Following on from 'Life to be Banned' - I was fortunate enough to find the Blog of the lady involved in the BBC's earnest 'Breakfast' discussion on the awfulness of 'Lads Mags' yesterday.*
Her latest post is a about sexist jokes in the (of course) male-dominated comedy industry. However, her mention of her BBC performance of course resulted in the thread being hijacked by commenters about Lads Mags.
So for grins and giggles, today I will mostly be taunting feminists. I have posted the below comment on the worthy lady's article, and am eagerly awaiting her response. . .
For what it's worth, I'm not sure the act of appearing on a news discussion automatically confers the right to respect for your views. If it did, I'd have to be respectful to our Government.
However, what I take issue with somewhat more is the idea that something should be banned, simply because some people find it disagreeable.
I, for example, find Eastenders disagreeable in tone and content - in fact it frequently disgusts me. However, while I don't like the program it should not be banned simply because it provokes distaste.
While I also disagree with you that magazines such as 'Nuts' and 'Zoo' are pornography (they do aim for a particularly moronic demographic, but that's not the same as being porn), it's the principle of banning something because it offends a minority that is most offensive.
'Womens Interest' magazines are frequently castigated for instilling in young women a skewed sense of body image - perhaps they should be banned as well?
As a feminist, I'm sure you are incensed by religions that place women subordinate to men. Should we ban the Qu'uran?
Perhaps we should just ban EVERYTHING. That way none of us would ever be offended again.
However, the BBC debate was an interesting discussion (if pointless compared to real news events happening around the Globe), and I thank you for having the courage to stand up and make your point, even if I disagree with it.
Regards
D
*Hat-tip to Obnoxio for the link to Ms Smurthwaite.
A small update on this, as a thought has just occurred to me. If scantily-clad persons are pornography and thus should be banned, shouldn't we ban the WI Calendar?
Or, alternatively, the Dublin Fire Brigade Calendar?
Just asking....
I received a (reasonably) polite and thoughtful response from Cruella to my post. I have reproduced it, in full, in the comments, and would thank her for responding in the same tone to me.
Her latest post is a about sexist jokes in the (of course) male-dominated comedy industry. However, her mention of her BBC performance of course resulted in the thread being hijacked by commenters about Lads Mags.
So for grins and giggles, today I will mostly be taunting feminists. I have posted the below comment on the worthy lady's article, and am eagerly awaiting her response. . .
*****
For what it's worth, I'm not sure the act of appearing on a news discussion automatically confers the right to respect for your views. If it did, I'd have to be respectful to our Government.
However, what I take issue with somewhat more is the idea that something should be banned, simply because some people find it disagreeable.
I, for example, find Eastenders disagreeable in tone and content - in fact it frequently disgusts me. However, while I don't like the program it should not be banned simply because it provokes distaste.
While I also disagree with you that magazines such as 'Nuts' and 'Zoo' are pornography (they do aim for a particularly moronic demographic, but that's not the same as being porn), it's the principle of banning something because it offends a minority that is most offensive.
'Womens Interest' magazines are frequently castigated for instilling in young women a skewed sense of body image - perhaps they should be banned as well?
As a feminist, I'm sure you are incensed by religions that place women subordinate to men. Should we ban the Qu'uran?
Perhaps we should just ban EVERYTHING. That way none of us would ever be offended again.
However, the BBC debate was an interesting discussion (if pointless compared to real news events happening around the Globe), and I thank you for having the courage to stand up and make your point, even if I disagree with it.
Regards
D
*Hat-tip to Obnoxio for the link to Ms Smurthwaite.
UPDATE
A small update on this, as a thought has just occurred to me. If scantily-clad persons are pornography and thus should be banned, shouldn't we ban the WI Calendar?
Or, alternatively, the Dublin Fire Brigade Calendar?Just asking....UPDATED AGAIN!
I received a (reasonably) polite and thoughtful response from Cruella to my post. I have reproduced it, in full, in the comments, and would thank her for responding in the same tone to me.
4 comments:
There is a Paulo Coelho line something to the effect that I want to annoy neighbours and I want to placate my neighbours.
*Applauds* you should have linked her to your blog post. ;o)
I am so anti censorship just because it offends a few people, it brings out the rebel in me.
Well written young Sir!
If everything that offended anybody was revoked or banned, there wouldn't be any TV broadcasts or magazines on the shelves. We all have the 'choice' of watching/reading what we desire. Personally those who choose to do so on a subject that offends myself, well, each to their own is what I say. Variety is the spice of life and it takes all sorts to make the world go round!
Shelley x
This is reproduced from Cruella's site - my thanks to her for responding (reasonably) politely.
D
*****
Cruella said...
Wow, seems like my point about male privilege has hit a nerve, huh? Seems like some people don't like it when a woman does want to be told to shut up and sit down.
Lets take it slowly...
MrAngryman: where did I say I wanted to avoid seeming like a "typical lesbo feminist". I live in a world where neither lesbian nor feminist is an insult so I don't mind at all if that's what I sound like.
btscl: you misunderstand, it is not the prescence of breasts which offends me in these magazines - it is the belittling and objectifying way they are shown and the attitude towards women and relationships which goes along with them.
i find it hilarious that you seem to think teenage boys need these magazines to help them masturbate. i don't really believe teenage boys need help masturbating. i think they can cope on their own.
jokes are not "just jokes". no-one tells racist jokes any more. with good reason. sexist jokes promote prejudice against women. and i hardly think you're going to find female comics you enjoy while you carry round attitudes like that.
obnoxio: i don't regard awards this blog has won as "validation", my point was that the guy sending me unsolicited advice didn't seem to have any reason for supposing i wanted that advice.
you don't seem to have offered any reasons for disagreeing with me though aside from that you find me unattractive. which is good because you don't sound like my type either.
rachel: yes exactly, amazing how mad it makes them when their male privilege is confronted huh?
dungeekin: i didn't say that because i was on tv my opinions should be respected. i said that i didn't want unsolicited advice on how to present myself on tv from someone with no experience of doing so.
you also obviously didn't listen to the tv piece. i didn't say that lad mags should be banned because a minority finds the disagreeable. that's absolutely nothing to do with the arguments i used so you are just burning a straw man here.
hedgewytch: your point seems to be "shut up, sit down"...? to which: no.
alice: yes. exactly.
dungeekin (again): like i said you're defending something i didn't say so you're just arguing with yourself here. i find it hilarious after, for instance, obnoxio has described me as a "boot-faced harridan" you then suggest that alice is making ad-hominen attacks when she says you might be friends with a bloke called derek..!
and how hilarious that after not seeing the tv thing or reading my post you then don't know who derek is - despite the fact that i explain exactly who he is in my post and he was sat next to me on tv...
lizsara: i don't think you watched me on tv. i didn't refuse to listen to the guys points - i refused to continue listening when it became clear that he was talking rubbish and trying to prevent me having my say. seems like you are just the next person who wants to give me debating advice without first watching the debate.
i also did not liken lad mags to child porn. i made a point about how his argument was invalid and i used child pornography as an example to show how how obvious the holes in his argument were. if you had seen it, you would know.
now as i've explained i don't mind getting unsolicited facebook comments, i found this one offensive. what next? if you don't want to be mugged, don't go out of the house? i'm not going to mis-trust everyone because there are a few idiots out there.
and then you go on to ask why i want all male-centred publications banned. and i haven't said that so you are arguing with yourself here.
your point about you'd rather see sexist jokes in print than pictures of super-skinny models. when did we have to choose? can't we fight sexism everywhere? if super-skinny models offend you i think you'll achieve more by writing to the magazines that publish them than by criticising me for even being involved in a different but related battle.
and i think there's a very clear line between comedy that doesn't do much for me and comedy that offends me. it's not that i find sexist, racist, dis-ablist and homophobic jokes insufficiently funny, it's that i think they shouldn't be told because they promote those attitudes in society.
4:10 PM
Post a Comment