Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I understand the affection behind the term tart used in the context that Otta describes and wouldn't personally be offended as such. However, such terms, including 'yummy mummy' are part of the objectification of women (not necessarily sexual) in society.


I think Salia's initial comment was in observation of this rather than to say that there should be a male equivalent of the term yummy mummy. Often the male equivalents of 'tart', 'slag', 'whore' are positive phrases or at least do not have the same negative connotations as the female ones.


I am neither a Guardian reader (make what you will of that) nor an aggressive feminist.

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 45 posts in 7 years, first post is almost an

> almost archetypal BBW sock puppet post.

>

> I'm guessing sleeper account.


I don't have your highly-honed detective instincts, but thought exactly the same on seeing the original post. Seems almost calculated to wind up pretty much exactly the discussion we've ended up in....

Looking back at previous posts, s/he once had a conversation with some bloke called Keef about visual impairment mobility, and seemed to know a bit about the courses. Seemed very real back then. I don't think it's a BBW troll type of thang.


I think the OP probably stemmed from a boozy lunch and s/he thought they'd share, probably knowing it would get a few backs up.


And why not?

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The high shoes thing is supposed to be something

> to do with making our bum look higher and perkier,

> which apparently triggers the primal sex centre in

> most guys' brains.

>

> So yeh, guys, it's totally your fault!


I think you're getting confused with a bra. High heels just look silly.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And why not?


Because - just like the previous efforts, it's really lame. It's like an annoying old relative who pretends to 'magic' a coin from behind your ear every time you see them - and then congratulates themselves on their hilarity.


'Yummy Mummies and Tarts'. HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!



Piss off.

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> srisky Wrote:

> > However, such terms, including 'yummy mummy' are part of

> > the objectification of women (not necessarily sexual) in society.

>

> What do you mean?


It's rather nonsensical, isn't it? As I said before, 'yummy mummy' was coined by the women themselves.


No doubt forced by the 'patriarchy' to objectify themselves...

Not sure how you have got yourself worked up over this. At no point did I say that it was only the fault of men, just because someone states a phrase is sexist against women doesn't mean that they are anti-men and of course feminism is/ought to be about equality.


ETA: objectification of women is seen throughout the English language, it's not a new concept.

srisky Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not sure how you have got yourself worked up over this. At no point did I say that it was only the

> fault of men, just because someone states a phrase is sexist against women doesn't mean that they are

> anti-men and of course feminism is/ought to be about equality.

>

> ETA: objectification of women is seen throughout the English language, it's not a new concept.


But surely you can see that, if a group of people creates a term that objectifies themselves, then surely the blame for this lies squarely with them and them only?

If that's the case, then yes, I agree. Perhaps, as with 'tart', it was originally meant to be a positive turn of phrase, however, it does nothing more than reduce a women to an object or values her by her looks. The coinage and usage of sexist phrases is not just the fault of men but I don't think Salia or Simonethebeaver were suggesting to the contrary.


Alan Medic - apologies for the curt initial response. By objectification I mean (and perhaps I am using a term that is almost two decades out of date) subject is typically male dominated and object is female in the English language: mankind, man's quest, evolution of man, chairman, manpower etc, whereas cars, ships and things of ownership are often referred in the female form. Female terms are often derivatives of male e.g. actor and actress or those that are common to both are frequently assumed to be male first e.g. engineer. Female terms are often subordinate to male.


I'm no expert (as you can probably tell) and I am dragging things from my memory from days of GCSE English.


It probably doesn't bother me as much as it should, it's all very insidious and entrenched in our language but lazy, thinly-veiled phrases such as yummy mummy and MILF get my goat.

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > And why not?

>

> Because - just like the previous efforts, it's

> really lame. It's like an annoying old relative

> who pretends to 'magic' a coin from behind your

> ear every time you see them - and then

> congratulates themselves on their hilarity.

>

> 'Yummy Mummies and Tarts'. HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

>

>

>

> Piss off.



I agree with you, just not sure this person is ine of them.

In my opinion, objectification of men is fairly common, but women don't generally have the economic power to call the shots in the way men do and are raised to be pleasers rather than demanders.


Massive generalisations, but I am just trying to say that it's not the objectfication that's the problem, per se, but the lack of power of the majority of women versus men that is the problem. Plus the barbie/pink pony/princess/disney crap that girls get shoved down their throat from birth.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> srisky Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Not sure how you have got yourself worked up

> over this. At no point did I say that it was only

> the

> > fault of men, just because someone states a

> phrase is sexist against women doesn't mean that

> they are

> > anti-men and of course feminism is/ought to be

> about equality.

> >

> > ETA: objectification of women is seen throughout

> the English language, it's not a new concept.

>

> But surely you can see that, if a group of people

> creates a term that objectifies themselves, then

> surely the blame for this lies squarely with them

> and them only?


Not really. According to the politics of oppression, if you can get a group to police themselves you can sit back and enjoy the pay-offs, rewarding them for compliance and if they complain blaming them for oppressing themselves.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:


> > But surely you can see that, if a group of people creates a term that objectifies themselves, then

> > surely the blame for this lies squarely with them and them only?

>

> Not really. According to the politics of oppression, if you can get a group to police

> themselves you can sit back and enjoy the pay-offs, rewarding them for compliance and if

> they complain blaming them for oppressing themselves.


Yeah, now that is the sort of argument the Gruin writers employ that a) really annoys me and b) infantilises women. It implies women cannot take responsibility for their own actions because, when women do something bad, it is still that big ol' patriarchy's fault.


Besides, whilst sex discrimination is still alive and well in the UK, saying that UK women as a group are still 'oppressed' is pretty damn offensive to the oppressed peoples of the world. This is especially ludicrous when you consider that, as a group, the YMs are generally the more privileged in society.

> Yeah, now that is the sort of argument the Gruin

> writers employ that really annoys me and b)

> infantilises women. It implies women cannot take

> responsibility for their own actions because, when

> women do something bad, it is still that big ol'

> patriarchy's fault.

>

I was making a more general point - you could apply it to other groups for which a prevailing ideology sets an apparently definitive characteristic.


Ain't no such thing as patriarchy, by the way. It's just an abstract noun that refers to all the stuff men do to protect their own interests.

northlondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> simonethebeaver Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Absolutely. Why is this offensive rubbish still

> > here?

>

>

> Simon the beaver . On THIS thread? Priceless.


Simone the beaver...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I never said I thought it was targeted or deliberate. There also has never been a “stand off” or confrontation, we’ve spoken to them in a friendly manner about it. Our experience is they don’t seem to care. That’s the frustrating thing for us, if someone politely raises a concern at least take a second to reflect. Treat others how you would want to be treated.  I don’t want them to lose their job, far from it. But considering it could cost me a days work to fix any damage, I’m within my right to try prevent it.   
    • The SE22 Evri delivery family are lovely, and always say hello wherever we spot them in the area. We gave them a box of chocolates during Covid as they were working their socks off at Christmas
    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...