Yummy mummy vs tart

[srisky]

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]

45 posts in 7 years, first post is almost an almost archetypal BBW sock puppet post.

I'm guessing sleeper account.

[*Bob*]

Perhaps, Pibe.

Conclusion still stands.

[????]

Apostrophe used to be a giveaway for BBW

[Alan Medic]

srisky Wrote:

However,

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

> the objectification of women (not necessarily

> sexual) in society.

What do you mean?

[Siduhe]

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....

[Otta]

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?

[Alan Medic]

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.

[*Bob*]

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.

[steveo]

How do they do that coin thing?

My grandfather would do it but keep the coin

[Loz]

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...

[srisky]

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.

[Alan Medic]

It's a new concept to me. Women being seen as objects as opposed to wives, girlfriends, daughters, mothers or friends. What are they then?

[Loz]

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?

[srisky]

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.

[Otta]

*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.

[steveo]

There is a post about yummy Tarte Flamb?e in the French thread on General ED

They may be tarts but I'm not sure we should set fire to them

[srisky]

oh yeah, my kind of tart, thanks for the tip off...

[LadyDeliah]

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.

[Robert Poste's Child]

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.

[Loz]

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.

[PokerTime]

I always had the impression that yummy mummy was more of a class thing than a gender issue. I've heard many women use the term to describe women of a different class to themselves.

[Robert Poste's Child]

> 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]

simonethebeaver Wrote:

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

> Absolutely. Why is this offensive rubbish still

> here?

Simon the beaver . On THIS thread? Priceless.

[Horsebox]

northlondoner Wrote:

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

> simonethebeaver Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Absolutely. Why is this offensive rubbish still

> > here?

>

>

> Simon the beaver . On THIS thread? Priceless.

Simone the beaver...