Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Hooray for oppressive 2nd-wave feminists appropriating the voice of all women!

That was my first thought as well

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wouldn't the psychological theory be technically sexist as well, as its implying that the women could not make choices of their own?

Women's ability to make choices is constrained by their position as the weaker half of society.

If someone is willing to hook a brotha up with a flight to Cambridge, I'll gladly wrestle in some Jello. Granted I'm not a woman... I'm a bearded overweight white dude... I'm the most oppressive thing this side of North Korea.

 purplefood wrote:
No they wouldn't.
A feminist (A proper feminist) believes their gender to be equal to the other.
Hence the entire point of feminism.
Some take it too far.

Yep. In general, feminists believe the sexes should be equal. It tends to be the straw-feminists who believe in female superiority.

Steve steveson wrote:
Feminist removal of agency

The problem is these choices are often not free of coercion. I'm not sure how you separate those issues out, or if it's even possible to.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The problem is these choices are often not free of coercion. I'm not sure how you separate those issues out, or if it's even possible to.

Where's the coercion to attend a non-mandatory social event that for all we know doesn't even do invites, simply says, "Hey, come if you want!"

I'm sure if you think hard enough you can imagine a situation in which women are socially pressured to act against our own self interest for the sexual titillation of men.

I'm sure you can. Peer pressure exists all over the place, however the answer is never to tell everyone "Don't do this because some people might feel pressured" which is what they are doing. The answer is always to empower people to say no and to discourage peer pressure.

The problem in this case is that they are removing the right of the women involved to say yes. In theory there could have been some social pressure involved, however, there was most definatly social pressure involved in the campain to cancle the event.

I am very much pro equality and pro sex-positive feminism and think that anything that detracts from a persons right to say yes or no to anything that is legal and safe is wrong. Assuming that someone is doing something due to social pressure and that people in free countrys need advocacy forced apon them is wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wouldn't the psychological theory be technically sexist as well, as its implying that the women could not make choices of their own?

Women's ability to make choices is constrained by their position as the weaker half of society.

Is that why it takes them so long to shop for clothes

Jelly Wrestling isn't creating Jelly Golems and watching them wrestle?

Everything I hate dislike about modern feminism is summed up in this incident. They couldn’t stand the fact that some women where freely choosing to participate in something they didn’t like so they demanded it be banned.

Considering feminists are supposed to be about ‘choice’ for women they don’t half become authoritarian when women make choices they disapprove of.

isnt it more sexist to try to tell what these women can and cannot do with their own bodies?

if they want to jelly wrestle, let them, right to choose and all that.

To be fair not all feminists are like that, just a loud minority.

I think some of you are being unfair on feminists.

Some some of the best videos on the Internet have women in the top position.

lound minority or not, forcing women to do (or not do) ANYTHING is wrong, and sexist, and is making them 2nd class citzens,

 notprop wrote:
I think some of you are being unfair on feminists.

Some some of the best videos on the Internet have women in the top position.

Oh you!

The people that cause a fuss over harmless activity performed by consenting adults, as well as the people that act like it is justified, are beyond silly.

You should take this up with the Wyvern Club. They are the victims so obviously it is their fault.

Obviously.

I just find it ironic that because the activity allegedly deprives women of agency, they are depriving women of the right to make their own decision on the matter.

The sexism is what makes wrestling in jello great!

That, and bikinis.

 Monster Rain wrote:
The people that cause a fuss over harmless activity performed by consenting adults, as well as the people that act like it is justified, are beyond silly.

This, pretty much. People are allowed to do whatever they want to do as long as they follow the law. Anyone who wants to tell them that that's wrong is stupid. Period. Were those women forced to wrestle in bikinis? No. So feck off with your feminist bull, it's their decision. Deal with it and go cry in a corner.

Oh, and here, for all cool people (maybe NSFW):

A few things if I can.

WJWB (World Jelly Wrestling Board) rule #341 dictates that bikini tops are not acceptable in a bout - as the can cause chaffing and strangulation - Safety first ladies.

That's not Jelly as I know it? That was clearly pink liquid and not jelly as required by WJWB rule #216 and therefore potentially dangerous because of drowning - Safety first ladies.

For those reasons I declare that clip sexist and will be starting a poll to have it removed from Dakka and replaced by one that fits both rules 341 and 216.

notprop
Chairman of the WJWB

More like starting a POLE, eh? EH?

Cheesecat wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Hooray for oppressive 2nd-wave feminists appropriating the voice of all women!

I don't think that's what 2nd wave feminism is even about.

Having said that, it does sound gross, and I've never understood the appeal of pretty girls covering themselves in jelly. Aren't pretty girls enough of a draw as-is? I'd far rather talk to one that doesn't look sticky.

I like seeing attractive women in skimpy outfits covered in messy food, but then again I'm OK without the messy food as well as both turn me on.

Actually, that's one of the principle criticisms of 2nd wave feminism (and one of the principle differences between 2nd and 3rd waves).

Yeah, see, the messy food is just not my thing. I generally prefer to keep my food and my women separate, and not rolled up together like some strange katamari ball. I'm just sayin', my personal preference would be to simply have the Jell-o be served to me.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Hooray for oppressive 2nd-wave feminists appropriating the voice of all women!

I don't think that's what 2nd wave feminism is even about.

Having said that, it does sound gross, and I've never understood the appeal of pretty girls covering themselves in jelly. Aren't pretty girls enough of a draw as-is? I'd far rather talk to one that doesn't look sticky.

I like seeing attractive women in skimpy outfits covered in messy food, but then again I'm OK without the messy food as well as both turn me on.

Actually, that's one of the principle criticisms of 2nd wave feminism (and one of the principle differences between 2nd and 3rd waves).

Yeah, see, the messy food is just not my thing. I generally prefer to keep my food and my women separate, and not rolled up together like some strange katamari ball. I'm just sayin', my personal preference would be to simply have the Jell-o be served to me in hot skimpy bikini.

There... much better, amirite?

Won't it all run out of a bikini? I prefer a bowl myself.

Steve steveson wrote:
Won't it all run out of a bikini? I prefer a bowl myself.

Well, obviously, the waitress wears the hot skimpy bikini

And if the Sorities decided to have a giant male stripper show for finals week, what would they do then?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And if the Sorities decided to have a giant male stripper show for finals week, what would they do then?

What do you mean by "giant"?

If you mean giant as in 30' tall man, they'd call the national guard.

I mean as in large. as in many people.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And if the Sorities decided to have a giant male stripper show for finals week, what would they do then?

Stampede to break larger bills into $1 bills?

I was gonna make a comparison to Ladies' Night, but then I realised that another instance of something someone perceives as being wrong doesn't justify the existence of other such things.

Jelly wrestling is, by definition, about sexualisation of the participants, in the same way as (but obviously not to the same extent as) strip clubs or Ladies' Night. I don't see how that by definition is a bad thing as long as everyone involved is there willingly. As a young male I would probably be aroused if I for some reason ended up at such an event, but I still think it'd be an incredibly stupid thing to do, but if you're a female student and you want to participate you should be allowed to.