« Jan Brewer is the new Katherine Harris: on the Arizona bill and the GOP's newest voter disenfranchisement effort | Main | What is this Freedom of which you Speak? »

April 27, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I'm always fascinated by artists who can transcend traditional Western mores and draw upon (often literally!) the female nude body as media. Vanessa Beecroft is one such artist, staging what I'd call performance art using women as symbols. Badu's video was incredibly effective, both politically and artistically, and I was disheartened--but not surprised--to see so much criticism aimed at her.

As Sinéad O'Connor has said of her own performance art, specifically the tearing-up of the pope's photograph after singing an a capella version of Bob Marley's War: it is the artist's job to provoke, to push boundaries, to inspire discussion.

That so many seemingly grown-up folks cling to a rather juvenile and Puritanical view of the body human is a sad statement on our education system, I think. MOAR ART CLASSES IN OUR HIGH SCHOOLS, PLS!

Sir Charles

A couple of thoughts:

I really dislike the puritanical strain of feminism.

Sometimes sexuality can be subversive -- not simply a tool for selling shit.

I think it is possible to be a feminist man and believe fully and deeply in the equality of women -- and yet still enjoy looking at them scantily clad.


I think it is possible to be a feminist man and believe fully and deeply in the equality of women -- and yet still enjoy looking at them scantily clad.

Well, the obvious question is . . . do they really need to be clad, even scantily, to preserve the belief in equality?


I think expecting either sex to not enjoy looking at the other (or the same) in various states of dress or undress is just expecting too much of humanity.

low-tech cyclist

I won't say that people shouldn't take into account how other people will react when deciding what to do.

But if one gives excessive weight to the reactions of people whose opinions one doesn't particularly value, then one is handing a veto over one's actions to the wrong people.

It seems that the reaction of some feminists to 'boobquake' was up that alley: because some guys were gonna drool over the women involved in the protest, and would holler "show us your tits" and the like, the women shouldn't have protested in this manner.

That's ridiculous - letting a bunch of jerks dictate what you should do is the exact opposite of empowerment.

We might call this approach to life the "Dubya fallacy" because he continually was saying we shouldn't do X, Y, or Z because it would give the terrorists an emotional boost.

It was stupid for Dubya to indicate that he was letting his options be constrained by the terrorists' feelings. (Even if he was merely using that as an excuse to avoid doing things he didn't want to do anyway.) And it's stupid for some feminists to advocate letting a bunch of boors limit women's choices.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment