UKC

....................................
''The UK press went into meltdown yesterday over a shocking incident in which a woman-shaped human took part in politics. Despite wearing a smart red suit, the home secretary, Theresa May, our most senior female politician, found herself discussed under headlines referring to the £busty budget£ and her £boob-boosting push-up bra£.

This isn£t the first time this has happened. In fact, there is a detailed and shameful history of such incidents going back decades. We might think we have moved on entirely from the days when Nancy Astor, the UK£s first sitting female MP, was frozen out by Winston Churchill and told by a male colleague that he would push his stomach up against hers any time she liked. But the treatment of today£s female MPs sometimes suggests we have barely moved forward at all.

It£s actually just one year since the last time May was accused of £flashing her cleavage£ during the budget, in articles that dubbed her £May-dy in red£ and suggested the cabinet member and MP of nearly two decades was £usually better known for her choice of shoes£. Last year, too, MP Alison McGovern shared a letter from a Channel 4 news viewer who kindly wrote to inform her: £As a Labour member might I say that your prominent cleavage distracted your male observers from hearing what you were saying.£ This led, naturally, to news articles about £an MP accused of flaunting her cleavage on national television£. (2015 was also the same year in which MPs staunchly argued against allowing female parliamentarians to breastfeed in the Commons chamber.)

And just a year earlier, commentators capitalised on another situation in which May wore a perfectly smart and suitable outfit to do her job, when they ran headlines about the £optical illusion£ pattern on a dress which they claimed left £MPs goggle-eyed£ despite showing no flesh whatsoever. In 2012, columnist Toby Young managed to omit the head and humanity of the female politician in question altogether when he tweeted during prime minister£s questions: £Serious cleavage behind @Ed_Miliband£s head. Anyone know who it belongs to? #pmqs£ He later added: £Breaking: Cleavage belongs to @pamela_nash #pmqs£.

In 2007, despite wearing an outfit that showed not one solitary hint of her bra, May was the subject of a Daily Mail article that began: £Of course, we should all be interested in what the shadow leader of the House of Commons was talking about, but what I want to know is: was she wearing a leopard-skin bra?£ The article went on to painstakingly compare May£s cleavage to that of then home secretary Jacqui Smith, which it helpfully described as £a rather middle-aged, squeezed together line of amplitude, about three inches long £ A little desperate, if anything, and designed to draw the eye down from the face and slim the chins away. Certainly not sexy.£

Around the same time, while Smith continued to battle with irrelevant headlines about the £dynamite down her cleavage£, the Sun, realising this was a developing issue that might become confusing to the public, helpfully stepped in to provide a £Best of Breastminster£ feature, ranking the £ministerial boobs£.

The cleavage criticisms are not only reserved for sitting politicians £ they£re also used as a means of attack when politicians are campaigning for office, as the Daily Mail demonstrated when it used a close-up cartoon of Nicola Sturgeon£s cleavage, with her head cut off at the nose, and a small male figure squashed between her breasts, during the run-up to the 2015 election.

The problem is also international, with politicians including Canadian Christy Clark, former Australian prime minister Julia Gillard and US presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton facing similar furious speculation over the small line between their breasts. Nor is the puerile obsession with female politicians£ bodies restricted to the media alone. A report released in 2004 revealed that women MPs endured £shocking£ levels of abuse at the hands of their male colleagues, including male MPs pretending to jiggle imaginary breasts and jeering about £melons£ as women made Commons speeches.

Members of the public are also keen to get in on the act. Stella Creasy MP (whose name, incidentally, when typed into Google, is followed by £husband£ and £married£ as two of the most popular five suggested searches) has endured extreme and terrifying online abuse, including a threat to cut off her breasts and use them to make a kebab. And during yesterday£s budget, one heroic soul took it upon himself to start a Twitter account in the name of £Theresa May£s Boobs£. Finally, as if feverish ongoing speculation over her anatomy wasn£t enough, one news outlet continues to run an open poll asking members of the public whether they would £snog, marry or avoid£ Theresa May.

The impact of such behaviour on women£s political representation shouldn£t be underestimated. Labour MP Yvette Cooper recently warned that sexist abuse risks putting a generation of girls off entering politics, and young women frequently tell me, when I visit their schools and universities to discuss sexism and gender issues, that they see politics as a £man£s game£, in part because of the press treatment of female MPs. If women do decide to run for office, there is evidence that sexist remarks in the media can undermine their chances £ a 2010 US study found that voters were less likely to vote for candidates who had been the subject of such name calling.

Even when women do ignore the potential risks, and campaign successfully for political office, such abuse is likely to make them think twice before speaking out in the chamber. It might also prevent them from staying in the political arena, according to a 2014 Fawcett Society report that highlighted experiences of sexism as a common reason for women in local government roles stepping down. We can only continue to speculate over how long it will be before women are able to participate in political processes without parts of their bodies being considered more important than the words coming out of their mouths.

Of course, in brighter news, there was one occasion on which an MP stood up to raise precisely these issues in Westminster itself, when Caroline Lucas rose in a £No more Page 3£ T-shirt to discuss the objectification of women in the public sphere. The outcome? She was asked to cover up.''
......................................

Here's the link. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/17/theresa-may-breasts-ho...

I have two little nieces and the country and wider world they're growing up in is as stupid as this, still?

Edit: Sexist is probably more apposite, but it's pretty stupid too.

In reply to Timmd: wow, that's on long post....

In reply to Timmd:

Somebody better restrain Thundercat when he sees that picture!

In reply to dale1968:
Just thought it 'needed saying' again I guess from feeling disgruntled.

In reply to Timmd:

Isn't it just right wing tabloids spouting that kind of rubbish?

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

I've no idea.

In reply to Timmd:

Alas, I fear womens breasts will always fascinate men such is the stupidity of us

“He lifts her breasts, which fit perfectly into his hands, though he knows this is no promise that he gets to keep them. A million things you can't have will fit in a human hand.”

From the biography of Edwina Curry

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:


No, no, no, the Guardian shares it, feigning "moral outrage".

The funniest thing is, May's tits would have totally escaped my notice if Timmd hadn't brought them to my attention.

Thanks Timmd.

In reply to Timmd:

Boobs.

In reply to Big Ger:



I wonder if there'll ever be a day when something in a paper is talked about without the actual paper it's in being used as something to shape a viewpoint.

Sometimes the Daily Mail tells the truth or makes a valid point, or the Telegraph, or The Times, or...the Guardian...or the....

In reply to Timmd:

I am finding it difficult to masturbate to the link you posted.

In reply to Timmd:

To my shame... http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=636827&v=1#x8258820

In reply to Timmd:

You mean when a paper points out how bad other papers are by posting links to 24 examples of "sexism", we shouldn't note that that paper is well known for having an agenda?

Thanks for the links BTW "Guardian", some of them a re really funny!

In reply to Big Ger:
Hmmn, I think an 'agenda' and an 'objective viewpoint' can be things which are subjective to the individual, but I'm thinking that even you (who seems to have a relatively dim view of feminists - which is fair enough and a valid opinion and all that and not something people should used to beat you over the head with - as it were) might agree that it's not right that women can't go into politics without the minutia of their bodies being poured over by the public press when it's the least relevant thing to politics, especially where it's both (plausibly) going to do the opposite of encourage girls and young women to get into politics, and isn't something which men have to put up with, too*.

Edit: * Before an 'aha' pops up, I'm not saying that men having to put up with it, would make it right, either.

In reply to Big Ger:

That winds me up. It's the same as papers commenting on how much they disagree with Katie Hopkins. Just ignore the daft old trout and she'll go away!

In reply to Timmd:

Slightly off topic here, but your post is littered with pound signs (£). Is it just my computer being wierd or did you put them there, perhaps in some sort of budget related way?

In reply to pec:


That happens when you cut & paste then try to edit it.

In reply to Timmd:

It shouldn't happen. But only a few weeks ago Davina McCall was joshing Linford Christie about his lunchbox on live TV - something he's publicly stated he doesn't like.

In reply to Timmd:

Shes Nicholas Witchell in a dress. Kryptonite Antiboner.

Can't take her politics seriously eithet, because she's a cartoon character authitorian Tory f*ckwit, illiberal simpleton. Strong female or something.

Some men, probably women find that quite attractive.

D

In reply to Timmd:


I agree, the Guardian shouldn't use the excuse of some made up story in the Star/Express/Sun to use May's knockers to sell papers. It's equally wrong for you to make political capital out of her mammaries by transposing this whole sham outrage here and whining about it.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

I agree. There is no attraction to see in her.
It was very frustrating, trying to listen to serious matters that will affect us in the next year, while some tart beyond reasonable sell-by date for a tart was trying to sell her grubby wares on the same screen. She's a cartoon character of herself. The papers were right to castigate her(not that I have read what they have actually said)

In reply to Timmd:

At the risk of being disowned by the sisterhood, there is a time and place to flaunt cleavage. I don't agree that her outfit was professional. It was very very low cut. Fine for an evening do, but not for work.

In reply to Timmd:


This thread!

In reply to veteye:

Disgusting sexism proving Tim ''s point

In reply to aln:

I knew that I would get such an answer, but we all know that she was aware that she in her own way was being sexist in her choice of costume.
I would have also been frustrated if a similarly ill-clad male was on display in parliament next to the chancellor at that time.

In reply to veteye:



Ill-clad? It's a business suit that doesn't cover up to the neck. Woo, scary, women have boobs...

Pathetic.

In reply to veteye:

Yes, but if that had happened, would the Star/Sun/Express have been able to make up enough punning tweets to justify the Guardian publishing a great big article whining about how men are treated like sex objects, and; "god look what Nancy Astor said about Churchill and his cigar!!"

In reply to Big Ger:
I liked your answer.

Not being able to produce the puns etc just shows their lack of inventiveness. As I said I did not read what the papers said and would not read the tabloids as they irritate me as they obviously did Timmd. Yet I have to admit that I only read about two of his sentences as there just was too much volume to read, when I should not spend much time on here anyway. I am entertained more by the replies(and in some cases the almost eunuch-like* PC replies) and stances in most threads.

(* and yes I am aware that eunuchs had varying behaviours)

In reply to Timmd:

The Guardian is totally hypocritical. She's not wearing a bright orange low cut dress by accident, she's doing it *because* she wants stories like this in the papers. She did the same thing at the last budget: it's not like she doesn't know that she will be in the picture when the chancellor is talking and the press will write about it if she shows some leg or cleavage.

The cynical would suggest the Tories would rather have the press writing about Theresa May's dress than the benefit cuts to disabled people or the handouts for the Tory donors in the city. Just another smokescreen like the sugar tax on soft drinks or the funding for blades for kids that have lost a leg to distract the press.

In reply to Timmd:

Is it a dead cat on the table, or just not a big deal? I don't know, but the entire Tory front bench can bugger off anyway. Bunch of privileged tw*ts.

In reply to Big Ger:

You continually make vague references/claims to be some kinda mental health worker.

In reply to aln:


Maybe stroppygob is back?

In reply to Timmd:

Was there anything about more benefits for us in the budget speech?
I didn't really listen, I had a dribbling boner throughout.

In reply to Willi Crater:

He is indeed.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Being of a cynical nature, and knowing that the majority of the press are somewhat pro Tory, that was my immediate thought; hide the Budget news with a bit of froth about fatty tissue.

In reply to captain paranoia:


Your username rings true

In reply to Trevers:

No paranoia required.
It's classic government attention deflection!

In reply to captain paranoia:


Cameron and Osborne must think it is hilarious how easy it is to troll Labour and the Guardianistas and draw their attention away from the important things with a bit of non-politically correct language about refugees or a low cut dress.

It's like bullfighting with a red dress instead of a red cape and a few billion in cuts instead of a sword.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Except it doesn't do that. Look at the Guardian website. The home page doesn't make any reference to Teresa May's cleavage, nor do the politics pages. The important things are getting their due prominence.

In reply to Lusk:


I only have eyes for Debbie Mcgee...

In reply to ThunderCat:

You might be in luck.....

In reply to Timmd:

Why, ain't you getting any?

In reply to Lusk:

I am too of a cynical nature and I do agree!

In reply to aln:


Ah - good 'o. Maybe. Probably not. Yes definitely.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


You missed the Paul Daniels thread, dint'cha...

PS No Drunken Bakers in this months Viz. Hen Cabin is pretty good / tragic tho....

In reply to ThunderCat:


Since that strip started, I've spotted so many real life "Hen Cabin's", it's quite scary.

In reply to ThunderCat:


I admire your monogamy!

In reply to Big Ger:


Absolutely. I wonder how many really do get down the local tip and bag a couple of seagulls to pad the chicken out.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


That's an intelligent response?

In reply to Timmd:

Not everyone needs to write screeds to get their point across.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

And what point would that be exactly? For all you know I could be homosexual and happily a part of a couple.

Your rather knee jerk and angry seeming response 'Why, ain't you getting any?' almost much sums up the sort of reaction one can expect from some on here, if sexism in the UK is brought up where females are the group being worse off.

I genuinely posted it out of disgruntlement at the thought of my nieces being put off doing anything which might put them in the public eye, like going into politics, or even commenting that there should be more females on banknotes and similar, which has also brought an aggressive online response in return from anonymous people on twitter and similar. Why should that be the case - doesn't that strike you as a bad thing?

Whether I'm getting any or not shouldn't bother you, but sexism in the UK probably should*.

*I know that men can be worse off too, like in instances of who get child custody and that kind of thing.

In reply to Big Ger:



''The impact of such behaviour on women's political representation shouldn't be underestimated. Labour MP Yvette Cooper recently warned that sexist abuse risks putting a generation of girls off entering politics, and young women frequently tell me, when I visit their schools and universities to discuss sexism and gender issues, that they see politics as a ''man's game'', in part because of the press treatment of female MPs. If women do decide to run for office, there is evidence that sexist remarks in the media can undermine their chances, a 2010 US study found that voters were less likely to vote for candidates who had been the subject of such name calling.''


Hmmmn. I can't quite get my head around the above bothering me if I think of my nieces meaning that I'm making political capital out of *anything*, or whining about it ( which is a subjective term anyway). Perhaps you'd like to explain?

In reply to Timmd:


Well if you really think your nieces will be "affected" by the Star/Express/Sun using May's knockers to sell papers, and the Guardian making a big issue out of it, also to flog papers but with a lefty twist to the tale, then if I were you I'd lock your nieces indoors with no contact with the outside world.

That's the only way they will be safe from breasts and sexuality in the media.

In reply to Big Ger:

If you read the whole article, you'll see that the general thrust (ooer) of the article is about how comments made about female politicians (by columnists, journalists, and public figures) which enter the public sphere, can (and plausibly are) putting young women off going into politics.

I have a feeling you like to willfully misinterpret things on here at times, so I'll not hold my breath at you getting my point (and posting to the effect that you do).

Purely by chance, I have been emailed by a female poster on here, saying that the response to this OP was fairly typical, and that she knows of other females who have stopped going on here while the atmosphere is currently as it is.

It wasn't any kind of 'cunning plan' to make a point, but the robust dismissal of the content of the article in the OP without any any apparent attempt to digest and understand it (first), could almost serve to help answer the other thread currently on here which is asking why so few women post on here (hopefully this will change).

In reply to Timmd:

Oh don't worry then, we'll all change our views to suit you and the anonymous woman.

Should there be a "feminist views only please" mandate here?

In reply to Timmd:

Yes, I saw that. The article cherry picks information about political women having the temerity to wear clothes which show they have breasts, and then expresses outrage that some comments may have been made on these breasts by MEN!!!

Do you think May, Clinton, Clark, Gillard, etc should be counselled not to wear anything that hints at them possessing cleavage? Or banned even.



So what should be done about it do you think?

In reply to Big Ger:


Yes, like that's exactly what I mean: :-|

Time was on UKC that even where people had different viewpoints, something would be discussed with an exploration of the different aspects of a topic or subject, rather than your 'Oh don't then, we'll just change our views...' rapid come back style response.

I don't generally agree with 'postmanpat', but at least he's civilised enough to actually discuss something.

In reply to Timmd:
I have made 8 replies in this thread. 3 of which have been made since you bumped the thread with a specific question to me.

You have made 11.

I have had my say on what I think of your OP, you have had the opportunity to reply.

Where is the lack of debate?

If you do not like my views, or do not want to hear what I think, then why engage with me?

In reply to Big Ger:

The article also mentions young girls seeing politics as a man's game - which if it isn't them thinking of politics being not something for them as females, then I'm not sure what is - which is bad for democracy I'd have thought. Wouldn't you?


Men could always just not shout 'Cleavage!'?


Thinking about the visitor to the UK from the UN who described the UK has having a ''boy's club'' culture of sexism towards women, with a part of this being to do with the media and attitudes towards women portrayed within, I'm actually at a loss for suggestions at how things might change, but I do think that the last people who would actually be aware of any sexism which is detrimental towards women would be hetrosexual men* - since one couldn't expect a woman to know what it might be like to be a man.

* From conversations, homosexual men can more aware of the imagery of females being used to sell and promote things, because a part of them realising who they are is the fact that they don't find women attractive, which can be a difficult stage and one in which they are seeing said images of females, and processing how they feel about them, where as straight men would be having agreeable reactions (quite naturally) and not be thinking about the images from another perspective, such as women thinking about how they match up, and may be less consciously aware of them due to the agreeable responses, seeing them more as just a part of the back ground as it were.

In reply to Big Ger:

Would you say this is the kind of response which openly encourages dialogue and the exploration of different points of view?

I'm not being snarky btw.

In reply to Timmd:


If it's true. But then again I don't know how many young girls read the Star/Express/Sun, and are influenced by the way these papers portray women. Mind you, they could always read the Guardian and be told how to think, and dress.

How should May have dressed?

I'd have thought women who want to go into politics would have deeper understandings, be more intelligent, and have thickers skins than to be put off by such falderals.



I don't think any of the examples given are about men "shouting cleavage" are they?


One person's views on " the UK has having a ''boy's club'' culture of sexism towards women" is not really a basis for changing the whole of society to fit a left wing agenda, is it?

In reply to Timmd:

Not in the slightest.

But there again, it was a reply to your point;

"Purely by chance, I have been emailed by a female poster on here, saying that the response to this OP was fairly typical, and that she knows of other females who have stopped going on here while the atmosphere is currently as it is."

So you and your anonymous friends must want us to change our views, and/or ways of expressing them, otherwise why post that comment?


No worries mate, I'm pretty thick skinned.

In reply to Big Ger:


I can't see what was wrong with how she was dressed to be honest.


So it's womens faults (for being sensitive)?


I think you could guess that I didn't mean literally?


An outsiders point of view can be an objective one, though, and be a cause for looking afresh at things...what is left wing about feminists/feminism/equality for women? My dad's new partner votes Conservative, and was describing the middle east as medieval in it's treatment of women - is there a certain point in how she thinks women should be treated that she suddenly has 'left wing feminist thoughts' rather than right wing thoughts?

In reply to Timmd:


Nor I.


No, let's try again, YOU were the one who said they may be put off by the Star/Express/Sun and the comments therein. I was the one who said that women who wish to enter politics are generally made of tougher stuff.

Now, which one of us is claiming that women are "too sensitive"?




I really cannot make head nor tail of that. Are you suggesting that feminism isn't a left wing ideology?

Most of us hold both left and right wing views on sliding and changeable strengths, depending on circumstance and information.

In reply to Big Ger:



I didn't post if from the point of view of wanting people to change their views, as much as it was something which came to mind, what with things like sexism and female representation being fairly often linked ( and also because I have the kind of brain which makes connections before I've actually thought through what I'm actually trying to say).
If there is any kind of link between a generally dismissive response to something about sexism against women, and fewer female posters on these forums - then I can't see how that isn't a good thing - but I'm not saying that I'm certain there is just so I can 'win on the internet', I'm saying if there's a link then it needs addressing.

In reply to Big Ger:

Fair enough.


I'm saying that the sexism isn't a good thing, but I can see why you're asking.


I'm asking why feminism should be a left wing ideology - if a man was to say that men shouldn't be disadvantaged when it comes to child custody in the UK (which they curently are) I'm guessing you'd see that as politically neutral? If you would do, then I'm not sure why should feminism be something which is seen as being 'left wing'?

In reply to Timmd:



I'm sure there are right wing feminists, (see below,) its just that the equality movement has historically been seen as left lead.

https://therightwingfeminist.wordpress.com/

In reply to Timmd:


A reasonable position.

But, forums tend to be, within reason, a place where each individual has the opportunity to express his or her viewpoints reasonably freely, (within certain legal constraints, and with some swear word use disallowed.)

If a membership group have a certain viewpoint, then does the perception of this viewpoint, or the emotional reaction to it, of other members, mean that the forum should change or adapt to mitigate this view?

I'll give you an example;

If a majority here think that bolted climbs are a bad thing, and put forward vociferous argument on it, does the fact that this may disincline bolt hanging "climbers" to post here, or lead to the reaction that "the responses to the OP were fairly typical, and that she knows of other bolt hanging climbers who have stopped posting on here while the atmosphere is currently as it is," mean that the majority should somehow or some way change their posting style or input, so as not to upset?

In reply to stroppygob:


Fixed that for you.

In reply to gd303uk:

Hahaha. You win at internet today

In reply to marsbar:


Rather than press the Like Button, I completely agree.

The cleavage was indeed flaunted and for a purpose but I can only guess what Teresa May's purpose was.

Both sexes use their physical attributes to their advantage either subconsciously or consciously to gain an advantage in a private or working environment.

If you were in a room with people mostly dressed in drab grey clothing and you wanted to stand out from the crowd, one way would be to choose clothing with a contrasting color. And if you thought that you could use a physical attribute to your advantage then why not?

Sadly Teresa's tits, don't float my boat.

In reply to Big Ger:

Are you trying to suggest that bolt climbers are a historically oppressed and discriminated against group who have needed a whole civil rights movement to fight for over a century even to be granted basic human rights?

It's not a sensible comparison, is it?

In my view (and as the article makes pretty clear) the issue is wider than just Teresa May, or even just female politicians in general - any professional woman in the public eye gets treated similarly. Journalists get similar, even people like Mary Beard.

I'm not a fan of May in the slightest, but I don't think it's a good thing that girls are put off careers in public life by this sort of thing.

In reply to Timmd:

I think we can all agree at least that she has a proper tit to the right of her.

In reply to Big Ger:


Lol

In reply to DalesClimber:



It wasn't "a comparison" though was it? It was a way of illustrating the point I was trying to make.