I need feminism because...

Scarinae

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Oh god I actually came here to post about that. What the everloving fack?! And UGH the comments!!

Generally, I agree. One of the comments cracked me up though:

Wow, these are great ideas. Maybe, on the next date, I'll drop my wallet down a storm drain and burst into tears. Or just crash my car into a building and set it on fire. Anything to practice my vulnerable, "feminine wiles"!

WarOnDrugs78

"Quote:
Wow, these are great ideas. Maybe, on the next date, I'll drop my wallet down a storm drain and burst into tears. Or just crash my car into a building and set it on fire. Anything to practice my vulnerable, "feminine wiles"!"

And yet the person who wrote this comment reads the relationship advice in the Irish Times and went to trouble of setting up an account with irishtimes.com in order to share their knee-jerk, lacerating cynicism with the world. What does that tell you about them? It's a lot easier to be sarcastic than it is to offer useful advice. At least Ms Holmquist is trying to be constructive. Strong, independent woman vs. needy, clingy desperado is a false dichotomy. There is a middle ground.

Morag

Because over a thousand women have had to use https://www.abortionsupport.org.uk/get-help/ in the last 12 months to get help, information and small grants to be able to travel to the uk for health care we should have here.

paperclip2

Did anyone see Kirsty Warks documentary 'Blurred Lines' last night. I thought it was really good, found myself nodding in agreement to a lot of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0436qlw

Article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/10817886/Blurred-Lines-the-New-Battle-of-the-Sexes-BBC-Two-review.html

And to answer the OP statement, when my 18 year old daughter gets felt up on the LUAS; When she's followed for an hour through Temple Bar and into Starbucks by two men who then spend 20 minutes staring at her without ordering anything; When three thirtysomething men start taking pictures of her and her friend and making comments about her 'nice & perky' breasts, when she feels so threatened walking through Dublin that she now makes sure she carries one of these every time she leaves her flat:



Well these are just some of the reasons why I think Feminism is a pretty good idea.

ivytwine

paperclip2 wrote: »

Did anyone see Kirsty Warks documentary 'Blurred Lines' last night. I thought it was really good, found myself nodding in agreement to a lot of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0436qlw

Article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/10817886/Blurred-Lines-the-New-Battle-of-the-Sexes-BBC-Two-review.html

And to answer the OP statement, when my 18 year old daughter gets felt up on the LUAS; When she's followed for an hour through Temple Bar and into Starbucks by two men who then spend 20 minutes staring at her without ordering anything; When three thirtysomething men start taking pictures of her and her friend and making comments about her 'nice & perky' breasts, when she feels so threatened walking through Dublin that she now makes sure she carries one of these every time she leaves her flat:



Well these are just some of the reasons why I think Feminism is a pretty good idea.

****ing hell- this is happening to an 18 year old? I've experienced some street harrassment (in Dublin as well) but nothing on that scale.

:mad::mad::mad:

Your poor daughter.

paperclip2

Thanks. She had a bad run of it lately. And these are just the worst episodes of it, she only told me because they really upset her. There's other 'lesser' sexist stuff that she hadn't mentioned until we had the chat about the above.

It kills me to say this because it shouldn't matter but she doesn't wear 'provocative' clothes (unless docs, jeans and lumberjack shirts float ones boat) nor does she act in any way that these gobs***es could interpret as flirty or enticing.

I wish we lived in a time when I didn't have to do it but as her mam I do keep harping on about not walking home alone, not drinking too much, be aware of her surroundings, all the stay safe stuff. Its worrying.

ivytwine

paperclip2 wrote: »

Thanks. She had a bad run of it lately. And these are just the worst episodes of it, she only told me because they really upset her. There's other 'lesser' sexist stuff that she hadn't mentioned until we had the chat about the above.

It kills me to say this because it shouldn't matter but she doesn't wear 'provocative' clothes (unless docs, jeans and lumberjack shirts float ones boat) nor does she act in any way that these gobs***es could interpret as flirty or enticing.

I wish we lived in a time when I didn't have to do it but as her mam I do keep harping on about not walking home alone, not drinking too much, be aware of her surroundings, all the stay safe stuff. Its worrying.

It doesn't matter a damn what you're wearing, it's happened to me while wearing winter coats and jeans. These arseholes are just arseholes regardless.

Just remembered something from the other week. Walking to the bus from work on a lovely spring evening and decided to divert over a small bridge nearby, there was an oul fella watching the river and another woman in her late thirties ahead of me. The woman was tapping away on her phone.

Anyway the ould fella started roaring at the other woman, saying "Do you make love that yoke, do ya?! Do you take it to bed with ya?" (meaning the phone) and when she ignored him he said "Ah you're not talking to me at all".

See... This is probably not sexism or catcalling in the traditional sense, but I would bet my toes that he wouldn't have done it to a younger man- presumably because he would be afraid of a physical reaction.

Whereas I think there is very little consequence for these guys doing it to a young woman- it's happened less to me as I got older but when I was a very young teen, I'm talking like 14, it used to happen to me all the time. We condition girls to be nice and polite but we should be telling them that it's ok to tell someone **** off and kick up a fuss if necessary. Do no harm- but take no ****.

I posted in Cries of Retail about my experience working in a bookies and the harrassment I got there. I will say the younger guys were infinitely better than the older ones- but the fact that anyone would go into a place of business and think it's ok to touch a member of staff in a sexual manner speaks volumes about why this is not over.

Neyite

ivytwine wrote: »

We condition girls to be nice and polite but we should be telling them that it's ok to tell someone **** off and kick up a fuss if necessary. Do no harm- but take no ****.

This.

I wish my parent had told me this as a young teen. I wish I had known it was ok to say that when I got felt up by a distant relative of my dad when I was 16. Or when my best friend's father propositioned me in a sexual way when I was 17.

I'm already teaching my toddler its ok if he doesnt want to kiss anyone or sit on anyones knee (including me and his dad!) that its his personal space and its to be respected. He is two. If it gives him the skills I didnt have at age 4 when I was sexually assaulted by an elderly relative to tell someone to fcuk off and run away screaming loudly I'll be happy to call myself a decent mother.

Morag

http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2014-05-10-simple-words-every-girl-learn/

As girls we are conditioned to let people speak over us, or repeat what we said as thier own idea and not to cause a fuss.

SarahBeep!

I saw this and thought of here straight away



I have drawers upon drawers full of make up, cosmetics, face stuff...when really I don't need it. But I do understand that these things can make you feel better about yourself before walking out the door, which I wish wasn't the case.

YumCha

(Trigger warnings for rape, sexual violence and assault)

This is one of the most shocking things I've read/seen in a long time.... a legal loophole which prevented non-Native men being persecuted for crimes committed on the reservation, resulting in non-Native sexual predators being attracted to tribal areas:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/opinion/native-americans-and-the-violence-against-women-act.html?_r=0

The loophole has only recently been closed (but partially):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-law-offers-a-sliver-of-protection-to-abused-native-american-women/2014/02/08/0466d1ae-8f73-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html

Documentary:

iwantmydinner

I haven't watched it yet but oh Christ, that sounds horrific.

It also sounds an "accidental-on-purpose" loophole...

iwantmydinner

So, clearly, this is on the lower end of the scale... But apparently a make-up mishap is front-page news - today's Irish Independent actually put this on their front page. It's so ridiculous it makes my teeth hurt.

Scarinae

Jill Abramson has been fired from her job as the executive editor of the New York Times. It is being widely reported that part of the reason is that she had discovered she was being paid less than her predecessor, and queried it

Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs. “She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect.

meeeeh

Full article paints a bit more complex picture. It would be interesting to know what pay packet of a new editor will be and without that you really can't make a judgement.

Btw considering the situation print media is in currently I would be not surprised if the owners are trying to decrease wage bill in general.

iwantmydinner

Scarinae wrote: »

Jill Abramson has been fired from her job as the executive editor of the New York Times. It is being widely reported that part of the reason is that she had discovered she was being paid less than her predecessor, and queried it

Oh. My. God.

If that turns out to be the actual reason, I will PUKE

Amirani

I think Alison Flood makes some valid points here: http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2014/may/16/women-fiction-sign-sexist-book-industry

It's maybe not a big issue, but it's worthy of attention. Why does "Women's Fiction" exist but not "Men's Fiction"? Why also is there a "Bailey's Women's Prize for Fiction" and no corresponding prize for men? Does this further the sexist view that literature written by women is niche, and somewhat removed from the mainstream literature awards?

Morag

Because some people think Scifi is a all boys club and women are ruining it, ignoring that that first ever sci fi book
Frankenstein monster was written by a woman. http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/09/the-war-on-science-fiction-and-marvin-minsky/ There are less scifi authors who happens to be women now then there were in the 60s and 70s but apparently we are destroying it.

GalwayGuy2

Here's the original blog post.

http://joannechocolat.tumblr.com/post/84707533631/capitalize-this

Tigger99

This is a fantastic response to Sarah Millican being criticised for what she looked like at the baftas. http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-05-15/sarah-millican-twitter-was-a-pin-to-my-excitable-bafta-balloon

fits

Tigger99 wrote: »

This is a fantastic response to Sarah Millican being criticised for what she looked like at the baftas. http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-05-15/sarah-millican-twitter-was-a-pin-to-my-excitable-bafta-balloon

My blood is boiling after reading that.people need to cop the fcuk on.
!

Tigger99

It really made me think about about how critical I am about my own appearance. Very thought provoking.

Legs.Eleven

Tigger99 wrote: »

This is a fantastic response to Sarah Millican being criticised for what she looked like at the baftas. http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-05-15/sarah-millican-twitter-was-a-pin-to-my-excitable-bafta-balloon

That´s upsetting to read. You sometimes have this idea that celebrities are immune to all these "human feelings" because you presume they must be brimming with confidence to do what they´re doing. I´ve a female friend who´s a comedian also and has got ripped apart on the internet over her appearance and it´s upsetting to see the repercussions in real life and it how it actually impacts the person. I don´t think any male comedian would get such harsh treatment over what they wear and in fact, it´d be expected that they wouldn´t be such slaves to their appearance in a profession like that (and also praised for being quirky or whatever). Not for women though. Women are expected to look "attractive and alluring" all the time and dressing for comfort or simpy dressing in what you like to wear is not seen in a positive light.


I´m sorry it had such an effect on her and if she was less human(as we presume celebrities to be), she might´ve given two fingers to the naysayers but that article is exactly what I would have written in her shoes expressing exactly how I would´ve felt. Hopefully it makes some people reconsider the things they write on the internet and the judgements they make on the appearance of others.

eviltwin

Tigger99 wrote: »

This is a fantastic response to Sarah Millican being criticised for what she looked like at the baftas. http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-05-15/sarah-millican-twitter-was-a-pin-to-my-excitable-bafta-balloon

It's quite depressing to think that after any awards ceremony men are celebrated for their work while women are celebrated only for wearing a nice frock.

Ambersky

I need feminism because the stories of harassment and sexual assault of women in the Travelling as a solo female thread seem so common and ordinary.

RDM_83 again

Morag wrote: »

Because some people think Scifi is a all boys club and women are ruining it, ignoring that that first ever sci fi book
Frankenstein monster was written by a woman. http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/09/the-war-on-science-fiction-and-marvin-minsky/

Thats such a stupid article and it appears to be written by somebody that is either not very knowledgeable about Science Fiction or a fan of the 50/60's pulp Sci-Fi.
For example he rants about Dr.Who having an Omnisexual character, Heinlein who isn't exactly renowned for being 'on message' had alternative partnerships in some of his writings, Haldeman's sequels to the Forever War flips society with the future being exclusively homosexual with the main protagonists feeling excluded because of their heterosexuality.
He seems to be mixing up having a problem with 'dumbing down' or writing in badly realized characters to cynically boost audiences numbers with more diversity in the Sci-Fi community.

Morag wrote: »

There are less scifi authors who happens to be women now then there were in the 60s and 70s but apparently we are destroying it.

Is that actually true though, is there a source for that?
Like I just grabbed from my bookshelf two yearly Sci-Fi anthologies I buy most years. In 2010 9 of the 30 stories were from woman writers, in 2012 there was 10 out of 30.
Now I know this is a very off the cuff analysis just from one publication and the figure is considerably less than a 50/50 split but I really doubt a publication taking most of the best short sci-fi published in two random years in the 60's or 70's would have a better ratio, I think Ursala K.Le Guin and a few others like Kate Wilhelm and Joanna Russ publishing some fantastic and successful novels in that period probably creates a false impression of diversity.

Apologies for way too much sci-fi info

Morag

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Apologies for way too much sci-fi info

No need to I really enjoyed it

YumCha

Can't make heads or tails of this, but I think it's a competition for a bunch of men to judge you (solely on your personality of course) by stripping you of your name and making you walk in a bikini in a closed room in front of Ryan Tubridy?!?!

http://www.rte.ie/2fm/tubridy/generic/2014/0516/617813-2fm-miss-personality/

Frito

YumCha wrote: »

making you walk in a bikini in a closed room

It's really important to be in swimwear because your waist-hip ratio is directly proportional to your enthusiasm for world peace*

That link is a bit confusing, but I think there are two competitions - the 2fm personality one which guarantees winner entry to Miss Ireland semi-final, where the swimwear is whipped out.





*I definitely have a source for this, really.

eviltwin

YumCha wrote: »

Can't make heads or tails of this, but I think it's a competition for a bunch of men to judge you (solely on your personality of course) by stripping you of your name and making you walk in a bikini in a closed room in front of Ryan Tubridy?!?!

http://www.rte.ie/2fm/tubridy/generic/2014/0516/617813-2fm-miss-personality/

I'm a bit confused by this. Tubs is finding a Miss Personality and it doesn't matter what you look like. Grand. But then she will be in the Miss World final where what you look like is important Which kinda defeats the purpose of the original selection on the basis of personality.

SarahBeep!

Not to divert from the serious tones of the thread, but this did put a smile on my face. The feminist Frank meme!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/19/feminist-frank-meme_n_5352537.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

iwantmydinner

Having seen two big-budget Hollywood blockbuster movies recently, in which both female "leads" were whiney, clingy, annoying and dependent upon their men, I am seriously depressed.

In the new Spider-Man,

I was actually glad that Emma Stone's character died in the end, she was so annoying.

In Godzilla, I genuinely felt more of an emotional connection to Godzilla than I did to Elizabeth Olsen's character.

I know there are excellent female actors doing excellent work portraying complex, well-written characters in other genres. Why, for the love of god, can we not have this in the main Hollywood money-makers? Is the cack I've described above really the best we can hope for from the major studios?

Edit: thanks Whoops - my bad!

Dolbert

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I know there are excellent female actors doing excellent work portraying complex, well-written characters in other genres. Why, for the love of god, can we not have this in the main Hollywood money-makers? Is the cack I've described above really the best we can hope for from the major studios?

I think the problem is that there aren't enough female writers in television/film, so female characters often come out stilted, shrill and not quite has human as the male characters (or occasionally the giant lizards)

iwantmydinner

Dolbert wrote: »

I think the problem is that there aren't enough female writers in television/film, so female characters often come out stilted, shrill and not quite has human as the male characters (or occasionally the giant lizards)

I think you must be right about that. There seems (from my relatively uneducated viewpoint) to be far more female writers in TV and we get the likes of Claire Underwood, Alicia Florrick and many other great characters in that sphere.

Carlos Orange

Dolbert wrote: »

I think the problem is that there aren't enough female writers in television/film, so female characters often come out stilted, shrill and not quite has human as the male characters (or occasionally the giant lizards)

Maybe that is a problem but I don't think Godzilla reaches the heights where it would even apply. The only female character that provides more than some exposition or motivation for a male character in Godzilla is the female MUTO.

Pretty poor film overall imo.

Dolbert

psinno wrote: »

Maybe that is a problem but I don't think Godzilla reaches the heights where it would even apply. The only female character that provides more than some exposition or motivation for a male character in Godzilla is the female MUTO.

Pretty poor film overall imo.

I was speaking generally though, not just about Godzilla.

GalwayGuy2

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I think you must be right about that. There seems (from my relatively uneducated viewpoint) to be far more female writers in TV and we get the likes of Claire Underwood, Alicia Florrick and many other great characters in that sphere.

Eh, often times female writers create stereotyped female characters.

I'm not really a big fan of saying that the characters you can write depends on the gender that you are.

It really depends on the skill of the writer. Robbin Hobb is great at writing male characters, but I am more wary of saying who I think writes great female characters :P

Also, is Claire Underwood a strong character? I always saw her being used as a bit of a plot device for the other underwood? I've never really understood what made her 'tick' so to speak.

EDIT: Eh, I might as well hang myself out to dry. I thought the Female Characters in True Detective were well written. I'm kind of curious about why they weren't seen as well written by a lot of people?

Morag

Because after the campaign to get the newest bridge over the liffey named after a woman
at the opening of the Rosie Hackett bridge the young women who set up the campaign weren't asked to speak
indeed no woman was.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/why-did-no-women-speak-at-the-rosie-hackett-bridge-opening-1.1802908

iwantmydinner

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Eh, often times female writers create stereotyped female characters.

I'm not really a big fan of saying that the characters you can write depends on the gender that you are.

It really depends on the skill of the writer. Robbin Hobb is great at writing male characters, but I am more wary of saying who I think writes great female characters :P

Also, is Claire Underwood a strong character? I always saw her being used as a bit of a plot device for the other underwood? I've never really understood what made her 'tick' so to speak.

EDIT: Eh, I might as well hang myself out to dry. I thought the Female Characters in True Detective were well written. I'm kind of curious about why they weren't seen as well written by a lot of people?

Ok, no one said there aren't bad female writers.

Robin Hobb writes fantasy fiction novels - not screenplays for movies or TV.

I don't really know what point you're making regarding Claire Underwood - I simply pointed to her as an an example of a well-written, complex character, played really well by a great female actor. Whether you get what makes her tick or not isn't really relevant.

Finally, I don't recall seeing any posts here giving out about True Detective, and I've never seen it, so I don't know what you're talking about there.

Jerrica

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Also, is Claire Underwood a strong character? I always saw her being used as a bit of a plot device for the other underwood? I've never really understood what made her 'tick' so to speak.

She's an incredibly strong character, there are oodles of blog posts and on-line discussions out there about who really holds the power in the Underwood relationship - sure, so he's the US VP but is she the one pulling his strings? Her character is complex, layered, multi-faceted and operates with almost exclusive autonomy, it's not often you see a female lead as interesting as that. And what makes her tick? That's part of the allure for both of the Underwood characters, they're each as mysterious as the other, neither is better or worse, but both are fabulously immoral and make for a hell of a power couple. Neither character would be anything without the other.

GalwayGuy2 wrote:

EDIT: Eh, I might as well hang myself out to dry. I thought the Female Characters in True Detective were well written. I'm kind of curious about why they weren't seen as well written by a lot of people?

None of the police in the show were females. The only female in the office was the receptionist. All other female characters are prostitutes, mistresses or cuckolded wives and mentally distressed daughters. Meanwhile you get fabulously written male leads (and don't get me wrong, I was entranced by this show, Harrelson and McConaghey make for riveting watching) who get all the interesting parts - heroes, villains, politicians, decision makers and breakers.

The weak female character issue came up quite quickly when the show aired, but the writer Nic Pizzolatto pretty much brushed it off as feminists over-reacting, and that only served to fuel the fire. There's been strong hints at a predominantly female lead for Season 2 though.

Scarinae

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Having seen two big-budget Hollywood blockbuster movies recently, in which both female "leads" were whiney, clingy, annoying and dependent upon their men, I am seriously depressed.

Seth Rogen has stated in interviews that Rose Byrne's character in Bad Neighbours was originally written as the typical nagging wife seen in films until his own real-life wife suggested that they change it.

“My wife read the script,” Rogen said. “She’s a writer. She’s one of the people who was like, ‘This isn’t how it would be. We get along, I want to have fun too…’ And then as we started talking about it, that actually became the most exciting idea of the movie to us. That we could portray a couple where the wife is just as fun-loving and irresponsible as the guy, and they get along really well. In a comedy, that’s almost non-existent. An actual healthy couple that really likes each other.”

I haven't actually seen the film so I don't know how accurate his summary of her character is, but I think it's nice that some people are starting to notice how one-dimensional many female characters are and are trying to write better ones

eviltwin

Jerrica wrote: »

She's an incredibly strong character, there are oodles of blog posts and on-line discussions out there about who really holds the power in the Underwood relationship - sure, so he's the US VP but is she the one pulling his strings? Her character is complex, layered, multi-faceted and operates with almost exclusive autonomy, it's not often you see a female lead as interesting as that. And what makes her tick? That's part of the allure for both of the Underwood characters, they're each as mysterious as the other, neither is better or worse, but both are fabulously immoral and make for a hell of a power couple. Neither character would be anything without the other.


None of the police in the show were females. The only female in the office was the receptionist. All other female characters are prostitutes, mistresses or cuckolded wives and mentally distressed daughters. Meanwhile you get fabulously written male leads (and don't get me wrong, I was entranced by this show, Harrelson and McConaghey make for riveting watching) who get all the interesting parts - heroes, villains, politicians, decision makers and breakers.

The weak female character issue came up quite quickly when the show aired, but the writer Nic Pizzolatto pretty much brushed it off as feminists over-reacting, and that only served to fuel the fire. There's been strong hints at a predominantly female lead for Season 2 though.

Its a shame all tv shows can't be more like game of thrones, now there is a show with some kick ass ladies of all ages

IvyTheTerrible

This makes me think of the Bechdel test: http://bechdeltest.com/
It tests films to see if there is more than one female character and if they talk to each other about more than just men.

GalwayGuy2

In retrospect, I shouldn't have really brought up the tv discussion. This is a thread about why we need feminism, and not a thread about discussing tv (or portrayal of female characters in television? )

But I'll still chat about it because I find it interesting.

@Iwantmydinner

I mentioned Claire Underwood because I class a strong character as a character that has motivations of their own and reasons for what they do. But, after reading Jerrica's post, I might take that back. I think the whole mystery about why the character does what they do (the same way with Frank) is part of the plot, rather than a lack of characterization. So, eh, bit of a lightbulb moment for me :P

Also, the True Detective Question was a question. Feminist critique of storytelling is interesting and, you know, this is a thread about feminism. I thought I could answer a question.

@Jerrica

I may have a different notion of strong characters. I class a strong character as a character that has motivations of their own and a history of their own?

Even though it focused on the male leads, it did have an interesting show don't tell attitude towards the secondary characters. So, I was a little bit confused when people started saying that the characters weren't strong, as I saw them as having strong characterisation, even the most minor of female characters.

Remember the first woman that the bald guy cheated with on his wife? When she said 'It's just like you police' over the phone? Yeah, there's a history there and I would've loved to have found out more about that character.

So, I actually the characters were quite strong in my sense of the word. But if people mean a passive role, then, yeah, I can understand that.

iwantmydinner

Scarinae wrote: »

Seth Rogen has stated in interviews that Rose Byrne's character in Bad Neighbours was originally written as the typical nagging wife seen in films until his own real-life wife suggested that they change it.


I haven't actually seen the film so I don't know how accurate his summary of her character is, but I think it's nice that some people are starting to notice how one-dimensional many female characters are and are trying to write better ones

That's awesome. Haven't seen the film either but I'm looking forward to it now!

Shakespeare's Sister

She “sings with vibrant assurance and proves herself a spirited comedian. But she is dumpy of stature…” the Daily Telegraph

"Tara Erraught’s Octavian is a chubby bundle of puppy-fat," wrote the Financial Times.

"unbelievable, unsightly and unappealing," (by The Times of London).

The above were part of the reviews of a young opera singer's performance. How miserable.

http://www.elle.com/news/culture/opera-fat-shaming

Legs.Eleven

Magaggie wrote: »

She “sings with vibrant assurance and proves herself a spirited comedian. But she is dumpy of stature…” the Daily Telegraph

"Tara Erraught’s Octavian is a chubby bundle of puppy-fat," wrote the Financial Times.

"unbelievable, unsightly and unappealing," (by The Times of London).

The above were part of the reviews of a young opera singer's performance. How miserable.

http://www.elle.com/news/culture/opera-fat-shaming

No Ah, that's put me in a bad mood now ffs.

Jesus fcuking christ she's a singer who fcuking cares how she looks!!!
Arghhh

Shakespeare's Sister

As the article says: if she were a model or celeb or whatever, while it's crap the way their appearances are dissected to pieces, it still at least makes sense, particularly in those kinda magazines and the red-tops/Daily Mail.

But opera? Why mention it at all? Haven't opera singers often been bigger anyway? And all I see is a very pretty young woman. She's not slim but she's still radiant... and eh... her singing is really the only concern.

And the publications in question... thought their writers/editors would know better.

Legs.Eleven

Magaggie wrote: »

As the article says: if she were a model or celeb or whatever, while it's crap the way their appearances are dissected to pieces, it still at least makes sense, particularly in those kinda magazines and the red-tops/Daily Mail.

But opera? Why mention it at all? Haven't opera singers often been bigger anyway? And all I see is a very pretty young woman. She's not slim but she's still radiant... and eh... her singing is really the only concern.

And the publications in question... thought their writers/editors would know better.

Yeah, you can't even discount the comments as commentary from rags and sleb mags. Very despairing.