Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   The Lounge (https://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/)
-   -   M Wollstonecraft: Statues of Women (https://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/95125-m-wollstonecraft-statues-women.html)

adidasss 11-11-2020 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 2144033)
Don't waste your time tbh. He's too obsessed with women fulfilling his desires to be able to have a conversation involving them doing literally anything but ****ing him. The "antipuritanical" nonsense is just a way to divert the conversation away from his patriarchal hangups.

Yep, starting to get it.

OccultHawk 11-11-2020 07:52 PM

Some things are simple. People think because they enjoy sex they’re pro-sex. No. If you’re pro-sex you don’t get upset about nude representations of the body. If you do your excuses are bull**** and a thousand words don’t change the truth. Same with almost every subject discussed here. **** always gets convoluted in bull**** justifications.

If I wasn’t ok with the statue I’d admit I wasn’t pro-sex but no one else is ever capable of doing that. It’s always wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

OccultHawk 11-11-2020 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss (Post 2144036)
Yep, starting to get it.

Totally love to **** women. 100% guilty.

Frownland 11-11-2020 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 2144038)
Some things are simple. People think because they enjoy sex they’re pro-sex. No. If you’re pro-sex you don’t get upset about nude representations of the body. If you do your excuses are bull**** and a thousand words don’t change the truth. Same with almost every subject discussed here. **** always gets convoluted in bull**** justifications.

If I wasn’t ok with the statue I’d admit I wasn’t pro-sex but no one else is ever capable of doing that. It’s always wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

I hope she sees this bro

Neapolitan 11-11-2020 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic (Post 2143916)
Mary Wollstonecraft was an 18th century writer, usually credited as "the mother of feminism". This rather forgotten figure is in the news today because a monument to her has just been unveiled in a London park:-

https://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/p..._630/image.jpg


Know what really burns me up about that picture? Somebody put graffiti on the Sycamore tree.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic (Post 2143916)
So this statue has opened up a debate about how (and how often) women are memorialised in public places. That's why I thought it might be worth a thread, and a poll. Any comments?

Full CNN story: https://edition.cnn.com/style/articl...cli/index.html

I like more classical styles in art and sculpture. It looks like someone cared enough to put a face mask on Jane. What I like about the statue is how Jane Austen is pressing a book close to her heart - such sweet sentiment.
https://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk...e=article-full

Lisnaholic 11-11-2020 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss (Post 2144027)
I think what you fail to take into account is the millennia of objectification of women that lead to this. There's no problem with nudity per se, the problem is that for a very long time, women were (and continue to be) judged primarily based on their looks, and treated essentially as sexual objects for the gratification of men. It wasn't until feminism emerged that this started to change. Celebrating a feminist by again putting the emphasis on the female form seems diametrically opposite of what feminism would like to achieve. :/

X2 adidass. That is a very clear explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 2144028)
Do you really think there’s any possible way I haven’t heard that **** a million ****ing times?

Pussy is good.

To me, this looks true, but not relevent.

Quote:

... that puritanical the body is evil lust is evil sex is bad bull****.
That's not what adidasss, or me, or anyone in this thread is saying.

OccultHawk 11-12-2020 01:10 AM

It’s what it means by default you ****ing Tipper Gores

adidasss 11-12-2020 01:39 AM

Nope. And it doesn't become this because you say so multiple times. Re-read what we've said please.

OccultHawk 11-12-2020 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 2144033)
Don't waste your time tbh. He's too obsessed with women fulfilling his desires to be able to have a conversation involving them doing literally anything but ****ing him. The "antipuritanical" nonsense is just a way to divert the conversation away from his patriarchal hangups.

You know this is the most telling sex is shameful post yet.

OccultHawk 11-12-2020 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss (Post 2144065)
Nope. And it doesn't become this because you say so multiple times. Re-read what we've said please.

I get it. Every single objection is about the nudity. Y’all are uptight and not down with the human body and try to justify your anti-sex message with fake feminism.

adidasss 11-12-2020 05:10 AM

Nope, you still don't get it, please re-read it again, more carefully this time.

Marie Monday 11-12-2020 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 2144074)
I get it. Every single objection is about the nudity. Y’all are uptight and not down with the human body and try to justify your anti-sex message with fake feminism.

Wtf man. Objections having to do with nudity are not necessarily anti-sex, thinking that is extremely obtuse. To give a more extreme example: if someone was conditioned to feel extreme humiliation and mortification when being nude in public (like many people unfortunately are) was forcefully stripped of their clothes and exhibited in a public place, they would suffer and I would be angry. That angriness would have to do with the nudity, but only because it leads to suffering. If this person would voluntarily exhibit their naked body I'd consider it badass

OccultHawk 11-12-2020 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marie Monday (Post 2144078)
Wtf man. Objections having to do with nudity are not necessarily anti-sex, thinking that is extremely obtuse. To give a more extreme example: if someone was conditioned to feel extreme humiliation and mortification when being nude in public (like many people unfortunately are) was forcefully stripped of their clothes and exhibited in a public place, they would suffer and I would be angry. That angriness would have to do with the nudity, but only because it leads to suffering. If this person would voluntarily exhibit their naked body I'd consider it badass

1) Statues don’t have feelings
2) If someone feels shame when stripped in public it’s because of society has internalized body shaming just like the people in this thread are doing by objecting to nudity. It’s the reinforcement of body shame, however you justify it, that makes being ashamed of your body possible. In the example you give the person intentionally humiliating the victim has been given all their power by the type of beliefs being heralded as some sort of feminism by the puritans in this thread.

Frownland 11-12-2020 07:23 AM

TIL that consent is oppression if it gets in the way of my bonk.

OccultHawk 11-12-2020 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 2144083)
TIL that consent is oppression if it gets in the way of my bonk.

As usual you have no comeback because what I’m saying is airtight. Your moral hang ups is the oppression. Instead of being snarky and stupid why don’t you try to improve yourself. Get your head on straight.

Frownland 11-12-2020 07:38 AM

People really advocating that we should drag women out of their homes and parade them naked through the streets to undo their internalized patriarchy smh

OccultHawk 11-12-2020 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 2144087)
People really advocating that we should drag women out of their homes and parade them naked through the streets to undo their internalized patriarchy smh

We should stop shaming their bodies. Well, you should, I don’t do that.

Frownland 11-12-2020 07:42 AM

I wouldn't want to shame my rightful property as a man either.

OccultHawk 11-12-2020 07:47 AM

I can tell that it hurts you to discover that you’re the oppressor.

Frownland 11-12-2020 07:52 AM

Sorry to rob you of your only chance to see pussy by thinking people should be nudists only if they consent to it. Can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs yaknow

OccultHawk 11-12-2020 07:58 AM

Statues can’t consent or object

Frownland 11-12-2020 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 2144093)
Statues can’t consent or object

The woman in the hypothetical whose clothes you want to rip off to liberate her can. It would probably be better if you stuck to molesting statues to establish your feminism though.

Your demands for ideological "perfection" along your shifting baseline is a traditional tool of oppression. Fear of hypocrisy is censorship.

OccultHawk 11-12-2020 08:55 AM

You’re a rapist because you don’t like the statue.

Lisnaholic 11-12-2020 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 2144046)
I like more classical styles in art and sculpture. It looks like someone cared enough to put a face mask on Jane. What I like about the statue is how Jane Austen is pressing a book close to her heart - such sweet sentiment.
https://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk...e=article-full

My immediate respones to this pic was, "what a nice statue!". I didn't notice the detail of the book at first, but I noticed the period costume and the "frozen movement" that statues often try for.
To me, this memorial statue is doing its job well: it conjures up Jane Austen, and lets adults and children alike imagine her for a moment: that's how she probably dressed, she loved books, etc.

The MW memorial doesn't allow us that link or glimpse of the actual woman Mary Woolstonecraft. Instead, the sculptress has interjected her own ego between us and MW in order to make a statement of some kind: and what's the message of the MW memorial? One take on it is that women are immured in a bag of garbage, but if you look sexy enough, you will be able to rise up triumphantly above all those old, fat, ugly or non-caucasian losers, who the sculptress has represented here by an unflattering bag of spare parts.

Even though, as OH points out, MW is dead, it's a commonplace to make "would" statements as if the person lived on somewhere. It's consoling to people who've been shocked by a loss, and it's why we so often hear, at funerals, "He would've been so proud..." In that spirit, my suspicion is that MW would not be proud, but instead is turning in her grave, thinking, "WTF? Why couldn't they put up a nice statue of me in my best bonnet?"

Frownland 11-12-2020 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 2144097)
You’re a rapist because you don’t like the statue.

Nice dodge, statue****er.

Marie Monday 11-12-2020 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 2144081)
1) Statues don’t have feelings
2) If someone feels shame when stripped in public it’s because of society has internalized body shaming just like the people in this thread are doing by objecting to nudity. It’s the reinforcement of body shame, however you justify it, that makes being ashamed of your body possible. In the example you give the person intentionally humiliating the victim has been given all their power by the type of beliefs being heralded as some sort of feminism by the puritans in this thread.

1. We've been over this
2. So in that hypothetical case you'd just stand and casually watch then suffer, because intervening is perpetuating nudity shaming?

Anyway, my point obviously was that you can object to nudity without being a prude, which is what people here are doing. Jesus christ you can be dense

OccultHawk 11-12-2020 11:05 AM

Quote:

So in that hypothetical case you'd just stand and casually watch then suffer, because intervening is perpetuating nudity shaming?
Of course not. If that was Frown’s conclusion- and it’s so common for people to draw false conclusions for others and the weird prevalence of that is a clear shortcoming of modern education (accepting overpopulation is real makes you eugenicist, for example) - it’s a stupid one.

Nonetheless, statues aren’t alive, they don’t have feelings, they can’t be raped but objecting to one because it portrays nudity does make you a prude.

Quote:

Jesus christ you can be dense
At least I can see what’s in the ****ing mirror. ****ing blind as bats is what y’all are. It gets old drowning in this stupid ass ****.

At least with the religious right they’re intellectually honest about it.

Marie Monday 11-12-2020 11:13 AM

My rudeness was uncalled for, sorry, long day. But seriously, you have an obsession with unmasking preconceptions and biases which aren't there. Objecting to nudity per se makes you a prude, but that is not what's happening here.

OccultHawk 11-12-2020 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marie Monday (Post 2144121)
My rudeness was uncalled for, sorry, long day. But seriously, you have an obsession with unmasking preconceptions and biases which aren't there. Objecting to nudity per se makes you a prude, but that is not what's happening here.

I think it is but whatever

Frownland 11-12-2020 11:32 AM

Petition to modify all female statues to include a fleshlight in the name of feminism and a wash station in the name of hygeine.

OccultHawk 11-12-2020 11:37 AM

You mean a fleshlight?

Frownland 11-12-2020 11:39 AM

Ja, stupid autocorrect. It would obviously have fixed lighting unless you brought your own flashlight.

OccultHawk 11-12-2020 11:43 AM

ok

I’m gonna admit it.

I had almost no opinion about this when Lisna posted the story decided to pick a side and then decided to be obnoxiously obtuse about it

****ing sue me

It’s a goddamn message board ffs

ribbons 11-12-2020 12:21 PM

I agree with Lisna that the artist (Maggi Hambling) apparently has injected a lot of her own ego into this creation. The everywoman/Wollstonecraft figure is very similar facially to Hambling, imo. Also, I don't completely buy Hambling's claims that the everywoman figure was not intended to depict Wollstonecraft herself (maybe a bit of backpedalling once the criticisms began?). More so than the gratuitous nudity, I'm puzzled that everywoman/Wollstonecraft is so tiny and almost an afterthought in her own tribute, in comparison with the gigantic blob. I don't think the figure resembles a Barbie doll, actually. I read a comment somewhere that the silver paint and body structure evokes the robot in Metropolis - and it suddenly dawned on me that is exactly what it reminds me of!

One thing is sure: Hambling has definitely succeeded in drawing attention to Wollstonecraft with this work. I previously had no knowledge whatsoever of MW. Initially I assumed this was a tribute to MW's daughter, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley - and my first thought was, what happened to the "Shelley"? And then I (ignorantly) wondered if that was the point: to remove her married surname as a feminist statement. :)

Marie Monday 11-12-2020 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ribbons (Post 2144133)
I read a comment somewhere that the silver paint and body structure evokes the robot in Metropolis - and it suddenly dawned on me that is exactly what it reminds me of!

omg similar epiphany moment here

ando here 11-12-2020 12:58 PM

I voted, OK by me. Seems an oversimplification of a point of view but less thought is, in most cases, better.

ribbons 11-12-2020 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marie Monday (Post 2144139)
omg similar epiphany moment here

Right?! It was bothering me - couldn't place what it reminded me of - then read that comment and, presto! :laughing:

https://64.media.tumblr.com/f57f2fe8...386aba9ec.gifv

Neapolitan 11-12-2020 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic (Post 2144103)
My immediate respones to this pic was, "what a nice statue!". I didn't notice the detail of the book at first, but I noticed the period costume and the "frozen movement" that statues often try for.
To me, this memorial statue is doing its job well: it conjures up Jane Austen, and lets adults and children alike imagine her for a moment: that's how she probably dressed, she loved books, etc.

The statue looks like it could be any one of her characters (Emma, Fanny, or Marianne) out for a walk during a windy day.

Here is another statue I like. The dress looks futuristic. It'a like Marie Curie step through time presenting to us that she holds the mystery of the atom.

Monument to Maria Sklodowska-Curie
https://poolemariecurie.org.uk/wp-co...ue-449x600.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic (Post 2144103)
The MW memorial doesn't allow us that link or glimpse of the actual woman Mary Woolstonecraft. Instead, the sculptress has interjected her own ego between us and MW in order to make a statement of some kind: and what's the message of the MW memorial? One take on it is that women are immured in a bag of garbage, but if you look sexy enough, you will be able to rise up triumphantly above all those old, fat, ugly or non-caucasian losers, who the sculptress has represented here by an unflattering bag of spare parts.

Even though, as OH points out, MW is dead, it's a commonplace to make "would" statements as if the person lived on somewhere. It's consoling to people who've been shocked by a loss, and it's why we so often hear, at funerals, "He would've been so proud..." In that spirit, my suspicion is that MW would not be proud, but instead is turning in her grave, thinking, "WTF? Why couldn't they put up a nice statue of me in my best bonnet?"

I do not know enough about Mary Woolstonecraft to know for certain how she would feel. I'm just guessing: She might feel honored to see her name in print. However she would probably feel absolutely no connection to the nude figure atop the memorial, and perplexed about the whole thing together.

To me it looks a like a trophy with a marble base, abstract art as a riser, and female figure. The whole thing akin to an Oscar award. Between the figure and the base is a strange bit of abstract art that begs to be interpreted. Is it a burning bush with smoke rising? Perhaps a retelling of the Phoenix where the hatched egg burns and rising out of the smoke comes a female figure? Maybe it is suppose to represent an ovary and the figure stands atop a Fallopian tube? Who knows what was running through the mind of the artist when she made the statue.

The MW memorial figure departs from concepts found in classic art like e.g. Venus De Milo. The figure's hips are less curvaceous, the stance more rigid than Venus DM. There was this sense of combining sensuality and modesty in classic art. Statues and paintings of females usually present women partially bare, with either long hair or clothing obscuring the more revealing parts. The MW memorial is less sensual however more revealing - baring the woo woo for all to see. I guess that is most contravention part of the memorial. One thing to take into consideration is that third wave feminism (maybe not all but some do) take pride and see nudity (stripping, pole dancing etc) as empowering. There is a sort of an irony to that where first wave feminist fought not to be treated like a sex object. The whole things seems more like the artist's ode to feminism more than a memorial honouring MW.

OccultHawk 11-13-2020 04:55 AM

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...ondon.amp.html

Quote:

This is public art intended to address its audience in real life, in the present tense. As Virginia Woolf once said of Wollstonecraft, “We hear her voice and trace her influence even now among the living.”
That is a good point, imo

Lisnaholic 11-13-2020 03:51 PM

Interesting that ribbons and Marie both see something of a Metropolis robot in the MW statue; that never occured to me. Also very interesting comments, Neapolitan:-

Quote:

The MW memorial figure departs from concepts found in classic art like e.g. Venus De Milo. The figure's hips are less curvaceous, the stance more rigid than Venus DM. There was this sense of combining sensuality and modesty in classic art. Statues and paintings of females usually present women partially bare, with either long hair or clothing obscuring the more revealing parts. The MW memorial is less sensual however more revealing - baring the woo woo for all to see. I guess that is most contravention part of the memorial. One thing to take into consideration is that third wave feminism (maybe not all but some do) take pride and see nudity (stripping, pole dancing etc) as empowering. There is a sort of an irony to that where first wave feminist fought not to be treated like a sex object. The whole things seems more like the artist's ode to feminism more than a memorial honouring MW.
Regarding the abstract part, here is the artist's own explanation:-

Quote:

...artist Maggi Hambling said that her work "involves this tower of intermingling female forms culminating in the figure of the woman at the top who is challenging, and ready to challenge, the world."
Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 2144198)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...ondon.amp.html

"This is public art intended to address its audience in real life, in the present tense. As Virginia Woolf once said of Wollstonecraft, “We hear her voice and trace her influence even now among the living.”

That is a good point, imo

Thanks for the NYT article, which is far kinder than I have been about the statue. I take the point that a memorial can do more than just represent a figure dressed up in period clothes - that it can speak to its modern audience too. But in view of this fact:-

Quote:

According to the organizers, this is the first public statue dedicated to Mary Wollstonecraft in the world.
...and these stats:-

Quote:

"Over 90% of London's monuments celebrate men," reads the campaign website. "This is set against a population of 51% women."
The charity Public Monuments and Sculpture Association has a catalog of all 925 public sculptures in the UK. When campaigner Perez analyzed the list, she found that only 158 statues depict women, according to the charity's website. Of these, almost half were based on fictional figures, 14 were of the Virgin Mary and 46 were of royalty -- meaning there were only 25 statues of historical, non-royal women in the UK.
... Maggie Hambling's monument seems like a missed opportunity to me, especially as it is in so many ways a retrograde step - to celebrate women, yet again, by focusing on that lucky percentile of attractive women and showing them with their clothes off. The modern twist, perhaps to distract attention from such an outdated depiction, is to show the woman rising up out of an abstract bag of butcher's offal. Nice.

To my mind, another way to link MW to the present would've been to show the real MW, with her inkpot and quills, sending a message to a modern woman intent on her cellphone. If that idea sounds cheesy, give me the artist's $190,000 and perhaps I can come up with a better one.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:41 PM.


© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.