Was Paul Morley Right to call Ash a Feminist Icon?

[emmazon]

As requested by Ofni - I have started this thread!

In my opinion he was 100% right.

There's so much nonsense talked about feminism that you'd be forgiven for thinking that all feminists were man hating, deliberatively unattractive, anti-children loners, intent on creating a world without men. Well here's a shocker for you - Richard Littlejohn et al are talking out or a place where the Sun doesn't shine!

Feminism is about expanding the choices and chances of women. About being equal in the world and judged on the whole of our person and not just our looks or ability in the kitchen!

Aisleyne personified a feminine strength and dignity. She showed that a woman can look and feel sexy, while maintaining her own control and boundaries. She maintained her beauty while winning people over with her intellect and questioning nature.

Were I to be a mother, I know that I would want my children to be inspired not by women who's prime ambition was to marry someone rich, but by someone who wants to learn grow and explore.

So that's why I believe Ash deserves to be a feminist figure to be admired.

[ofni]

Oh 'eck, Emmazon, you certainly called my bluff there, didn't you?

A proper contribution from ofni will have to wait. But meanwhile, two little comments for starters.

I wonder if Paul M is still of the same opinion; I'd love to hear an update from him four months down the line. It would be good to get him and Ash to do a double act on a CBB5 programme.

PLUS - Many of Aisleyne's appearances since BB7 have been glamour modelling i.e. Nuts mag and Daily Star, or have been in some way related to her sexiness (revealing outfits, sex column in more etc) How does this affect her feminist icon status?

[emmazon]

ofni said:

PLUS - Many of Aisleyne's appearances since BB7 have been glamour modelling i.e. Nuts mag and Daily Star, or have been in some way related to her sexiness (revealing outfits, sex column in more etc) How does this affect her feminist icon status?

In no way at all as far as I am concerned. I have no problem with female sexuality in all it's forms. Feminism for me is about expanding women's opportunities not constricting them. If a woman wants to be a glamour model, a housewife, a brain surgeon or a firefighter - good luck to them.

There's nothing wrong with being sexual, but there is something wrong with judging a woman purely on this criteria.

[Julian]

Personally I think the 'feminist icon' comment was just a heat of the moment slip-of-the-tongue. I think the sentiment he was expressing was more a suggestion that Aisleyne was a 'feminine icon', a role model for women in general (which I would definitely agree with).

While I'm sure that Aisleyne would approve of the whole concept of equal opportunity and treatment of women I don't recall any occasion in the house in which the subject ever came up or her views on the subject were aired so it's hard to make the case that she was an icon for the cause!

Certainly, the whole glamour modelling thing is often considered to represent the antithesis of feminism and an exploitation of women in that it focuses so much attention on a woman's sex-appeal and looks rather than what others might consider more 'worthy' assets.

Personally I think that feminism ought to mean that women should be able to do what they want to do and if glamour-modelling is what they want to do then feminists shouldn't have a problem with it. But then I'm a guy so I suppose I would say that

Regards

Julian

[premierscfc]

julian said:

Personally I think the 'feminist icon' comment was just a heat of the moment slip-of-the-tongue. I think the sentiment he was expressing was more a suggestion that Aisleyne was a 'feminine icon', a role model for women in general (which I would definitely agree with).

While I'm sure that Aisleyne would approve of the whole concept of equal opportunity and treatment of women I don't recall any occasion in the house in which the subject ever came up or her views on the subject were aired so it's hard to make the case that she was an icon for the cause!

Certainly, the whole glamour modelling thing is often considered to represent the antithesis of feminism and an exploitation of women in that it focuses so much attention on a woman's sex-appeal and looks rather than what others might consider more 'worthy' assets.

Personally I think that feminism ought to mean that women should be able to do what they want to do and if glamour-modelling is what they want to do then feminists shouldn't have a problem with it. But then I'm a guy so I suppose I would say that

Regards

Julian

I totally agree. I subscribe to NUTS. Who is the one being exploited, me or the models? I am the one spending money and the models are the ones earning. The models choose to model and I choose to buy the magazine. The model is happy and I am happy. It is all about choice.

[bradley27]

Personally I think a better term would have been a "female icon" rather than feminist icon.

[ofni]

Come on, laydeez, where are you? Show some solidarity, sisters, it's all us blokes responding so far!

[emmazon]

julian said:

Personally I think the 'feminist icon' comment was just a heat of the moment slip-of-the-tongue. I think the sentiment he was expressing was more a suggestion that Aisleyne was a 'feminine icon', a role model for women in general (which I would definitely agree with).

I would agree that Aisleyne was a feminine role model. I just don't see how this differs from a feminist iconic figure (or role model). There are plenty of women throughout history who never voiced their opinions on the specifics of gender politics, but they got on with being strong and independent. These are just as worthy for note as role models as others who have explicitly furthered the cause of women's rights surely?

[Julian]

emmazon said:

I would agree that Aisleyne was a feminine role model. I just don't see how this differs from a feminist iconic figure (or role model). There are plenty of women throughout history who never voiced their opinions on the specifics of gender politics, but they got on with being strong and independent. These are just as worthy for note as role models as others who have explicitly furthered the cause of women's rights surely?

I'm not saying that a feminine icon, or a strong, independent woman, is not as worthy as a feminist icon but I do think there's a difference.

I think the point of being a feminist is that you do engage in gender politics. A feminist actively strives to promote equal opportunity for women or to make a stand against inequality. Being a strong independent woman might be a good example of how to conduct your life but the social, economic or political constraints that concern feminists are external factors. They would say that you shouldn't need to be strong and independent to be treated on an equal footing as men.

I think that feminism is more of a political stance or set of beliefs than a character trait and the definition on wikipedia would seem to support that:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

Regards

Julian

[emmazon]

julian said:

emmazon said:

I would agree that Aisleyne was a feminine role model. I just don't see how this differs from a feminist iconic figure (or role model). There are plenty of women throughout history who never voiced their opinions on the specifics of gender politics, but they got on with being strong and independent. These are just as worthy for note as role models as others who have explicitly furthered the cause of women's rights surely?

I'm not saying that a feminine icon, or a strong, independent woman, is not as worthy as a feminist icon but I do think there's a difference.

I think the point of being a feminist is that you do engage in gender politics. A feminist actively strives to promote equal opportunity for women or to make a stand against inequality. Being a strong independent woman might be a good example of how to conduct your life but the social, economic or political constraints that concern feminists are external factors. They would say that you shouldn't need to be strong and independent to be treated on an equal footing as men.

I think that feminism is more of a political stance or set of beliefs than a character trait and the definition on wikipedia would seem to support that:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

Regards

Julian

I think - to be fair - we both beleive largely the same point, but could be seen to be arguing about semantics - both ours and Paul Morley's!

I agree that someone who overtly identifies thenselves as a feminist is one who is concerned with the socio-political status of women. Feminist icons in this line of thinking can include many women from Jane Austen through Emeline Pankhurst to Germaine Greer and beyond.

But do all the icons of the feminist movement have to be so declarative in thier stance? I would argue that Queen Elizabeth I, Amelia Earhart and Anita Roddick could all be held up as icons for feminists - women achieving in male dominated worlds, with little or nothing said by them in terms of thier impact on the wider world of women.

So I largely agree with you, but would broaden the field of "icons" if not the strictest definitions of the term "feminist".

Emma.

[bizzielizzie]

I'm not sure about Aisleyne being a 'feminist icon', but i know that she has many, many female supporters, contrary to the popular myth that women don't support other women in reality shows.
I think also that feminism is all about equality of opportunity and the sexes being of equal worth and i think her treatment of both the men and women in the BB house certainly showed that she doesn't differentiate between the sexes in terms of worth or importance.
What sets Aisleyne apart for most of her supporters is, I think, the fact that she is just a decent human being with a lot of empathy for others and the ability to apologise if she feels she has wronged someone. Basically she's 'nice' and people warmed to her, despite the best efforts of the production team, the nastier housemates and Dermot and Davina!

[mich007]

I think it was said in the heat of the moment. Those of us who supported Ash in the house went through her journey with her in a way. Emotions were up and down it was breath taking right until the end. Ash held her own in the house she stood up to the bullies, she was a bit of a trooper IMO. She wasn't perfect but then no one is and she apologized for her mishaps. She was a good role model in some ways to young people. The way she fought her way through and refused to be broken.

Ash

I so hope you can get into something on TV Radio that involves helping people, I think it is what you are really about. I think people want to look up to you Ash, Hopefully if you move more towards helping others I think you will find a true vocation. You'd be great on the Right Stuff, Watchdog or something like Tricia.

[Julian]

emmazon said:

I think - to be fair - we both beleive largely the same point, but could be seen to be arguing about semantics - both ours and Paul Morley's!

Ah, but semantics is just another word for 'meaning' and if the meaning isn't right then what else is there

Having said that, I see what you're saying. Paul Morley was presumably referring to Aisleyne as a feminist's icon rather than a feminist icon.

Gotta love semantics

Regards

Julian

[ofni]

Semantics Schmemantics!

The real question is - What about the semiotics of Aisleyne?

That's another PhD thesis altogether!

[Julian]

ofni said:

Semantics Schmemantics!

The real question is - What about the semiotics of Aisleyne?

That's another PhD thesis altogether!

Hey, no fair using words I've never heard of

[maringo]

julian said:

Hey, no fair using words I've never heard of

Semiotics - a general philosophical theory of signs and symbols that deals especially with their function in both artificially constructed and natural languages and comprises syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics.

dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=semiotic&ia=mwmed

I'm still none the wiser!

[premierscfc]

maringo said:

julian said:

Hey, no fair using words I've never heard of

Semiotics - a general philosophical theory of signs and symbols that deals especially with their function in both artificially constructed and natural languages and comprises syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics.

dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=semiotic&ia=mwmed

I'm still none the wiser!

The last sentence sums it up perfectly