New Socialist Comedy Club at Seomra Spraoi

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Jun 06, 2011 14:19

where would you get a socialist joke like the labour party???

answers on the back of a blueshirt to the usual address.

by f Mon Jun 06, 2011 14:26

I never realised that building socialist resistance involved putting women in bikini tops in showers or in gowns atop a bull. Or is that the place for women in the socialist revolution?

Are those posters also a joke?

I wonder how many of the feminists involved with Seomra Spraoi will be laughing.

by f Mon Jun 06, 2011 14:28

My mistake. Its not a bull, its a pig.

Maybe its just like one of those Far Side cartoons with the animals - some people get it, some dont.

I'm still at a loss about the scantily clad revolutionary babe in the shower though. Lame joke about water charges.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Wed Jun 08, 2011 14:49

..there was nobody even there to bluff...'

Here's the punchline

http://www.globalresearch.ca/indexphp?context=va&aid=25154

Oh,f, I think that poster relates to Animal Farm. Do check Mr Orwell out (and I see your point,the boys really need to talk to the girls more).

No sign of them replying to you yet. But sure hit them back with one of your own; not too hard,we've all got bigger enemies than each other.

by poor taste by seomra - none Wed Jun 08, 2011 16:11

Well, if it’s not the Christians with the dodgy PR sell on the cruifixation party now it it’s the women that seomra are pissing off now.
Seomra spraoi organisers seem to be stuck in their own bubble lately. Maybe get someone with a bit of tact to do the promotions from now on and change those flyers. Wudn’t be surprised if ye got abuse on the night for it. Poor taste indeed.

by f Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:44

Opus I got the "four legs good, two legs bad" reference, but that poster saying "two legs not so bad after all" with a "sexy" woman with her long legs sticking out just really smacks of sexism.

"Check out the legs on yer one - not bad" is what I am reading from that.

There are loads of ways to make humour intelligent, appealing, and even left wing - putting scantily clad women on posters and making reference to their physical appearance or getting their kit off in the shower definitely isnt one of them. Thumbs down to the socialists organising this.

FWIW (and I'm an atheist) I thought the crucifixion poster/party was in pretty poor taste. There are loads of other ways to mock the catholic church - a poster of a priest with a boner for a kid for example; or maybe have a beer making workshop to protest against the licensing laws for that day's abstinence, something like that.
Crucifixion was a method of torture used by imperialists to make a public statement about dissenters to the populace. Jesus, only a man, may have deluded himself into thinking he was the son of a deity, but he did preach tolerance, forgiveness, equality - a radical for his time. His message got warped by the fascists who built the organised religion. Mocking/trivialising torture and execution, even in the name of kicking against the church, was immature on the part of the SS collective, IMHO.
(I know this was covered elsewhere in comments but I never contributed.)

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Thu Jun 09, 2011 13:45

Immature is the word, which is why I wrote 'the boys'. On reflection I should have wrote they should LISTEN rather than talk to the girls more.

fact is, they probably would listen to a woman like yourself if you got them by the lug and pointed it out as you have done. The obvious presumption embedded in their posters is that revolution is for 'us boys', not a very comprehensive read of our common dillemma. Maybe you should put a few gag(a)s together and educate them( not that some of the wimmin aren't as bad). No shortage of excellent comediennes working the circuits, draw up a poster yourself and show how it could be and should be done. But dont go into outraged fem mode (which I was afraid was going to be the shape) that only thickens them counterproductively.

I'm probably a bit more tolerant, not having had to be on the receiving end. And despite my moniker, I also agree re the gratuitous baiting for the sake of posing radical. As you said, immature. Witta bitta it will prove to be a passing phase.

I find the whole left/right shorthand a bit of a humourless cul-de-sac betimes, unless its remembered that shorthands are never the full pitcher(ask Myles).

Speaking of whom, and given the topic, if you haven't already, check out At War, Myles na gCopaleen, a collection of his Cruiscin Lan columns from the 1939-45 row. A more mature scan, and well hilarious.Published 1999 I think, google it. I only found it last week in second hand bin, and its lent already and booked again.

by Serf Thu Jun 09, 2011 19:35

I presume f, you are equally scathing about all the sexist stereotyping corporate for profit adverts we are bombarded with every minute of the day too and not just when the non profit guys in seomra spraoi are guilty of it in a few posters quickly taken down by DCC.

I look forward to reading your Irate article on sexist advertising and the demeaning of women in the corporate media.

not condoning the poster here, but some balance too please!! Seomra spraoi's clumsy advertising is the least of a womans problem in the corporate marketplace where young girls are prematurely sexualised inculcated with deep insecurities about their bodies and steered relentlessly towards cosmetic surgery and a range of snake oil products, and portrayed on tv as irrational narcissistic creatures of questionable intelligence that men have to humour.

Despite the poster, I'd imagine the guys at seomra spraoi would be more scathing about all that than the average male. Give them a break. I think this is just an excuse to have a go at them.

by f Thu Jun 09, 2011 22:38

Yes Serf, you are correct in your assumption - I am equally scathing about sexist stereotyping, no matter where it comes from.

But in particular it annoys me when it comes from a radical organisation, which is supposedly revolutionary - i.e. putting itself in an ideologically different space from the mainstream advertising in society, of which you speak.

This is an event notice for a comedy club in Seomra Spraoi - hence the commentary on it, in the comments section.
If I or any other person was to elaborate on the other issues that you bring up, such as sexualisation of young girls, TV, cosmetic surgery etc, it would be off-topic (for this event), and of course it is an enormous topic that would take up a huge amount of detail and debate, hardly manageable in this particular environment and comment space.

Its not an "excuse" to "have a go" at them, please do not trivialise an opinion about a sexist advertising poster. They can choose to listen to my opinions, or not, its their choice - but I think the poster is demeaning. I do not know who the Connolly Soviet are, but I think their choice of images for their comedy club are offensive, and childish.

I understand that part of comedy can sometimes involve offending some sections of society, but I didnt think socialists would or should consider offending women as something to laugh about.

by Young Ho Chi - Connolly Soviet Fri Jun 10, 2011 03:57

Actually, Seomra Spraoi had nothing to do with the posters, as the event is run by Connolly Soviet. I really don't accept that the posters are sexist. The girl in the shower is certainly no bimbo, I imagine when she gets out of that shower she'll be leading a tank column and rolling over some capitalist lackeys. Anyway, at the end of the day, good comedy always jolts perceptions. If these posters jolt tired and lazy PC assumptions, then thats not a bad thing. Anyway, Seomra Spraoi did ask for more "gender balance", so next time round, we'll definitely have a naked guy on the posters...

by Young Ho Chi Fri Jun 10, 2011 04:27

f wrote:

"I understand that part of comedy can sometimes involve offending some sections of society, but I didnt think socialists would or should consider offending women as something to laugh about."

I wouldn't consider offending women a good thing to do - at least not for its own sake. There is always something offensive about comedy, that's the nature of it, and I wouldnt like to leave out anyone when it comes to offending. That said, if the women in these posters were shown in any sort of negative light, I'd be against using them. But, they aren't. They are certainly sexy, but they aren't negative. Anyway, you are more than welcome to come along on the night and tell a few jokes about the stupidity and chauvinism of Connolly Soviet...

by Young Ho Chi Fri Jun 10, 2011 05:17

What I like about these pictures is the gentle parody on socialist realism as an art form. Socialist realism usually presents fit, youthful bodies, but leaves out the sexiness. These pictures are a sort of return of the repressed. So, I suppose the question is: As Communists, do we allow ourselves to indulge in sexy imagery? Certainly, this will mean accepting bourgeois gender categories, at least to some extent - but socialist realism always did that, or else tried to solve the problem by leaving out something essentially feminine - the semiotic chora, as Kristeva terms it - and reducing the feminine to a Marxist discourse.

I guess the really interesting question is: What would a sexy image that made no reference to bourgeois gender categories even look like? Anyone who answers that one gets free tickets to the show for life - and can design all our posters from now on...

by a female fan of seomra not the comedy club - Bring bill hicks back from the dead Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:27

Young ho chi, it’s not a ‘gentle parody’ it’s blatantly sexist and the women I know having seen your stupid flyers won't even bother with it. And it’s not ‘sexy imagery’ it’s just demeaning and you are obviously trying to sex up your politics and group which has backfired. You’re just continuing the idea of repressing women with those images, Christ no wonder women don’t join any left-wing political groups, you’re just as bad as the right in the end if this is your attempt at humour.
I agree with ‘F’, it’s offensive and childish.
You can still put an alternative flyer maybe of these funny comedians and organisers instead, oh but hold on but that wouldn’t sell now, would it? Sex sells, welcome back to capitalism boys, you may need to re-advertise as ‘new capitalist piss poor comedy club’.
Also 10 euros is a bit of a rip-off for a venue that doesn't sell alcohol. Sorry sounds like a waste of money already.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Fri Jun 10, 2011 14:05

alternative poster??

Look mama, Santa 's been...

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Fri Jun 10, 2011 14:15

maybe this?

The boys are feelin their oats...

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Fri Jun 10, 2011 14:19

The price of delivering 'demockracy'

Oh yeah, we got that one alright....

by f Fri Jun 10, 2011 16:12

I should have used my full name, but just to point out, that is not me saying the "yep" comment above.

I am sure the editors can check the logs of the computer to see that it is someone else, thanks.

[ sorted - ed ]

The grammar on the above post is also not in the manner I would use (I am a stickler for capitalisation and reasonably correct punctuation).

For what its worth I dont buy the "socialist realism" images being reclaimed argument.

I think ten euro is fine to pay in and support a non-profit venue; places / spaces like this need cash to pay rent, money doesnt just appear from nowhere. If I was to go to the pub, two pints is a tenner. I dont mind giving that money to an alternative space. But not for an event that uses imagery like that to market its supposed alternative comedy (I dont ever think I've seen a scantily clad woman used to market a comedy event at the International or the Laughter Lounge).

Anyway, I think I've made my point; I think the posters are a bit pathetic, immature, and sexist. Over and out.

by support Campaign for old city worthy cause - city cause Fri Jun 10, 2011 17:32

Price is steep tho for comedy nite, the city campaign on seomra tomor nite below is only 3 euro donation. hope those lads are funny enough to earn a tenner. Think the city campaign is a worthier cause tho, would pay the tenner for that instead.

by Young Ho Chi Fri Jun 10, 2011 18:23

I know that exaggeration is the heart of comedy, but don't you think that the leap from sexy Red Army soldiers in the shower, to IDF scumbags murdering children is just too much of a leap...

by Young Ho Chi Fri Jun 10, 2011 18:26

And we still don't have any winner for the Sexy-Image-Without-Gender-Category competition. Guess that would actually require - thinking...

by not ho chi - none Fri Jun 10, 2011 18:41

no ho chi - it requires people to actually care. Now be a good little serf and redo your poster yourself, u lazy socialist.

by Young Ho Chi Fri Jun 10, 2011 18:48

So show some care - and answer the question. It's pretty lame to say don't do X, without offering any alternative.

by not ho chi - none Fri Jun 10, 2011 18:50

Not as lame as your original posters.. har har.

by Young Ho Chi Fri Jun 10, 2011 18:58

Really its much much more lame, as it is utterly pointless to tell people not to do something - when you have no idea what else they can do.

by f Fri Jun 10, 2011 19:08

You obviously dont get it. You are using images of women in provocative poses to market your event. There are no men in those posters. You are just using women to grab attention for your comedy club.

Why do you need to have something "sexy" to sell your product?

If you actually want to have a joke about the water charges and sex - why didnt you have a normal-looking naked couple making love to each other under a shower, instead of a half-dressed "sexy" woman with a "ripped" stomach and slender but muscular arms, so typical of every other type of macho bullshit advertising?
(apart from the fact that she is dressed in Chinese military shorts and hat - which still looks like the sort of pseudo revolutionary nonsense that gets peddled all the time in advertising, e.g. revolution beers or vodkas)

Your organisation is promoting the usual "body beautiful" images of women that seek to oppress them in society for profit.

Any comedy posters I ever see have images of a microphone for an open night, or a pic of the comedian themselves. I dont think I've ever seen a comedy night marketed in such a way.

Des Bishop is a good example of a left-leaning comedian, with shows on low paid jobs, the Irish Language, religious dogma, and living in deprived parts of the country.
I dont ever recall seeing any women mounting a pig on his posters.

If this is the only way that the Connolly Soviet can think of promoting their comedy night then they have a serious problem. If they cant see that, they've already failed at the first hurdle when it comes to convincing 50% of a potential audience to come see their show. And I'm sure a lot of regular men who come to stuff at Seomra too wouldnt be impressed with your images either. I dont know if SS have some sort of mission statement or guiding principles but if they do I imagine your posters would have to be called into question.

by Young Ho Chi Fri Jun 10, 2011 19:15

So, basically, you are saying that Communists can't use sexy images? Unless there are both men and women in the image, looking equally sexy? If thats the case, then the issue can't be gender categories in themselves, as an image of a couple making love in the shower will inevitably maintain traditional gender categories - even if you make the image extremely abstract. Such an image will also imply a hegemony of heterosexual relations.

by RSVP - none Fri Jun 10, 2011 19:25

Using sexual ojectification in advertising is the most obvious way of saying you have nothing clever to say so it’s a bad omen already for the comedy nite. And communists should be allowed to use sexy images just not sexist images which is what ur lot are up to.

by Young Ho Chi Fri Jun 10, 2011 19:28

Could you define the difference between a Sexist image and a Sexy image?

by RSVP - none Fri Jun 10, 2011 19:34

Try a dictionary hi chi - you find them in libraries or bookshops...After that it's common sense that the rest of us use.

by Young Ho Chi Fri Jun 10, 2011 19:36

You mean base my political philosophy in what I find in a bourgeois dictionary? And common sense very often turns out to be non-sense. One immediately suspects that when a person can't even offer a definition of the terms they are using...

by RSVP - none Fri Jun 10, 2011 20:45

Your ‘base’ politics and poor defence so far appear to be made of a mix-mash of young wannbe socialist soldier sputtering out guff feigning equality, shock at gender stereotypes that you just endorsed with capitalist advertising and that has a nudge to the history of the failed left hence the red army in sexist shorts pose. Do people need reminding of the misteakes and do you need to continue the stereotypes implied in the ads? Can you not come up with something original? And when does a dictionary become bourgeoisie, hi chi? Surely you would have used one in college? But maybe you should remember, college is that place full of all those bourgeoisie types where u go recruiting... Although u better have a definition re sexy and sexist itself on the night or the book might be literally thrown at u. Just hope that you are only responsible for the comedy and not given a position in any political group. Christ that would be funny tho, wouldn’t it?

by Young Ho Chi Sat Jun 11, 2011 00:36

As far as the comedy club goes, if its funny, that's what really matters. But, the fact that you couldn't define what you consider the difference is between sexist and sexy - yet you based your argument on the distinction - says a lot.

And yes, all the dictionaries for the English language are bourgeois dictionaries, that transmit bourgeois ideology in the definitions they supply.

by Confused Sat Jun 11, 2011 14:43

"Try a dictionary hi chi - you find them in libraries or bookshops...After that it's common sense that the rest of us use."

Thats really just ad hominem crap, and an excuse to avoid answering the (reasonable) question.

I'd actually like you to explain this difference too.

So please do tell us less intelligent folk mr/mrs/ms RSVP, what IS the difference between a sexist and a sexy image

by Not impressed with these antics boys - ? Sat Jun 11, 2011 22:23

Love the fact these guys won’t apologise but whatever! Hi just to let women know that the excellent Antiroom blog writers are running a cinema club in the working mans club (funny...) with the first night is on Wed 06th july and is free! Guys who aren't like the obnoxious commentators as above are of course welcome too.

So if u dont want to spend 10 euros on sexist crap comedy you know where to hang out. Will also put that on the events page too.

In solidarity ,
Antiroom blog supporter & critic of sexist communist/socialist/general pain-in-the-asses

See link below -
http://www.theantiroom.com/2011/06/08/announcing-the-an...club/

by Joe Mc Sat Jun 11, 2011 23:38

The steamy poster for the anti room event is just as sexist as the ones from the Connolly Comedy Club .But none of them are sexist really in my opinion - because there doesnt seem to be any intention to offend or exploit women on the part of the organisers of either gig . The "lads"(?) from the Connolly Soviet Club are being ironic , I would have thought. Many feminist posters use images in the same way.

by disagree jim - ? Sat Jun 11, 2011 23:51

joe you are welcome to join the capitalist club. And that to me is a glamourous image of old hollywood not sexist as the ones u endorse.

by Young Ho Chi Sun Jun 12, 2011 00:34

I find it interesting that two people who condemn the Connolly Soviet, have still taken the opportunity to leap frog onto this thread to advertise their own events. Does that not mean that you have used our disgusting sexist posters to gain attention for yourselves?

As for your poster of great white hunter Clarke Gable closing in on a sexy starlet with her top seductively falling off her shoulder not being sexist - well, my friend, you clearly have a talent for comedy, and we'd love to have you do a set. I'm sure you'll bring the house down.

by Young Ho Chi Sun Jun 12, 2011 00:38

Sorry Joe Mc, I was actually agreeing with you there, my comments are directed to Not impressed with these antics boys - ?

by JoeMc Sun Jun 12, 2011 00:41

*The sexism of Mogambo is so obvious and so vulgar that today it simply appears silly. "

You should check out Edward Said on Mondango sometime.
The film,set in Kenya with black "noble savage" porters serving white safari hunters is also blatantly colonialist and speceist.

by Disagree Jim, - ? Sun Jun 12, 2011 01:00

Disagree Jim,
If you look at the blog article choosing the film, it focuses on the contrasting ‘good’ woman and ‘immoral’ woman in the outdated system of Hollywood storytelling. Unfortunate yes that this story that it didn’t focus on the workers but this is Hollywood in the 1950s before the civil rights movement shook the system and actors and filmakers like Dorothy Dandrige and Spike Lee. Your original viewpoint is still wrong on the poster by the way so I won’t be referring to your recommendation, I’ll use my own judgement thanks.
Ho chi – good luck with the film night, you’ll need it. And glad we agree that the wonderful ava gardner is sexy, someone like you couldn’t remember her name, Ouch! And a fantastic actor to boot. Pity her life was so turbulent. But that was living by the Hollywood system which put people under incredible pressure to create perfection. Thats something ull never experience tho...

by Young Ho Chi Sun Jun 12, 2011 01:14

We aren't having any film night, and if we were, it wouldn't be Anglo-Saxon romance with the whole of Africa as its backdrop. Give me Eisenstein any day...

by pedant Sun Jun 12, 2011 15:17

the dictionary isnt bourgeois for goodness sake-words have meanings when the meanings change the dictionary is updated, you may aswell just decide to accept the current meanings of words in whichever language you speak or remain mired in confusion (+it is most important in the Law and as feminist we want the law to change to favour our arguments). The meaning of sexy and sexist are the same in british and hyberno english. what the connolly youth fella should do is apologise ( as a woman the poster made me feel sad),
admit he should have consulted his party elders before doing something so childish and insulting, change the posters and take a look at the sexist wallpaper he hasn't noticed growing up and what all women are told even by our families what we should sell

by Young Ho Chi Mon Jun 13, 2011 00:02

Indeed the English language dictionaries are bourgeois, and they privilege bourgeois ideology in the definitions they give. Just look up the definition of the word "capital" in your dictionary. Does it even mention surplus value? Does it mention fetishism? Does it mention anti-production? Or the structuring of working activity on debt? Again, I claim that before we can have a serious discussion here, those who are criticizing Connolly Soviet must define or determine the difference between "sexist" and "sexy," and not depend on bourgeois dictionaries to do it for them. It is not enough to blandly throw out the accusation of "sexism" without defining what you are actually accusing us of.

by Young Ho Chi Mon Jun 13, 2011 02:53

Just to note that Connolly Soviet is not Connolly Youth, and is not part of any party.

by Joe Mc - buck gorillas need hugs too Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:20

F chided young ho chi last Friday with these words:
"You are using images of women in provocative poses to market your event."

Whatever about dictionary definitions I would have thought before reading the comments to this thread that most feminist would have regarded 1950s Hollywood glamour as sexist . The antiroom blog linked to above concludes that the point of the film Mogambo is that bad girls can also "still get the man". If I remember the film rightly ,Ava Gardner bags her man - the big game hunter played by an ageing Clarke Gable after he shoots a rogue buck gorilla . The movie is blatanly sexist .Perhaps you should consider showing some Benny Hill reruns at future antiroom events.

A link to a good review of Mogambo :

http://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/tale-of...ilms/

by F2 Mon Jun 13, 2011 13:18

i would find the poster offensive even if it was not being used to market an event and was just on a wall. Could we get clarification who created the poster? presumably the purpose of the poster is to be blatantly sexist on purpose. It hardly has a political message, in fact it's excactly the type of thing somebody would use if they wanted to slag off socialists and feminists. Also i would like to know is this connolly soviet all-male? if it has any female members have they actually allowed this sort of thing?

by Young Ho Chi Mon Jun 13, 2011 21:04

We are still hearing people lazily throwing about the term "sexist" with no attempt to define it. I take it then that these people are not interested in discussion, but merely in airing their prejudices. And yes the Connolly Soviet has female members, and they think the posters are cool and 100% positive with regards to women and communism. That's also my view.

by Susan Mon Jun 13, 2011 22:32

For those sad acts who are trying to over-intellectualise the difference between sexy and sexist, let me give some simple examples:

Tango is sexy. Pole-dancing is sexist.

Des Bishop is sexy. Benny Hill is sexist.

Passionate love-making is sexy. Prostitution is sexist.

by Young Ho Chi Mon Jun 13, 2011 22:59

Susan, I dont think giving some examples is a substitute for defining the terms you use. But, lets just take the first sample you offer i.e. Tango.

Tango has very determined gender roles, where the man leads, and the lady follows. Tango was born in the brothels of Buenos Aires, and the practitioners of Tango were the prostitutes and their clients. The music, lyrics, and movements of Tango refer at all times to this past. The man rests his weight evenly across the soles of his feet, while the lady must keep her weight on the balls of her feet at all times. Her weight is projected onto him, and he supports her movements. The movements emphasize the strength of the male body and the seductiveness of the female body.

Now, I agree that Tango is sexy, but if Tango is not sexist, then you clearly don't regard determined gender roles as being sexist. I'm still left with the question: What precisely is sexist about the Connolly Soviet Posters?

by Susan Tue Jun 14, 2011 00:06

Determined gender roles (your terminology) are not necessarily sexist. Example; child-bearing is a determined female role by biology. This is not sexism, its a statement of fact. However, a value judgement that child-bearing has less value than "real" work is inherently sexist. Because sexism is a belief system, implicit or explicit, that one gender is of lesser worth than the other. It is not a belief that one gender is different or has different determined roles. Got it?

A comparison with race and racism is instructive. We could call race based characteristics "determined race roles" eg colour of skin, texture of hair, shape of facial features, mean height and build etc tend to be different for different races. It is not racist that such differences exist or to point them out. Racism is a belief system that one or more races is of greater or lesser worth than other races.

Back to your posters. Irony apart (and I'm not sure you're using the irony defence) they say to me: Look, I'm a woman, I'm demeaning myself by presenting my body in a manner designed to tittillate men rather than to make me feel better about myself. Implicit is the belief that mens titillation is more important than women's dignity. That's not sexy; it's sexist.

Tango, then. Tango is sexy because among other things it emphasises co-operation between the sexes and mutual respect for the different gender roles. You scratch my back I scratch yours. Or whatever freely informed consenting adults wish to do. That's sexy.

by f Tue Jun 14, 2011 00:25

The problem with modern society and sex is that exploitation of women (and men, but less so) is so pervasive, our gaze and minds cant avoid it, its on advertising, TV, magazine covers, music videos, everywhere. Its so endemic and it becomes hard-wired into our brains and concepts of what it means to be "sexy", that it becomes difficult to separate sexy and sexist with any clear, defined boundaries.

But from my experience, images of women in pouting poses, mounting animals, and dressed as nurses are usually used to sell a product, associating sex and attractiveness with a product - if you buy this thing, you will get this woman.

It should be within the remit of any group that calls itself revolutionary to challenge this, as feminist and queer theory does.

Nobody claims they have the one, true, answer to what true sexual attraction in society is, it is a varied and polydimensional aspect of humanity in the 21st century.
But your posters are drawings of women in unnatural, false, and contrived settings.
Your slogan next to the woman (in her pristine white dress, her long shaved and toned legs apart on the back of a pig, her painted nails and titillating pushed up cleavage) suggests that she is "not bad at all", the typical dickhead comment you hear from groups of drunk "lads" out on the streets or in bars.
I've already discussed the ridiculous image of the clothed woman in military fatgiues in the shower.

Again - I have to question why the original group (of which I presume Young Ho Chi is belonging to) actually feels the need to have a "sexy" poster when it is advertising a comedy night. No other comedy night I can think of advertises their events like this.

Is anyone from Seomra Spraoi reading these comments? What do they think? I am going to email them tomorrow if I get a chance and object to this group's publicity. If Young Ho Chi is genuinely a member of the organisation I think they've shown a complete lack of willingness to accept that other people might have a point.
With all the issues that have been thrown up in recent weeks and months across the world - the SlutWalks, Dominique Strauss Kahn, "Wienergate", and so on, its embarassing to hear a supposed revolutionary group defending these images.

by Young Ho Chi Tue Jun 14, 2011 01:08

Susan wrote:

"Determined gender roles (your terminology) are not necessarily sexist. Example; child-bearing is a determined female role by biology. This is not sexism, its a statement of fact.!"

You are conflating gender with sex here. Of course sex is determined by biology, but gender is not . Gender is a social function, and, thus, is not determined by biology.

Susan wrote:

" However, a value judgement that child-bearing has less value than "real" work is inherently sexist. Because sexism is a belief system, implicit or explicit, that one gender is of lesser worth than the other. It is not a belief that one gender is different or has different determined roles. Got it?"

This is closer to a definition of sexism. I take it that you are saying that sexism is the belief that one sex, i.e. females, have less symbolic value in the the symbolic structure of bourgeois society? I think we could work on this, but it is not without its problems. You still have to separate sex from gender, and you have to separate the reality of bourgeois society from the ideal of socialist society. In other words, somebody who says that the feminine gender has a less valuable place in the bourgeois symbolic order may not be "sexist." They may be reporting what they find, while wishing it were otherwise.

Susan wrote:

Back to your posters. Irony apart (and I'm not sure you're using the irony defence) they say to me: Look, I'm a woman, I'm demeaning myself by presenting my body in a manner designed to tittillate men rather than to make me feel better about myself. Implicit is the belief that mens titillation is more important than women's dignity. That's not sexy; it's sexist.

There are a number of problems with this. The most obvious is that there may exist in the world women who feel better about themselves precisely when they titillate men. If that is the case, you will have to demonstrate to them how their feeling better about themselves is based on false consciousness, and how not titillating men would lead them to a truer state of feeling better. Another problem is that, in a world where hardcore porn is so pervasive, and viewed by both male and female teenagers on a regular basis, where do you think these posters would register on the Richter scale of titillation? These posters work on many levels. To reduce them to one of their elements, i.e. the erotic element, is very strange in my view. And nor does it appear to me that any of the images present women who are demeaning themselves. Far from it, they seem to be giving themselves a surplus of meaning. As many of the posts on this thread indicate.

Susan wrote:

"Tango, then. Tango is sexy because among other things it emphasises co-operation between the sexes and mutual respect for the different gender roles. You scratch my back I scratch yours. Or whatever freely informed consenting adults wish to do. That's sexy."

Of course, Tango requires the co-operation of the sexes, as does all social functioning. But, Tango does this by allocating pre-determinated gender roles to the participants. These gender roles are, in fact, the same gender roles that bourgeois society allocates. It seems to me that you are coming very close here to the kernal of the problem. Being sexy will always work on a ground of determined gender roles (not biological sex, there is nothing sexy about animal reproduction), even if it is to subvert these gender roles. Subvert or accept, the reference is to the gender role determined by any given symbolic order.

by Young Ho Chi Tue Jun 14, 2011 01:24

f writes:

"The problem with modern society and sex is that exploitation of women (and men, but less so) is so pervasive, our gaze and minds cant avoid it, its on advertising, TV, magazine covers, music videos, everywhere. Its so endemic and it becomes hard-wired into our brains and concepts of what it means to be "sexy", that it becomes difficult to separate sexy and sexist with any clear, defined boundaries."

Yes, I think this would be a very difficult task. At the end of the day, some degree of trust is needed.

f writes:

"But from my experience, images of women in pouting poses, mounting animals, and dressed as nurses are usually used to sell a product, associating sex and attractiveness with a product - if you buy this thing, you will get this woman."

Being realistic, do you think anyone will imagine they will get Red Army babes if they come to Seomra Spraoi?

f writes:
"It should be within the remit of any group that calls itself revolutionary to challenge this, as feminist and queer theory does."

If you look at what I've written on this thread, pretty much all of it is taken from Feminist and Queer theory.

f writes:

"Nobody claims they have the one, true, answer to what true sexual attraction in society is, it is a varied and polydimensional aspect of humanity in the 21st century.
But your posters are drawings of women in unnatural, false, and contrived settings."

I would think nearly all of art is based on setting the world in unnatural, false and contrived settings. Art and reality are two different things.

f writes:

"Your slogan next to the woman (in her pristine white dress, her long shaved and toned legs apart on the back of a pig, her painted nails and titillating pushed up cleavage) suggests that she is "not bad at all", the typical dickhead comment you hear from groups of drunk "lads" out on the streets or in bars."

Fit athletic bodies are part of the whole "thing" of socialist realism, and these posters refer to the orthodoxy of that genre. But, yes, the comment is a typical dickhead comment, which is what the joke is based on - the contrast between the visual genre, the woman's obvious lack of socialist puritanism, the book Animal Farm (which is often used as a stick to beat Communism), and the yobbo comment. I think its funny. You don't.

by Young Ho Chi Tue Jun 14, 2011 01:44

f writes:

"Is anyone from Seomra Spraoi reading these comments? What do they think? I am going to email them tomorrow if I get a chance and object to this group's publicity. If Young Ho Chi is genuinely a member of the organisation I think they've shown a complete lack of willingness to accept that other people might have a point."

I think the number of lines I have written on this thread, and the arguments I have made, clearly demonstrate that I'm more than willing to discuss the matter, and analyse the points made in some detail. You're problem seems to be that I am not agreeing with you - or that you have not been able to define the terms on which your complaint is grounded. Your e-mail to Seomra Spraoi sounds a bit like running off to tell the teacher in the school yard.

by Therapist Tue Jun 14, 2011 04:36

sounds to me like most people on this thread just need to go out and get laid in whatever manner they find ideologically acceptable!!! ;-)
Why not do so at the comedy club gig at seomra spraoi or maybe after the ava gardner film with the even more sexist poster? ;-)
Sexuality is a natural part of our nature as human beings. Get over it.

And I see far worse and more insidious adverts every single night on TV. You should write a few letters to the papers about that. Its not as if that many people are going to see these posters and have their sense of self undermined by them at the connolly soviet comedy club at seomra spraoi!!!

But of course F and susan probably won't bother doing that even though what I'm referring to is far more systematic and insidious and affects FAR more people's attitudes. They just make cheap divisive attacks on the young leftys for not being absolutely perfect while ignoring the herd of stomping neoliberal bikini clad elephants in the room. It's this that makes me think this is just standard anonymous secrtarian indymedia "divide and conquer " 101 at work here and not deep compassion for the sexual oppression of the female masses of Ireland.

Personally I thought the poster was witty, ironic and made rather funny juxtapositions and references to animal farm. Clearly it was being totally ironic and tongue in cheek. Any emancipated and confident woman would see it for what it was, not some attack on womankind.

And I think young ho chi came across quite reasonable, polite and self deprecating. If he is representative of the connolly soviet then they are probably a decent bunch of lads.

F, I think you have another agenda here and it has nothing to do with protecting women.

by the way, I have no affiliations with anybody else posting here. Just giving my 2c.

Hope the comedy night goes well for the connolly soviet. That is if the anonymous trolls around here don't deliberately try to cause problems for you with seomra spraoi. Wouldn't surprise me much if they did at this stage.

After all, we wouldn't want the young leftys getting too organised or receiving any kind of regular funding in this right wing FG wet dream paradise we find ourselves in. Nip them in the bud.

by F2 Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:58

Is ho chi seriously calling feminists lazy when he can't be bothered to look up the dictionary. i assume 99.9 per cent of feminist agree on the dictionary definitions of sexy & sexist especially those that are published or inside the university system. on the word 'capital' you are wrong-ofcourse karl marx used the word as it is defined by consesus of all (ie.the dictionary) otherwise it would be impossible to communicate arguments (as philosophers proved last century there is no such thing as a private language).
take the word property, if the dictionary defines that as a house or dwelling u may say it's 'theft' which even though the maxim uses the verb 'to be' it is actually saying something about a fact not stating a present fact (ie an opinion or particular argument). We live in a world of real objects and a woman is not one of them! There is no way a similiar racist poster would be tolerable in fact it would be against the law. As a feminist I would hope that in 10 or 20 years sexist material like that will also be against the law

by F2 Tue Jun 14, 2011 13:14

sexist
 –adjective
1.
pertaining to, involving, or fostering sexism: a sexist remark; sexist advertising.
–noun
2.
a person with sexist attitudes or behavior.
________________________________________
Origin:
1965–70; sex + -ist, on the model of RACIST

I find it hard to believe that connolly soviet female members agreed to posters? Will any of them post online to prove that is true?
Also is ho chi really using the excuse that 1.he doesn't understand what the word sexist means? 2. he doesn't know that the poster is sexist.
Also is it not possible to share the information as to who actually created the poster? and what that persons intention was or what statement where they making? I would guess that the creator of the poster made it to be politically incorrect on purpose/ is male/ finds sexism 'funny' which it isn't

by Young Ho Chi Tue Jun 14, 2011 15:59

Karl Marx used the bourgeois definitions of capital that he found in a dictionary??? Well, that's news to me. Wonder what he wrote all those volumes for - when all he had to do was look in the dictionary.

by Young Ho Chi Tue Jun 14, 2011 16:03

F2 wrote:

sexist
 –adjective
1.
pertaining to, involving, or fostering sexism: a sexist remark; sexist advertising.
–noun
2.
a person with sexist attitudes or behavior.

I would have thought the noun should be defined before the adjective. We can hardly take much from the above.

by Young Ho Chi - Connolly Soviet Sat Jun 18, 2011 02:59

The line up for Friday 24 June at Seomra Spraoi will include:

Adam Cullen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_lNMLYqrjM

Will Lynch

Keith Anderson

And, headlining will be Abie Philbin Bowman

http://www.abielaughs.com/

by F2 Sun Jun 19, 2011 15:21

really can u not understand the difference between a definition (the definition of capital in the dictionary is excactly what marx used, what do you think he invented the word or changed the basic definition , he didn't) and somebody writing about a word, concept, idea. Marx wrote about capital. Also you have not given any proof that any female members of connolly soviet agreed to said sexist poster. saying you don't know what sexism is, is a total cop out. Do you also not know that Connolly was strongly in favour of the emacipation of women, you haven't even made a statement about that as if it's not a serious issue.

by James Connolly Soviet Mon Jun 20, 2011 18:49

The previous posts here are from one member of the Soviet and reflect his personal view on whether the posters are sexist. The Soviet as a group does not share this view. The posters were put together late in the day, and although concerns about the imagery were noted at the time, it was decided to use them given that it would have taken too long for them to be redone, and the event was fast approaching. We did not however appreciate the level of offence that would be caused.

Concerns were brought to our attention immediately by Seomra themselves when they received the posters as was indicated earlier in this thread.

The Soviet did not intend to cause any offence by the posters, and I have been mandated on behalf of the Soviet to apologise for any offence caused. We have given an undertaking to seomra that in future posters will be more gender balanced and appropriate. I have also asked that the offending posters be removed from this site.

The idea behind setting up the comedy night was to establish a regular night for socialist and revolutionary culture to flourish. Comedy plays an important part in how we educate ourselves and raise our consciousness (yes, the irony that we perhaps needed a little rise in gender related consciousness does not escape me!). Unfortunately the discussion around the imagery on some of the posters has damaged that process somewhat, and alienated some who we would have hoped to have on board. We hope that we can make amends for that and that anyone interested in supporting the concept of the comedy night will see past our teething problems and come to enjoy and hopefully be inspired by the night.

We would be delighted if any group or individual who took offence at the posters would be prepared to do a slot either on Friday or in the future, highlighting our lapse of judgment on this issue and we will certainly be humble enough to be made fun of during the process. Perhaps this way we can redeem ourselves and reach out to anyone who we have inadvertently pissed off.

by f Tue Jun 21, 2011 21:32

Thank you for this, it is genuinely appreciated.

by Susan Tue Jun 21, 2011 22:08

Yes indeed, takes a big person to climb down. Kudos and appreciation. Looks like a decent line-up too!

by Seomra user - and I love seomra spraoi! Wed Jun 22, 2011 15:33

''Also 10 euros is a bit of a rip-off for a venue that doesn't sell alcohol. Sorry sounds like a waste of money already.''

Yeah, nice bit of thought process there. So piss off to a pub, support a private corporation and get shit-faced for 50euro then.

by seomra supporter - none Fri Jun 24, 2011 13:07

"So piss off to a pub, support a private corporation and get shit-faced for 50euro then"
Better to get shit-faced in the pub then listen to a lot of failed comedians, hur hur! And quelle surprise not everyone drinks in this country. Wud rather spend my cash at the international where they actually have comedians.Ta anyway boys!

by Lenin Laughs Fri Jun 24, 2011 15:12

Sweden's top comedian, Magnus Betnér will be at the show tonight to see his friend Abie Philbin Bowman perform - and might even do a short set for us himself...

RTÉ's Arena program will be recording part of the show.

by James Connolly Soviet Fri Jun 24, 2011 18:39

As with most Seomra events, the price is a suggested one only. Reduced rates apply to those with a (now banned) flier or those who are unwaged. Nobody will be turned away because they don't have the money!

The fact that alcohol is not served increases the value as you can bring your own. I doubt you'd be able to see live comedy and have a drink for as cheap in this city.

While not everyone on the bill is well known there are some top acts there, and internationally known ones at that. But it is not just about getting the big names, its not even about getting the funniest comedians, its about creating a night for the people to come together to have some fun without being slaves to profit, where people don't have to spend a fortune and about encouraging working class people to come forward and express themselves in the kind of humour that only they know how to do. The pre-arranged comedians provide some space for people to gain the confidence to come forward themselves, and to ensure some quality control, but its as much about the unknown funny fucker who's there with his or her carryout and can get up and tell a joke or two as much as the seasoned comedian on the circuit.

To the naysayers, you can keep your bourgeois comedy clubs and 5 Euro drinks, the joke is on you!

An Soviet Abú

by Séan Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:18

How did it go? Any reports?

by Young Ho Chi - Connolly Soviet Thu Jun 30, 2011 16:22

Yes, the evening went really well, despite the terrible weather. The standard of comedy was extremely high. If you listen to Arena on RTÉ 1 at 7.30 this evening, you will be able to get a feel of the atmosphere, or if you go to their website from tomorrow:

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/arena/