example in the following, for Westerners rather amusingly titled web-page:

“And finally I would like to thank the brothers who encouraged me with their precious words to carry of the Jihaad against the callers to Shirk and Sufism …”

http://www.fatwa-online.com/deviantgroups/jamaaahattabl...3.htm

More info on the struggle today, here:

http://www.sunnah.org/publication/salafi/tosos.htm

by just another woman... Wed Sep 24, 2008 16:59

what a surprise that what is quite an interesting topic should be so side-tracked by obvious bigots in an attempt to undermine a topic that is pertinent to anyone who has an interest in the media, particularly indymedia readers.

it is SO old now to slate feminists as hairy and anti-sex...these posts should have been removed for their obvious lack of anything new to say...

however, i don't think it is useful for volunteers of indymedia to post links to poems that are evidently of a peculiar/dubious view of sexual experimentation and are, like most poetry, open to interpretation...i certainly do not see the open embracing of women's sexuality that is claimed by nickberry!

by Alison Andrews Wed Sep 24, 2008 17:06

I have always suspected that the white male bim-vols running bim were out of their depth on gender issues, I'm very sad to have my suspicions confirmed by what has happened on this topic.
Its still a male dominated world, and it is a white male dominated Bristol Indymedia also.

by imcvol Wed Sep 24, 2008 17:54

Whatever you may think, accusing all muslims of supporting female circumcision is not only untrue but further evidence of racism. Bristol Indymedia does not tolerate racism so your posts are being hidden, and continuing to post racial slurs against all muslims will see your posts continue to be hidden.

I should also inform you that you are approaching the number of posts hidden for a temporary ban to be put in place.

by an ex imcvol Wed Sep 24, 2008 18:02

As a recently ex imcvol I have watched this thread, and other threads, very closely.

Conflating a feminist opposition to female circumcision with racism is simply not on.

If any other imcvol wants confirmation that I am who I appear to be, then email me.

I would suggest everyone takes a deep breath, and that imc volunteers, now remove all 'off-topic' comments which refer to the muslim faith, and not just some.

by jill Wed Sep 24, 2008 18:17

thanks ex vol. i can live with all comments about islam being hidden.

(if an imcvol calls me a racist again for opposing female genital mutilation, i'll see my solicitor!)

by Join 'em Wed Sep 24, 2008 18:39

If that is the case Alison, why not join the collective and help them understand?

Also, I third the call for the removal of all the off-topic stuff on this thread.

by Woman with half a brain Thu Sep 25, 2008 04:09

My main concern with the representation of women in the media would centre around the Superwoman concept, rather than sexuality and/or religious approaches (although these are surely valid, if carefully handled).

We are constantly propagandised into believing that women can "have it all" no matter how contradictory, free sex AND stable relationships, children AND full time demanding work, equality AND preferential positive discrimination.

Such propaganda is at bottom just media lies, promoted by privileged media luvvies for the benefit of the socio-economic system they serve, but bringing huge, untold misery to millions of women and children (not to mention men) around Britain.

The media lie about women also links in to the big media lie about life, which tells us that as humans we are entitled to exploit the Earth as much as we want, and that we can drive and fly and consume incontinently without harming the environment irreparably, or that we can all be extravagantly paid entertainers or comfortable pen-pushers without social chaos, and so on, and on.

by Tory Monarchist Thu Sep 25, 2008 06:51

Firstly, let me say that I hope other readers don’t consider this comment to be off topic - given the feelings expressed, I thought that it seemed appropriate.

One of the more interesting things about this thread is the way in which it has brought to the fore the IM collective’s policies regarding racism.

People have been accused of racism for making criticism of Islam, and of Muslims. For myself, I would not criticise all Muslims in a blanket way, however my reasons for this would not be because I believe it to be racist (though I abhor racism), but simply because I believe such blanket condemnations to be ignorant, not to mention bloody rude.

Muslims are not a race, but adherents of religion. One can renounce Islam; one cannot renounce being black, white, or of Polynesian origin. In this respect, Islam is no different to Mormonism, Christianity, Socialism, Anarchism, or indeed, Fascism.

That this is the case is clearly demonstrated by the existence of organisations such as “The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain”, or Faith Freedom International.

http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Freedom_International

The IM collective (along with many others, myself included) feel perfectly free to denigrate fascism and fascists - it doesn’t take very long perusing this site to find examples of this. Fascism is also a belief system (that need not necessarily include racist attitudes), it too can be adopted, or renounced.

What exactly are the policies of the IM collective regarding the condemnation of ideologies, which can be adopted or renounced? Whatever they are, they should clearly apply to Islam.

On the subject of racism, one of articles to be found on the Indymedia site by Tony Gosling has a comment attached (also by TG) where he refers to a “Zionist carpet design” (something he clearly feels to be dubious). Though in recent years the Mogein Dovid symbol has become associated with Zionism, it can hardly be said to be a “Zionist symbol”; its usage as a symbol of Jews and Judaism can be traced back to the early middle ages (Zionism of course did not come about until the late 19th century). To use the term “Zionist” as a substitute for “Jewish”, as was clearly done in this case could be interpreted as racist. I suspect that, under current legislation, a half-decent solicitor could make an effective case against both TG, and against the IM collective - especially given the way in which the article muddled Freemasonry, Zionism, and god knows what else together in seeking to create a generally pejorative air.

http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/25574?&condense_co...32338

If this were to occur, then it would not be the first case of an anti-Zionist being hauled before the courts for conflating Zionism and Judaism.

by imcvol Thu Sep 25, 2008 07:50

What exactly are the policies of the IM collective regarding the condemnation of ideologies, which can be adopted or renounced?

It is off-topic, but this thread has so much off topic stuff, that if we hid it all now, it would mess it up further. We have guidelines regarding some ideologies which can be adopted or renounced (fascism) but none on religions such as Islam. This is a difficult area (like the zionism/antisemitism debate) as the boundaries of the ideology can also cross into the boundaries of race. In short, it is an area we will have to discuss at a meeting. I should point out that people are welcome to join the collective, to join in these discussions and offer suggestions - the project constantly evolves as new people join and add new perspectives.

by just another woman... Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:17

why is it so much more offensive to insult muslims than women?

just thought i would ask....;>

by woman at work Thu Sep 25, 2008 23:31

I have decided to return!

After reflection, this is one of the most fascinating forums I have ever visited! Despite the bumbling way in which this thread was dropped by the volunteers, I have to say i am also impressed by the way normality seems to have returned.

Most places i visit never know when to stop flaming.

You all have!

But it's all gone a bit quiet :)

Personally I'm mostly interested in closing the wages gap, but despite the sometimes bitter tensions within feminism, we have always let each other pursue our own path within it.

by BFN Fri Sep 26, 2008 13:30

After some of the debate on here I feel compelled to state that neither BFN or the Fawcett Society are anti sex and do not seek to repress sexuality. We do not discriminate against people based on their religion, sexuality or amount of body hair.

The influence of religion on women and sexuality is a fascinating subject, but this project is looking at women in the media.

I am really interested in some of the ideas raised about how women have been sexualised by the media.

There are some conflicting ideas within feminism on this. Some believe that media portrayals of women's sexuality are positive, are driven by and for women and have encouraged women to explore sex and realise their own sexual needs. Others believe it is just another feminine role we are being told to live up to and just coerces women into having sex in a certain way.

I have heard arguments from lesbians and bi women who feel completely misrepresented by the models and actresses who pose as lesbians for heterosexual male viewing. There are others (as has been mentioned on here) who feel that such representations liberate and celebrate gay women.

It should go with out saying that there are a wide range of views and reactions to this - feminists included!

This would be an excellent topic for research. Is anyone brave enough to take it on ? :D

by Woman with half a brain Fri Sep 26, 2008 16:11

Sexualisation, BFN, is only a part of the bigger problem of commodification. Women, like everyone and everything else nowadays are portrayed in the media as mere commodities to buy and sell. Furthermore, women have been lured, cajoled and coerced, by the media amongst others, into the 'jobs market' and turned into isolated and atomised wage slaves colluding with social breakdown and the destruction of our environment.

It seems sadly ironic that a discussion about women's portrayal in the media should focus so single-mindedly on sex, when there's so many more important and urgent issues to be addressed.

by BFN Thu Oct 02, 2008 09:09

I agree, sexuality is just one aspect. I was just using it as an example as it seems to be a quite hot topic here.

We hope that the research will look at much wider issues and will welcome a range of research suggestions. For example, last year one participant looked at toys and games aimed at girls rather than boys.

by VICKY - UWE Tue Oct 07, 2008 14:37 vicky.vatcher at uwe dot ac dot uk

How about some comments about women as mothers, older women's expereince, Women as leaders, women in the role of expert? From reading this fb I would think that sexuality was the only aspect of interest to this group. We start defeated?