|
|
Post by ukbushgirl on Jan 30, 2004 17:01:08 GMT -5
Penis envy is defined in a book I have read as an intro to Freud as 'the time when a small girl realises she has no penis and feels castrated'. OK- this might be a little too sexual to be true but why do feminists disagree with it? Surely they should be living examples of it. Eg: Burning bras. There is no practicality in this it is separating the difference (breasts) between men and women. I fail to see how not wanting to have womanly features is not the same as wanting to have masculine ones  Anyway what do others think? |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jan 30, 2004 17:08:30 GMT -5
 I have pianist envy. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Angmar on Jan 30, 2004 19:20:01 GMT -5
Lol.
It seems that many people have far too much trouble in accepting their appearance. I can't understand why a women would want to replicate a male appearance--and as for bras, if you dislike them, don't buyor wear them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ukbushgirl on Jan 31, 2004 8:45:49 GMT -5
Hopefully you're a guy who was making a joke- bras are needed (unless you have a very flat chest) for practical reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angmar on Jan 31, 2004 21:13:36 GMT -5
I'm well aware, but some feminazis believe bras are something the cruel males have forced upon them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ukbushgirl on Feb 1, 2004 12:40:37 GMT -5
I was trying to say how wrong that was. Unless they want to be men with no chest bras are as necessary as knickers or maybe more so since they do a practical, not just a sociological, job.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angmar on Feb 1, 2004 19:44:50 GMT -5
And I would have to agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peanut on Feb 3, 2004 23:16:45 GMT -5
ukbushgirl - again this isn't my belief, but this is the reason as to why bras were burned - because of their purpose and i dont mean cuz they support "the ladies".
Bra's are created why? to uplift the breasts and prevent them from juggling around everytime you run or jog or dance or whatever. But also, look at women who have never worn bras in their lives (say women who have lived in tribes in africa). Their breasts, espcially after childbirth, sag, a hell of a lot. This "look" is seen as attractive in western civilization, more importantly by men, who designed the first bras ever used.
So it's more the statement made when the bra is burned, it really isn't "i dont want breasts" but more like "i have breasts, but that's not ALL i have" - that kind of mentality.
The following message does not support the ideas or beliefs of one, Peanut. It was just a little history lesson ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by ukbushgirl on Feb 4, 2004 14:12:04 GMT -5
If they wanted to burn bras they should have burned the ones that were used by men to create a sexual image eg filthy bras (can't give any examples since I'm not up on underwear worn by the likes of porno stars). I'd support that- in the same way as I'd support burning of pouches (all they actually do is hide a penis) by guys. I mean that stuff needs to be stopped but it's got nothing to do with sex ie gender just obsession with intercourse.
You're good because you agree with me but can see the oppositions opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ted on Feb 4, 2004 21:04:38 GMT -5
ukbushgirl - again this isn't my belief, but this is the reason as to why bras were burned - because of their purpose and i dont mean cuz they support "the ladies". Bra's are created why? to uplift the breasts and prevent them from juggling around everytime you run or jog or dance or whatever. But also, look at women who have never worn bras in their lives (say women who have lived in tribes in africa). Their breasts, espcially after childbirth, sag, a hell of a lot. This "look" is seen as attractive in western civilization, more importantly by men, who designed the first bras ever used. So it's more the statement made when the bra is burned, it really isn't "i dont want breasts" but more like "i have breasts, but that's not ALL i have" - that kind of mentality. The following message does not support the ideas or beliefs of one, Peanut. It was just a little history lesson ;D \ That is a good point, but I don't think that western civilization is necessarily obssessed with this look; the thing more in vogue today (or so it would seem in the media) is the "push up" look (e.g., pam anderson). |
|
|
|
Post by ukbushgirl on Feb 7, 2004 16:14:51 GMT -5
Maybe it was the start of the anti-purity attitudes feminists have grown to have (ie making people aware of their bust- how that is feminist I don't know  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Peanut on Feb 8, 2004 21:31:05 GMT -5
- but all bra's are meant as support. so then why do you even have bras that cup your breasts? wouldn't the most comfortable thing be one long holder? but that wouldn't look "good".
your bra is designed in such a way that it accentuates your breasts, which isn't a bad thing or a sexist thing, it's just bad when that's the only thing men notice about a woman - which is why they were burned, because that's what men wanted to know (ie. women wouldn't be hired for a job, if they didn't wear a bra for example, sounds absurd, but it happened)
- well when men point it out, women dont want to be see has just a walkin pair of boobs. so it's a way of de-chastising it - "hey i got boobs, big deal" that sorta thing
again this can be taken too far and when it is, it's just ridiculous
|
|
|
|
Post by Amelia on Apr 4, 2004 0:32:08 GMT -5
burning bras wasn't a literal rejection of breasts, it was a rejection of constructed femininity.
-LIBERAL GIRL
|
|
|
|
Post by Favre on Apr 4, 2004 17:55:35 GMT -5
burning bras wasn't a literal rejection of breasts, it was a rejection of constructed femininity. -LIBERAL GIRL What the hell is that supposed to mean? More importantly why was I not consulted on the construction in question? |
|
|
|
Post by RC364 on Jul 28, 2004 20:29:16 GMT -5
"I'm well aware, but some feminazis believe bras are something the cruel males have forced upon them. "
I have always believed this to be true!
|
|
Anyway what do others think?
)