Todays Youth. [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

.:Shadow:.

03-23-2007, 10:01 AM

I made a thread like this on another board. Kinda annoyed with todays youth.
But I mean, its insane the way kids are today.
A while ago I went to my schools grade 8 concert, and sitting next to me was this girl, looked around 8-10. She had this mini skirt on, some make up, a purse, and some fancy cell phone. And she was so young!
What ever happened to kids running around outside, and playing with dolls or something. Nowadays the girls are the freaking dolls. And not simple cute dolls.. Nope, they're all slutty (That a swear word?)
Seems that they try be older. I am only 15, but I would give anything to be 10, or even 8 again, living on our old farm. Makes me want to flipping slap them when I see them acting all snobish.
And its not only the kids, its the things they play with it too.
Like these Brat Dolls, or what ever they are called.. No wonder the kids are how they are. Not to mention the things going on in the media.

And the parents arent helping the situation either. Some even encourage thier daughters to wear these skimpy outfits. *SMH*
I also know girls as young as 11/12 sleeping with men as old as 30 or even 40.
Its sad actually.

Anyway, what are your views/thoughts on this?

Oh, and I know I mentioned girls in there alot, but this isnt like insulting them or singling them out, boys are involved in this as much as girls, :p I just used them for examples.

B-Mental

03-23-2007, 02:28 PM

I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh when a 15 year old complains about youths. You have to be kidding me. You are complaining about your own generation. Maybe, its site dependent, at 15 and living on the farm, can you really even comment on this. I can tell you one thing. When I was you age there was a brief period of neo-Victorianism. The women fully covered themselves in shapeless clothes. Ever hear of leg warmers? Oh and these hideous baggy pants with stirrups to keep them down. When I go through my year books 70% of the women wore knit sweaters or sweater vests.

Most of what you complain about is the direct result of the entertainment and designer cultures. Back then Madonna bared her midriff, and the girls tried to look like her. It wasn't actually a look that I would ever like to see repeated. Still, you don't have enough distance from your target to criticize. sorry.

.:Shadow:.

03-23-2007, 07:14 PM

I dont live on a farm...
I live in the city.

Compare me to any other teenage girl in my class.. No wait.. My school.. And you'll see a very big difference.
Just because I am 15, doesnt mean I dont have an opinion, or that I cannot voice it. I think my age has nothing to do with this.
Its sad that I have to complain about my "own generation".
When I can easly tell right from wrong, and all they can think about it sex, drugs and alcohol.

But I dont get whats funny though..
I mean, if you think about it.. Me "complaining about my own generation" wouldnt that be right? Maybe right wouldnt be the correct word. But if I can see there is something clearly wrong, isnt that a good thing?
I dont follow all these stupid trends, or go to all these idiot parties, which I know only lead to one thing.. I am simply me.
Everyone else on the other hand is trying to fit in. And that leads to peer pressure, resulting in things which children shouldnt be getting into.
And if its not that, then its acting like the sluttiest pop star out at the moment.
Think about it for a second...

grace86

03-23-2007, 07:39 PM

I kind of understand where you are coming from Shadow. It is pretty bad when I hear eight year olds singing Ludacris and Eminem songs and swearing in their conversation to each other (no joke, I was walking by the elementary school near my house and heard this).

My baby sister drinks more alcohol at 15 than I have ever had in my whole life. And she will not stop long enough to call a guy she likes - her "boyfriend."

It's not necessarily about being to young and not having a right to talk about your own generation...if someone can realize that there is something wrong with there generation, I would think that would be insight. But that is just my opinion.

California has just about a 50% divorce rate (don't quote me I'm not sure), and media and "celebutaunts" don't exactly help. Proper parenting I think would help a lot of it.

hockeychick8792

03-23-2007, 07:48 PM

.:Shadow:., I know waht you mean I am 14 years old (yes that may be a kids age ) but I am nothing like that. I see girls half my age and older in their $100 dollar hollister jeans and $50 t-shirts that don't cover their whole top area and are thin enough that if you don't buy another $60 tank top every bodywill see their upper half.
They are the future of the wolrd and that will be a bit scary for those who are not fashion zombies. They waste their parents money and they are having affair three times earlier than their own parents. What is this wolrd coming to?

.:Shadow:.

03-24-2007, 07:24 AM

Yeah..
I was actually just thinking about this abit more, and after reading a post someone else has made, which I'll quote:

I really don't think "kids today" are any worse than the kids from all the generations before, though. Years ago it was NORMAL for a 14-year-old girl to marry a man in his 30's, drop out of school, and have his babies. This was the typical Christian American family. Now, the man would go to jail for that. I don't know why people think things are "worse." Just because girls dress more sexual now, girls have been robbed of childhoods as soon as they hit puberty and got breasts since biblical times. It's nothing new.

Isnt that true though?
Maybe it's not todays youth, but the youth in general. From anytime.

I would just think people have a little more respect with themselves.

I guess there is nothing wrong with maybe dressing a little older, or something. But alot of people go a little to far with it. When they're adults, they're going to look back at this, and think about how they wasted thier childhood. Whats wrong with being young and childish.. Why try be older.

One thing though.. So many people around me drink, that it's just made me hate alcohol more. I cant be in the same room with the stuff.

ClaesGefvenberg

03-24-2007, 01:16 PM

Just because I am 15, doesnt mean I dont have an opinion, or that I cannot voice it. You are right. :thumbs_up You have brought up an interesting (and perpetual) subject, and you are entitled both to do so and to get some honest opinions in return.

Maybe it's not todays youth, but the youth in general. From anytime. That, as far as I can tell, is entirely correct. :thumbs_up For the record, most young people I know are great, and we get along just fine (mutual respect is the key). Besides, we all make mistakes, and age has very little to do with that fact. I should know: I have made my fair share, and then some... :blush:
I would just think people have a little more respect with themselves.Yes... Once more something that is in no way limited to young people.
Whats wrong with being young and childish.. Why try be older.Nothing, as far as I am concerned. I also hope that I will be allowed to continue being old(er) and childish. According to my missus, I am nowhere near being grown up yet. ;) :lol:

Anyway: Do you know what I consider as the most childish thing there is? It is to lack the courage to be childish....
I also know girls as young as 11/12 sleeping with men as old as 30 or even 40. Its sad actually.I saved this for last: That, my dear, is a bit beyond sad: In most countries I know, it is also illegal, and for good reasons.

/Claes

SleepyWitch

03-24-2007, 01:26 PM

rae_of_light

03-24-2007, 02:07 PM

Shadow, I am just as worried and saddened by this as you. I am also 15(homeschooled, so maybe thats part of it), and when I walk past the elementary schools, the children I see there are talking, dressing, and acting in ways that I would never even think of doing myself! I guess all that we really can do is try to be a good example to them, and hope that some of what we do will stick with them!
~Rae~

optimisticnad

03-24-2007, 02:52 PM

I'm 20...so I'm not a youth anymore right?

I most definitely agree with Shadow. They make me feel inept! Far too grown up without the grown up substance! But to be honest I'm not very happy with my generation either! There's just so much to complain about so I won't. I don't like that sex is used to sell EVERYTHING. I don't like that even my generation, let alone the youths of next generation, do not read enough. I remember someone saying you dont need burn books (as in the Third Reich) you just need to stop reading them. I don't like it when young girls dress....'slutty'. Why? Why?

But the really hilarious thing is that they're learning all this from the adults!!!!

Virgil

03-24-2007, 03:10 PM

I am only 15, but I would give anything to be 10, or even 8 again, living on our old farm. Makes me want to flipping slap them when I see them acting all snobish.

Shadow, I'm 30 years older than you and i agree I can't stand all these #%$##$$ *edited out words* young people here on lit net. :D :lol:

No, no, no, I'm only kidding. The young people here are wonderful. (Perhaps we could do without a few from the philosophy and religion thread ;) ) I think you're a little young to be complaining about youths. But I understand where you're coming from. But don't think that all adults are wonderful and perfect either. :)

.:Shadow:.

03-24-2007, 05:23 PM

Lets change it from Todays Youth, to just Whats Going On In The World Today. That seems to fit it a little bit more.

Its awesome to be childish, and silly, but to also know when to be mature. Its cool to look at grown ups, and see that they can have fun and be silly, but still remain grown up. I know some who can just be plain childish, I even seem alot older than them... Anyway, sorry I'll stop ranting about everything in this thread.

Nice to see so many people agree. I was expecting to get flamed. :$

sam96

03-24-2007, 05:40 PM

Shadow:
1 more person here agrees.Even,If we (u and i) differ in a point (not meaning that we do) but it's very good to see a 15 year old.Saying what he or she wants.And not being a puppet like a lot(most :)) of the ones i see and know.

ClaesGefvenberg

03-24-2007, 06:30 PM

Nice to see so many people agree. I was expecting to get flamed. :$ Flamed? Perish the thought... Shadow, even if I had not agreed with you (which I do) there would be no cause for flaming.

Just slightly off topic: Flaming is something we hardly see around here, which incidentally happens to be one of the reasons to why I enjoy this place so much. As some of you know, my daughter recently joined the LitNet. Rest assured that I would not have allowed that if flaming had been a normal occurence here, so kudos to Admin, the moderators and well behaved members for keeping it enjoyable...

Back on topic: Just curious... You mentioned starting a similar thread in another forum: Did you get similar reactions there?

/Claes

dramasnot6

03-24-2007, 08:02 PM

Shadow, I can see where you are coming from but it is very difficult to generalize on such a huge scale. One cant just blame the kids and parents either, have you seen what goes on in the media? Do you think its the KIDS who produce those "dolls" that give girls a bad image to follow? Kids dont purposely say from a young age "I want to dress and act merely as an object of sexual desire and behave innapropriately" they follow what is handed to them and shown to them.
I get frustrated with my peers all the time but I know they just mimic what they are told to mimic by society and the media, and many parents ought to realize this as well. Kids cant help being easily influenced, its a very hard age to be at and everyone is insecure to some level.You just have to put the right stuff out there to educate and help youth instead of attacking them.

Lily Adams

03-24-2007, 08:09 PM

Those dern whippersnappers! :p

But really, it does sort of make me throw up a bit in my mouth when I see "fashionable" ten year olds wearing stuff like that. So you're not alone. I also think that it's great that you're "voicing your opinion" about your own generation. There's nothing wrong with it! People need to speak up!

As the geek that I am, I am looking to history to see if this has happened before. It obviously couldn't have been that long ago. I think. So should we not worry about this because this is just a cultural "phase"?

Scheherazade

03-24-2007, 08:51 PM

I was expecting to get flamed. :$ Sorry to disappoint! :p
Even,If we (u and i) differ in a point (not meaning that we do) but it's very good to see a 15 year old.Saying what he or she wants.And not being a puppet like a lot(most :)) of the ones i see and know.Said another 15 year old??? :D

SleepyWitch

03-25-2007, 03:43 AM

As the geek that I am, I am looking to history to see if this has happened before. It obviously couldn't have been that long ago. I think. So should we not worry about this because this is just a cultural "phase"?

I'm not sure it's just a phase...
what do you mean by "couldn't have been that long ago"?
in case you're talking about the 60s/hippies etc, i think that was different. despite all the dope they smoked and wild music, they were interested in making life for humans on earth better.
whereas the kind of kids I had in mind (don't know about Shadow) are 100% materialistic (and i agree with drama it's not their fault).

the problem is that 25% of youth (for my country, don't know the stats for other places) aged 12-25 do not care a single bit about what's going on around them politically, socially, economically etc.
so what????? it means they have now way of influencing their own fate (as it happens those 25% are among the poorest youths, so it would be especially important for them to make a difference!!!!)
another 25% don't have any clear opinions of their own and can't be bothered to get involved in anything larger than their own daily life, although they have the means to do it.
the 3rd 25% are very active, but aim mostly for their own economical benefit and don't care about social issues that much.

which leaves 25% to 'save the world'. (but these 25% are from the middle/upper middle class. i.e. if the middle classes continue to be eroded, there will be less people left who have the means to think about problems larger than their own little life - this last argument was my conjecture; all other data: Shell Youth Study 2002)

the point is, that those kids Shadow complains about will probably never grow up to be the kind of adults we expect them to be --> their behaviour is not just a 'mistake' but it will affect all of society in the countries where this is happening.

hehe, sorry to be so pedantic :)

.:Shadow:.

03-25-2007, 06:35 AM

Back on topic: Just curious... You mentioned starting a similar thread in another forum: Did you get similar reactions there?
Yeah, kind of. It turned into a debate actually, about who was to blame.

Shadow, I can see where you are coming from but it is very difficult to generalize on such a huge scale. One cant just blame the kids and parents either, have you seen what goes on in the media? Do you think its the KIDS who produce those "dolls" that give girls a bad image to follow? Kids dont purposely say from a young age "I want to dress and act merely as an object of sexual desire and behave innapropriately" they follow what is handed to them and shown to them.
I get frustrated with my peers all the time but I know they just mimic what they are told to mimic by society and the media, and many parents ought to realize this as well. Kids cant help being easily influenced, its a very hard age to be at and everyone is insecure to some level.You just have to put the right stuff out there to educate and help youth instead of attacking them.

Yep, thats true. And I know exactly what you mean. But again this is where the parents come in. They have the control over what thier child can and cannot do. What shows thier child can and cannot watch. The type of people thier child can and cannot hang out with (this could sometimes be a little much, but it could be necessary). The things they buy for thier children.. And the list can go on.

But, its true that they cannot always control the things thier kids get up to, and thier actions and choices. But they definitely can teach thier children right from wrong. Ofcoarse then there are the rebellious ones, who do something just because thier parents said they shouldnt. But that can be fixed.. If you just talk to them about it, instead of just going "Dont do that!" Kind of hard to explain, I guess.. If you dont get my point.

And then there is peer pressure. If they kids havent seen it going on in TV, or the toys, or where ever else they get thies ideas, then they try to fit in with the kids at school.

So yeah.

Adudaewen

03-25-2007, 07:03 AM

I agree whole heartedly. I weep for the future. I am increasingly frustrated with our era. It is true that since the beginning of time, there have been rebels and what the kids today are doing is relative to those done in past centuries, but I do see it as getting worse. Now, its not just enough to have sex, but now its risky sex and multiple partners and sex parties and dangerous sex games (like Erotic asphyxiation and the like) and huffing and meth and drive-bys and gangs and the like. Let's face it, its dangerous out there! Add to that a healthy dose of parents who are too young and too busy and unconcerned, and what you're left with is just havok! Granted not everyone falls neatly into these catagories, but its prevelance is undeniable. I am terrified for my younger friends and relatives and also very thankful to have grown up in a house where my mother was there when I got home from school and I had a dad under the same roof who loved me and parents who cared enough to be strict and who knew where I was regardless of whether I was honest with them or not. The thing I really worry about is so many kids today are so "tech"ed out that they cannot even carry on a good conversation face to face with anyone anymore. Nor can they be bothered to pick up a newspaper or read anything other than magazine articles and myspace blogs. I will admit it has me very worried because ignorant people are easily swayed.

Bysshe

03-25-2007, 08:35 AM

I used to worry about it, but I've sort of given up caring. I find the whole binge-drinking culture incredibly depressing, and I can't help but feel slightly disturbed when I see eleven year old girls in make-up, but apart from that it doesn't bother me too much. I don't know. I've just come to accept that "my generation" is not a particularly happy one. I don't know what we'll be like as adults. Are we any worse than the previous generation? It's hard to judge. I suppose I'll just have to wait and see...

papayahed

03-25-2007, 12:12 PM

optimisticnad

03-25-2007, 02:17 PM

As some of you know, my daughter recently joined the LitNet.

Awesome! :lol:

Howd u manage that? I wish I could get my siblings to join....no freebies so they want nothing to do with it! :lol:

sam96

03-25-2007, 05:56 PM

:D Yeah,Scher,We 15 year olds gotta stand by each other.
But,I do agree with her.My friends go to school with mascara on and looking too sexy for school.i look like a baby beside them.

Virgil

03-25-2007, 06:11 PM

:D Yeah,Scher,We 15 year olds gotta stand by each other.
But,I do agree with her.My friends go to school with mascara on and looking too sexy for school.i look like a baby beside them.

I hate to tell you, but this was going on when I was 15. thirty years ago. Girls and guys did the same then too.

stephofthenight

03-25-2007, 06:16 PM

honestly i agree. i am 14. i have an older sister who wears shorts that show everything and tanktops to church. were i have never worn a pair of shorts in the last 3 years. i dont do drugs. im all for abstinece, i make good grades and i respect my parents. i see other kids with razor phones and crap, i have a cheap pre-paid phone for when i go on debate trips so i can call when we get there and call when were back. thats it and i still pay the bill. my vehichle is a 1964 truck and i paid for it i pay insurance and i pay for the gas. when i got out of line as a kid my parents took a belt to my butt and i staritendd up. if more parents would bother to dicipline there kids, ameica would be better. my parents never realy hurt me it was mostly a it hurt my feelings thing, but i dont misbehave. i dont get to go to the movies with a bunch of guys by myself most kids laugh and say my parents are stupid. i just turn around and say "i dont have the rep of a slut, and im not pregnet." they seem to be doing a good job. it makes me mad to see snobby 9 & 10 y.o. running around in slutty outfits with lots of make up. and then i just want to cry for them. think about it, its happening younger and younger kids are losing there verginity in 6th grade now. parents need to stop being lazy and take responosbilty for there kids. if u wernt going to be resposible you shouldnt have spred your legs in the first place. thats my stand on it. no wonder most guys think im a loser. well i know what i have and i hide it under big clothes but the guys/girls that i date, date me for who i am. not becuase they think that they can get some.

stephofthenight

03-25-2007, 06:21 PM

I dont live on a farm...
I live in the city.

[B]But, its true that they cannot always control the things thier kids get up to, and thier actions and choices. But they definitely can teach thier children right from wrong. Ofcoarse then there are the rebellious ones, who do something just because thier parents said they shouldnt. But that can be fixed.. If you just talk to them about it, instead of just going "Dont do that!" Kind of hard to explain, I guess.. If you dont get my point.

And then there is peer pressure. If they kids havent seen it going on in TV, or the toys, or where ever else they get thies ideas, then they try to fit in with the kids at school.

So yeah.

my parents never let me have barbie or anything like that. and iw as taught right from wrong. i was also a child who was happy in a 4 acre feild for hours playing games i made up in my head. i never thought about the things i was missing out on. all i knew was that i had animals who were my best friends. im kinda a loner because i dont get into that stuff. but honestly i would rather have 1 friend who was clean and excepted me and my morals then 100 who were sluts and gave me there reputation.

Schokokeks

03-25-2007, 06:22 PM

my vehichle is a 1964 truck and i paid for it i pay insurance and i pay for the gas.
Excuse me, you are fourteen and have your own car ? :eek2:

B-Mental

03-25-2007, 06:31 PM

and more bills than me. How do you pay those bills? I had a job when I was 12, but never enough money to do that much: movie, maybe clothes on occasion. This is a disturbing topic, and imo it has little to do with literature.

I have a 15 year old daughter. She doesn't have a job. She went on one date, homecoming and won't be driving until she is legal to drive. Oh yeah, neither her or her friends dress slutty. Maybe its where she lives, but I don't know. Some of these posts make it sound like its a huge portion of the population which does this. Its funny, but its the youths posting here are the ones posting these things.

Koa

03-25-2007, 06:41 PM

Excuse me, you are fourteen and have your own car ? :eek2:

Maybe 16... Americans... :rolleyes:

Well, it's something that kind of makes me concerned as well. It possibly is just a phase, I think half of those people will grow up and become more 'serious'. But I do think young people are 'older' than they used to. No matter what Virgil says here above, it was different when I was 15, and that was 10 years ago.
When I entered high school I was shocked because ONE of my schoolmates used to wear mascara, and another ONE had dyed hair. Now it's normal for anyone above the age of 10 (or less...) to have dyed hair, make-up, high heels... I see it even more here in the UK than in Italy, I mean at an even younger age. 15-year-olds that look older than me. When I was 21 I was mistaken for a 15-year-old because I wasn't wearing make-up
:flare:

We all had Barbies in my 'generation', but none of us used to dress like a slut at the age of 12. Now it is definitely faster, and it's everywhere, it is the media, and nothing else... the only value is to be hot and have sex as young as you can and drink as much as you can (and I'm not against sex and drinking, mind you, I just think the emphasis on both is INSANE, especially in the UK and, I believe, the USA - in Italy, where I'm from if someone happens not to know, it's still only starting but we'll be the same soon, that's why I said that 10 years ago it was WAY different, we're catching up).

Although I liked the point that someone mentioned, that it used to happen in the past in a different way, by early marriage etc... I had never thought about it. Although marrying at 18 as a choice (were there really many 14-year-olds marrying men of 30 in the 60s or so???) to me is different than giving too much importance to yourself at the age of 14...

Koa

03-25-2007, 06:43 PM

. Some of these posts make it sound like its a huge portion of the population which does this.

It is, otherwise it wouldn't be noticeable...

Its funny, but its the youths posting here are the ones posting these things.

I don't understand this sentence...

Virgil

03-25-2007, 06:50 PM

When I went to high school, girls wore make up. Actually there were some girls that wore so much that it looked horrible. As I look back I can see that it was out of insecurity. Guys were just as insecure, trying to be athletes to attract girls. While I have not been in a high school in a long time, I doesn't sound as if it's changed much. If you want to know what it was like in Brooklyn when I was growing up, check out the movie Saturday Night Fever. That's my neighborhood. The story line obviously is exaggerated (no one I knew committed suicide) but it captures teenager's insecurities quite well.

But what I really liked when I was in school that girls wore were super tight jeans. That's what caught my eye. ;) ;)

jon1jt

03-25-2007, 07:02 PM

Schokokeks

03-25-2007, 07:48 PM

But what I really liked when I was in school that girls wore were super tight jeans. That's what caught my eye. ;) ;)
Oh, great, finally someone is telling me ! *runs off to buy super tight jeans* :D

Virgil

03-25-2007, 08:07 PM

Oh, great, finally someone is telling me ! *runs off to buy super tight jeans* :D

:lol: :lol: I hope people don't think I'm sexist. But well, I was a teenager once.

SleepyWitch

03-26-2007, 02:43 AM

baaaah, Virgil, super tight jeans make absolutely everyone look fat, even nearly anorexic girls... they are an abomination and ought to be banned :)
i suppose people like the style they grew up with for the rest of their life...

B-Mental

03-26-2007, 03:00 AM

:sick: no that would be horrible, imagine all those Madonna wannabe's (these were her before the material girl uggh).

Schokokeks

03-26-2007, 06:02 AM

:lol: :lol: I hope people don't think I'm sexist. But well, I was a teenager once.
Oh, don't worry :D, I've already pidgeon-holed this special preference of yours under "fit of youthful folly" ;).

stephofthenight

03-26-2007, 05:49 PM

SleepyWitch

03-26-2007, 06:06 PM

ok so basicly, just because were 14 & 15 were not supose to speak out on how we feel about our generation.
a.) the truck i paid for
b.) i have 2 jobs
c.) my parents think that rent is the mature thing to do.
d.) i can safely say that 85% of my school dress like sluts. you have the sluts, the hore core, the goths.
so i think that everyone should no that there generation has flaws, and god forbid if we speak our minds. we are not pupets. we are people and rather you so called "grown ups" or "adults" like it we have a right to speak out on how we feal. -stephanie-

i think what Schoko meant was are you allowed to drive at 14 where you live?

yep, i think you have a right to speak your mind about your fellow teenagers. i don't think there isn't enough distance.. i mean you may be the same age, but then by being different from those guys, you are distanced enough in my opinion

miss tenderness

03-26-2007, 07:42 PM

dear Shadow, if you're considering this a prob and you're just 15,I must say that you have an early awareness:)although I definitely agree with Drame ,no generalization.

sam96

03-26-2007, 08:40 PM

Miss Tenderness:
Where have you been?!!I haven't seen you for a while(i think:D).
I don't think it's about awareness though i do agree that a lot of these girls are shallow and have nothing in their minds.
But,Some of the ones i met were really smart,learned girls which suggests that awareness isn't really much of it.
I think the parents always take the blame i mean for instance i know girls who know smoking is wrong but do it because their mothers or fathers do it.

Mr.Virgil:
The girls still put too much make up on.I met a girl today in my french lesson i could have sworn she was 21 or 22 years and she turned out to be one year older than me.I don't know maybe i was distracted by her dyed hair,leather boots and leather jacket.:bawling:

miss tenderness

03-26-2007, 08:57 PM

hey, Sam.yes , I haven't been here for quite along time,glad to see you:)

I see what you mean and I agree, but sometimes when you are aware that something is bad and still you embrace it ,it makes you not fully aware.Hope you get my point:D

Virgil

03-26-2007, 09:08 PM

Mr.Virgil:
The girls still put too much make up on.I met a girl today in my french lesson i could have sworn she was 21 or 22 years and she turned out to be one year older than me.I don't know maybe i was distracted by her dyed hair,leather boots and leather jacket.:bawling:

First, you don't have to call me "Mr." ;)

Perhaps you're right, dyed hair for a 16 year old is too much. But now I remember a little after I had grown older, perhaps when i was in my early 20s, there was a punk style with dyed hair. I don't know if they were doing that in high school or not. But leather boots and jacket were not uncommon when I was a teenager. I remember having a leather jacket myself.

EAP

03-26-2007, 09:49 PM

OP,

You are raging against the machine, really. Peer pressure is, has been, and will be the driving force behind conformity and herd mentality. While I might find eleven year old girls chain smoking and wearing jeans that fall off their thighs distasteful, ultimately it's their own (and to some extent their parent's) choice and they'll just have to live with it. Chill out and try not to judge too severely.

At least you didn't include having sex as one of the 'things' that is wrong with the current 'generation'.

B-Mental

03-26-2007, 11:29 PM

EAP, I couldn't agree more. Who was it that said, "Judge not lest ye be judged?"

Scheherazade

03-27-2007, 04:26 AM

Oh, great, finally someone is telling me ! *runs off to buy super tight jeans* :DYou don't have to waste the ones you have now! Just have a few extra cakes and cookies, your present jeans will be super tight in no time as well!

:D

ClaesGefvenberg

03-27-2007, 04:47 AM

You don't have to waste the ones you have now! Just have a few extra cakes and cookies, your present jeans will be super tight in no time as well! LMAO :lol: That's true. My vertical growth ebbed out long ago, and like most of us I'm constantly battling the horizontal expansion.

/Claes

SleepyWitch

03-27-2007, 05:33 AM

LMAO :lol: That's true. My vertical growth ebbed out long ago, and like most of us I'm constantly battling the horizontal expansion.

/Claes

heehee, didn't know you're a girl, Claes ;) haha, just kidding, coz they were talking about girls in super tight jeans...

hm B-menatl and EAP, i don't think it's just a matter of individuals 'judging' other individuals. it's something that will affect all of society, as lots of those kids will not grow out of it.
also, i think ten year old kids are not 100% capable of making 'choices'... i mean 'choices' and peer pressure are a contradiction in terms, aren't they? isn't the problem with most kids (and lots of grown-ups too) that they don't even know they can make choices????
--> discussing these social trends is a question of responsibility/social commitment/whatever, not of judging individuals because they happen to get on your nerves....

i do agree, though, that complaining won't help... so probably the only thing you teenagers (I meancan do to change things, is make friends with those people and try to show them there's a different way...

eh, Uncle Virgil.. i think there's a slight difference between leather boots and f*-me-pumps... maybe that's the kind of boots sam meant? otherwise i wouldn't know what's wrong with leather boots either...

Virgil

03-27-2007, 07:55 AM

eh, Uncle Virgil.. i think there's a slight difference between leather boots and f*-me-pumps... maybe that's the kind of boots sam meant? otherwise i wouldn't know what's wrong with leather boots either...

I think there were plenty of girls growing up in Brooklyn (and still are) dressed in "f*-me-pumps" or other such clothing. ;) Somehow it seems universal, but I could be wrong.

kilted exile

03-27-2007, 10:11 AM

I dont really see the issue here (with the exception of the claim by the OP about knowing 11/12 y.o girls sleeping with men of 30/40 - a claim which I have serious reservations about the validity of)

When I was growing up all the girls in my classes wore make-up and if mobile phones were available would've had them as well. I see no problem with any of this.

Regarding the "slutty" clothes. This all comes from wanting to wear similar clothes to what their favourite celebrities wear, it always has been - its just that currently all young girls want to look like Britney. The 10/11 y.o is not dressing to look slutty or to attempt to "turn people on" they see famous people dressed in a certain way and wish to be like them.

Schokokeks

03-27-2007, 10:32 AM

Just have a few extra cakes and cookies, your present jeans will be super tight in no time as well! :D
You know what, that actually sounds like the cheaper solution ! *runs off to buy some fatty cakes* :D

Virgil

03-27-2007, 11:05 AM

You know what, that actually sounds like the cheaper solution ! *runs off to buy some fatty cakes* :D

I bet all those cookies you're constantly eating will add up to a bigger size. :p :D

Koa

03-27-2007, 05:09 PM

Who said leather boots and jackets are bad? I'm talking of 10 year olds with high heels and more make-up than I've ever used in my whole life... And yes, I blame Britney. It makes me laugh when people say that Marylin Manson or heavy metal are morally harmful... Britney & co. are... if the only values in life are having big boobs and getting any man you want before you are 15, there's something seriously wrong...

I thought about it... we often discuss this with my friends, who are my age, because we are all sure that when we were 14 we used to go to school in sporty clothes and couldn't care less about it, again besides the occasional posh girl who thought she was cool for having dyed hair and mascara and making out with all the 14-year-old boys she could find. But we, childlike things in sport suit, were the norm back then (talking of early to mid-90s). Now the norm has changed.

sam96

03-27-2007, 07:30 PM

EAP

03-27-2007, 07:38 PM

I think screw me pumps are great, they help make the intentions crystal clear on night outs.

SleepyWitch,

hm B-menatl and EAP, i don't think it's just a matter of individuals 'judging' other individuals. it's something that will affect all of society, as lots of those kids will not grow out of it.

Undeniably, and as I said earlier, it's their choice and they alone will have to reap the consequences, good or bad.

also, i think ten year old kids are not 100% capable of making 'choices'...

Kids make choices all the time, whether they are informed or not is another matter altogether and this is where parents, elders, media and peers step-in.

i mean 'choices' and peer pressure are a contradiction in terms, aren't they?

No. Choosing to conform to peer pressure is a choice itself - the alternative, being regarded as a social outcast, is, of course not a very pleasent one, so most people cave in pretty easily.

isn't the problem with most kids (and lots of grown-ups too) that they don't even know they can make choices????

I wouldn't call it a problem. I think everybody is aware that there are alternatives but usually they aren't feasible ones.

There are a lot of great things about the current generation: it is, in general, more open-minded, less sexist, less racist and more inclusive then their ancestors.

EAP

03-27-2007, 07:46 PM

I agree with Sleepywitch.We're not criticizing only for the purpose of criticizing.As,We(i think or if not at least me) don't say this just to find faults with people(as that would come from our own insecurity) but because how we are today willl determine how we r tomorrow on one hand and on the other hand our(as teens) actions today (i'm sorry if i sound too old to some people) affect another generation of gullible children who we as young as we r they will to some extent look up to us i'm not trying to sound older and wiser but i'm not living alone

And,To the leather boots and jackets topic it wasn't really them but it ws more of the attitude and the leather jacket was tied around her waist.

Now,I really don't get that thing about dolls what about them.It's true i never had them but that was because i didn't like them .

Mate, children are gullible, they have been gullible since before the word gullible was coined; humans as a whole, young or old, are a very gullible species. What's your point? The whole thing seems pretty simple to me: you are looking for conformity from all quarters towards something which you think is correct. Don't act surprised if all the people you pick faults in criticize you because they happen to think the same of you - perhaps a little tolerence is in order?

Shalot

03-27-2007, 08:08 PM

There is a new book out now that I started reading (I haven't finished it yet because school and work get in the way) but it's called Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. The author is Ariel Levy and she talks about this very thing --- pop stars/movie stars wearing "soft-porn" styles, and 12-year old girls wearing low-rise tight fitting jeans and tee-shirts with the playboy bunny logo on them. You can actually go into the junior department/store (that is, the department that stocks clothes for teenage girls in case anyone was wondering ;) ) and buy a Playboy T-shirt.

Apparently, dressing like that is all part of the new feminism. To quote the book, "If Male Chauvinist Pigs were men who regarded women as pieces of meat, we would outdo them and be Female Chauvinist Pigs: women who make sex objects of other women and of ourselves."

And it's no longer cool for women to get all bothered about women and little girls traipsing around in their coin slot jeans and tight t-shirts etc. To quote the book further, "What is cool is for women to take a guy's eye view of pop culture in general and live nude girls in particular."

So, to the original poster, get with the program! Go get some make-up tight jeans and a few blow-pops and go to the mall! ;) But seriously, this book might be an interesting read for you.

sam96

03-27-2007, 08:58 PM

EAP:
My point is saying my point of view.I kinda barged in this thread without saying it and answering someone who said that we r judging too severely.
I'm not surprised if these people criticize me.Not everyone is gonna be pleased with me or my way of thinking they have their point of view and i have mine.So,i'm not "looking for conformity from all quarters towards something which you think is correct" i mean life would be very boring if everyone thought the way i did.:p
Besides,I think i'm tolerant for a lot of these people r my friends.:)
and about the gullible that it forces me to show a little more responsiblity.

P.S.
Glad to c u too Miss.Tenderness sorry i didn't see your post till now.

Shalot

03-27-2007, 09:13 PM

sam96

03-27-2007, 09:17 PM

:crash: U wouldn't,y not?:bawling:

Virgil

03-27-2007, 09:17 PM

Shalot

03-27-2007, 09:52 PM

You know, it's sad. Women used to be the more decent sex. It was to their credit. They held society in check. I too see this as a very negative development.

But isn't that what men want?

Honestly, I don't know what to think about it. All I know is that I looked up one day and saw a bunch of little girls dressing like sluts while Britney Spears and that other one (Christina Simpson maybe?) were making music videos with snakes, wearing chaps in a boxing ring rolling around in the mud. Lucky for me, I missed the slut-chic fashion phase. I am a 90's girl --- we wore long flowing sack like dresses and Doc Martin boots or other orthopedic looking shoes. How hot is that?

Scheherazade

03-27-2007, 11:14 PM

we wore long flowing sack like dresses and Doc Martin boots or other orthopedic looking shoes. How hot is that? Only if you are planning to date an orthopedist! ;)

I think this has become an 'issue' in the UK since the 1990s. Many point at the popularity of Spice Girls as the beginning; they introduced a new brand of 'girl power', which encouraged young girls to behave more freely compared to their male counterparts: They drink more, have more random affairs and dress to ensure that you know their 'intentions'. This new 'breed' of girls, I believe, are called 'ladettes' (meaning they act like 'lads').

Surprise, surprise! There is even a small entry on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladette

SleepyWitch

03-28-2007, 02:51 AM

Who said leather boots and jackets are bad? I'm talking of 10 year olds with high heels and more make-up than I've ever used in my whole life...
yep, that's exactly the point.. if an 18 y/o girl decides (or maybe even 16) decides she wants to wear f*me pumps or high heels, that's fine with me, but we're talking about 10/11/12 year old kids, Uncle Virgil...
by the way, i don't think they just imitate their fave celebrities without intending to be sexy. my neighbour's girl (around 10 y/o) put on lipstick, dye their hair and do sexy dances.. I've overheard them saying things like "Ooooh, I look so sexy"... and they are otherwise really bright kids....
i mean, it's got to start early, otherwise how do you explain that by age 14 they go to boy bands' concerts where they strip half naked (i mean, completely naked in the upper part of their body, i.e. wagging their b**bs at the singers) and wave cardboard signs saying "Please, f**** me" "I want to lose my virginity with you"... seriously I'm not exaggerating this is happening over here, it's been in all the papers including the quality ones...

Virgil

03-28-2007, 06:52 AM

But isn't that what men want?

Honestly, I don't know what to think about it. All I know is that I looked up one day and saw a bunch of little girls dressing like sluts while Britney Spears and that other one (Christina Simpson maybe?) were making music videos with snakes, wearing chaps in a boxing ring rolling around in the mud. Lucky for me, I missed the slut-chic fashion phase. I am a 90's girl --- we wore long flowing sack like dresses and Doc Martin boots or other orthopedic looking shoes. How hot is that?

That's what some men may want. Immature men who don't know what's good for them.

yep, that's exactly the point.. if an 18 y/o girl decides (or maybe even 16) decides she wants to wear f*me pumps or high heels, that's fine with me, but we're talking about 10/11/12 year old kids, Uncle Virgil...
by the way, i don't think they just imitate their fave celebrities without intending to be sexy. my neighbour's girl (around 10 y/o) put on lipstick, dye their hair and do sexy dances.. I've overheard them saying things like "Ooooh, I look so sexy"... and they are otherwise really bright kids....
i mean, it's got to start early, otherwise how do you explain that by age 14 they go to boy bands' concerts where they strip half naked (i mean, completely naked in the upper part of their body, i.e. wagging their b**bs at the singers) and wave cardboard signs saying "Please, f**** me" "I want to lose my virginity with you"... seriously I'm not exaggerating this is happening over here, it's been in all the papers including the quality ones...
All I can say is wow. There were rock groupies when I was growing up too. Perhaps it is more wide spread. At some point one has to blame the parents.

SleepyWitch

03-28-2007, 07:32 AM

All I can say is wow. There were rock groupies when I was growing up too. Perhaps it is more wide spread. At some point one has to blame the parents.

yep, over here the parents often come along to the concerts of this particular band (Tokyo Hotel) because the girls are too young to go on their own, so it's all happening right under their noses!
i think one aspect of the problem is that parents don't realize that a) kids need some guidance and b) they as parents are supposed to and able to influence their children's development...
i've heard loads of parents saying "Well, that's what he/she's like." as if their child was already fully developed and couldn't changer her/his behaviour... and those were not poor, uneducated, single mums or something but rich, well-educated people!!!!

.:Shadow:.

03-28-2007, 08:50 AM

Kids make choices all the time, whether they are informed or not is another matter altogether and this is where parents, elders, media and peers step-in.

Undeniably, and as I said earlier, it's their choice and they alone will have to reap the consequences, good or bad.

Children cannot make their own choices. Esp not regarding this topic.
I’m not talking about children wanting to wear their blue shoes instead of the red ones, or what ice cream to get. I’m talking about this issue/topic.

Children are not capable of making the right choices.
Parents and adults need to step in there.

You wouldn’t give a kid a loaded gun and say “Here, this is yours. Just don’t hurt anyone. Maybe go put it in your drawer.” Now would you?
I’m sure the kid would make the choice to be careful, and maybe put it away. But things happen you know. It is after all only a kid. You can’t expect it to think right always.
A hundred different things could go wrong with giving the kid that gun, just like a hundred things can go wrong with giving kids the freedom they have today.
Note: I’m not talking about kids over the age of 15/16. I’m talking about anyone under 14, or even 15. Some of the things may seem unlikely to the older ages, but it could defiantly happen in the younger ones.

1) The kid could accidentally hurt someone, or themselves.
1.1) Lets say his friends come over, and they all have these silly little BB guns, but little Johnny has the real thing. He must be thinking how cool he must seem with a real live gun. And now they all want to play with it.
So they play cops and robbers. Johnny is the cop, and his friends are the robbers. Johnny see’s Billy, and takes a shot at him, obviously not thinking clearly, and what do we have? Billy ends up in the hospital, or even dead.

1.2) Same scenario. Johnny’s friends come over; they all want to play with it. Remember the gun was loaded? Tommy was looking in the front, in that hole thingy, and pulled the trigger. Woops, no more Tommy.

2) Kids have tantrums all the time. If they don’t get their own way, they throw huge tantrums.
2.1) Johnny wants ice cream after supper, but mommy says no. After a while of arguing, Johnny remembers his new “toy”. He could try threaten his mother. And as silly as it seems, it is possible. And with a young kid, accidents could easily happen.
2.2) He decides to take his gun to school one day, and on that particular day he happens to get in a fight. He could possibly use the gun against the other boy. This type of thing happens all the time. He could also just want to threaten the guy. But again, accidents happen.

3) Life could just not be working out for Johnny. (I’m referring to the older ages now)
3.1) He could have just had a huge fight with his parents. Suicide goes through a lot of people’s heads. He has a gun in his drawer. It could be just a spur of the moment thing, or something he has been wanting to do for a while. Either way the out come is the same.

And there is a hell of a lot more things that could happen.
It might look like I have gone seriously off topic, but I have a point.

If you think about it, this is just like giving kids too much freedom, like a lot of parents do. Without proper guidance, you can’t expect a kid to come out right, when you’ve given them anything they want, and all the freedom they want.

I have a friend, she is an amazing person. But she has gone way off the rails. All because her parents have given her ANYTHING she wants, and lets her do WHATEVER she wants. She is 16. Her life is basically messed up. Unless she makes an effort to fix it, but I’m telling you now, she won’t.
Anyway, her parents will let her go to the coast for the weekend with N$3000, hell even more, to do what ever she likes.
She’s been suspended from school I don’t know how many times. Expelled from a few too I think. She never went to school anyway.
I mean... Hello? And they wonder why she’s so.. Well her.
I could get into all the things she is, but it would be kind of wrong.
So there you go another perfect example of what happens with to much freedom.
And the sad thing is that she really is a wonderful person, and a really bright person to. She’s not stupid at all. She’s just gone off the rails way to far.

EAP

03-28-2007, 01:37 PM

The word 'slut' shouldn't be an insult - I fully support anyone who wears that as a badge of honour.

You know, it's sad. Women used to be the more decent sex. It was to their credit. They held society in check. I too see this as a very negative development.

Why were they the more 'decent' sex? How can anyone even determine such a subjective thing without sweeping with strokes that would cover the whole earth!

And the sad thing is that she really is a wonderful person, and a really bright person to. She’s not stupid at all. She’s just gone off the rails way to far.

Did you ever think that this may actually be the way she wants to live her life?

Mark F.

03-28-2007, 02:21 PM

Only if you are planning to date an orthopedist! ;)

I think this has become an 'issue' in the UK since the 1990s. Many point at the popularity of Spice Girls as the beginning; they introduced a new brand of 'girl power', which encouraged young girls to behave more freely compared to their male counterparts: They drink more, have more random affairs and dress to ensure that you know their 'intentions'. This new 'breed' of girls, I believe, are called 'ladettes' (meaning they act like 'lads').

Surprise, surprise! There is even a small entry on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladette

I wasn't aware the Spice Girls actually spawned a lasting philosophy. What's the world coming to?

.:Shadow:.

03-28-2007, 02:26 PM

"Did you ever think that this may actually be the way she wants to live her life?"

That would be the most idiotic thing EVER. Not you asking, but someone wanting to live the way she does.
And no, I wouldnt have to think that. Because its not true. She is seriously depressed. I mean.. Ugh, you have no idea how she is. She's been in and out of rehab only a million times. She has a real bad SI problem. Her scars are.. unbelievable. If you knew her, you would know exactly what I mean.

Shalot

03-28-2007, 08:33 PM

The word 'slut' shouldn't be an insult - I fully support anyone who wears that as a badge of honour.

I saw some t-shirts for sale at the mall that said SLUT in black bold jagged letters.

Virgil

03-28-2007, 09:15 PM

I saw some t-shirts for sale at the mall that said SLUT in black bold jagged letters.
That is appalling. I can't beleive anyone would want to be associated as such.

The word 'slut' shouldn't be an insult - I fully support anyone who wears that as a badge of honour.
Are you serious?

Why were they the more 'decent' sex? How can anyone even determine such a subjective thing without sweeping with strokes that would cover the whole earth!
I think most people would acknowledge that. And if not, then it is my opinion. I think men are more likely to take part in dysfunctional behavior. Or at least they were.

cuppajoe_9

03-29-2007, 12:27 AM

Apparently, dressing like that is all part of the new feminism. *Resists urge to throw furniture*

No, it is absolutely not part of the new feminism. It is, in fact, anti-feminist backlash. Feminism takes a lot of heat for various developments, and maybe it deserves some of it, but I have never ever heard anybody calling themselves a feminist say that dressing that way is desireable, empowerful or in any way feminist. In fact, in my experience, the women who dress like that are the ones will absolutely insist that they are not feminists, that they never will be feminists, and that feminsits are a bunch of adrogynous, combat-boot wearing, misandrist, satanist baby-killers. Actual feminists are the first to complain about modern beauty culture, and the sexual objectification inherent therein.

I will see your Female Chauvanist Pigs, and raise you The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf, a very long critique of this very problem and others inherent in beauty culture.

Sorry about the rant, and I can certainly understand why you would think that, but that gets me a bit angry.

Hi, by the way. It's been quite a while since I've been here, I know, but reality intruded. It's certainly nice to see you all again.

SleepyWitch

03-29-2007, 02:58 AM

*Resists urge to throw furniture*

No, it is absolutely not part of the new feminism. It is, in fact, anti-feminist backlash. Feminism takes a lot of heat for various developments, and maybe it deserves some of it, but I have never ever heard anybody calling themselves a feminist say that dressing that way is desireable, empowerful or in any way feminist. In fact, in my experience, the women who dress like that are the ones will absolutely insist that they are not feminists, that they never will be feminists, and that feminsits are a bunch of adrogynous, combat-boot wearing, misandrist, satanist baby-killers. Actual feminists are the first to complain about modern beauty culture, and the sexual objectification inherent therein.

I will see your Female Chauvanist Pigs, and raise you The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf, a very long critique of this very problem and others inherent in beauty culture.

Sorry about the rant, and I can certainly understand why you would think that, but that gets me a bit angry.

Hi, by the way. It's been quite a while since I've been here, I know, but reality intruded. It's certainly nice to see you all again.

heehee, don't be too harsh on Shalot :) I actually know one or two anti-feminist backlashers who call their way of dressing 'feminist'. they seem to think displaying their 'sexy' body is empowering (of course it is in a certain way: it intimidates other girls, esp. those who want to be 'sexy' but feel they're ugly/fat/etc and it attracts men, so those ladies do have a certain power). what they don't get is that not all kinds of power=feminism. maybe that's what the title of the book refers to??? because basically, they behave like macho men, enforcing their body on everyone, creating a strong physical presence etc????

Virgil

03-29-2007, 07:01 AM

Actually Shalot is correct. The most recent forms of feminism actually promote identities as "slut."

Third-Wave of Feminism Sells Sex To Young Girls
By Lis Wiehl

March is Women's History Month — so what better time to acknowledge the most recent contribution of feminism's so-called "third-wave"?

No, I am not talking about the launch of my new book, The 51% Minority — I'm talking about the brand-new reality series, "Pussycat Dolls Present: The Search for the Next Doll."

For the uninitiated, the Pussycat Dolls are a female singing group whose six (generally scantily clad) members skyrocketed to fame after posing the musical question: "Don't cha wish your girlfriend was a freak like me?"

Promoters of "Pussycat Dolls Present" claim the show represents "third-wave feminism" because at its core, it's about "female empowerment." Convicted felon, rap star, and judge on the show, Lil' Kim, who famously showed up at the 1999 MTV awards in a dress which exposed her bare breast adorned in a pasty, concurs: "Everything the Pussycat Dolls are is everything I've developed myself into being."

{snip}

I don't know about you, but I can't think of a better way to celebrate the legal rights obtained for us by our courageous foremothers. Happy Women's History Month.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256651,00.html

edit: Actually the article was "snipped" (?) by one of the mods i assume because it was too long. But if you check the entire article, feminists are endorsing girls calling themselves "sluts."

.:Shadow:.

03-29-2007, 08:02 AM

^Thanks for the edit.
Thank makes sense now. At first I was a little confused and then read your edit at the bottom of the page.

Logos

03-29-2007, 08:13 AM

edit: Actually the article was "snipped" (?) by one of the mods i assume because it was too long.
No. See http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23463

Virgil

03-29-2007, 08:20 AM

No. See http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23463

Oh thanks Logos. So I'm allowed to quote it but not post the entire article? I will remember that for future purposes.

Here's the quote from the article I wanted to highlight:

So what is the "third-wave" of feminism? According to Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards, authors of Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future, it's a phenomenon that emerged in the 1990s with shows like “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” activist groups like Riot Grrrl and books like Elizabeth Wurtzel's "*****." Third wavers, say Baumgardner and Richards, want to continue the fight for equal rights, but not to the detriment of their sexuality. In particular, says Richards, third-wave feminists ought to embrace and "reclaim" words like "slut."

As a matter of fact, according to a recent article in the New York Times, use of the word has become common place in certain circles. "It's definitely a term of familiarity with teens," says Karell Roxas, a senior editor at Gurl.com, a Web site that addresses issues that affect teenagers. "They'll say 'Hi slut!' the way my generation would say 'Hi chick!' or 'Hi dog!'"

Logos

03-29-2007, 08:22 AM

So I'm allowed to quote it but not post the entire article?
Yes. You can use {snips} or .... to denote edited out text or just post the specific sentences/paragraphs you need to show.

cuppajoe_9

03-29-2007, 04:25 PM

cuppajoe_9

03-29-2007, 04:30 PM

they seem to think displaying their 'sexy' body is empowering (of course it is in a certain way: it intimidates other girls, esp. those who want to be 'sexy' but feel they're ugly/fat/etc and it attracts men, so those ladies do have a certain power).I'm not trying to be critical of you, Sleepy, but seriously. Displaying one's sexy body in order to intimidate other women and attract random male attention? That is the craziest kind of feminism I have ever heard of! I'm really looking forward to the fourth wave, where feminists will presumeably be promoting the idea that the best way to be empowered is to stay locked in your home doing chores whilst barefoot and pregnant. [/sarcasm]

SleepyWitch

03-29-2007, 04:38 PM

I'm not trying to be critical of you, Sleepy, but seriously. Displaying one's sexy body in order to intimidate other women and attract random male attention? That is the craziest kind of feminism I have ever heard of! I'm really looking forward to the fourth wave, where feminists will presumeably be promoting the idea that the best way to be empowered is to stay locked in your home doing chores whilst barefoot and pregnant. [/sarcasm]

yep, i totally agree with you :) I don't think this kind of behaviour has anything remotely in common with what i would call feminism. but those girls seem to think it's feminism

cuppajoe_9

03-29-2007, 04:40 PM

Oh hey, you said that in your original post, didn't you? I guess I need to learn how to read.

Logos

03-29-2007, 06:05 PM

I've been following this topic since it started but only now really have time to respond, sorry for length and rantyness :lol:

It's been quite a while since I've been here, I know, but reality intruded. It's certainly nice to see you all again.

Yes, I realize that this sort of thing is commonly called feminism, but it is a complete corruption of the term.

Nice to see ya around cuppa :)

I agree, Faux News isn’t the most even-handed of sources and there is some patently untrue info there about what feminism is in my opinion. I don't need some old man or women like Baumgardner or Richards or even Wolf telling me how or where I am right or wrong by my actions and choices or what I can do with my body or how I can dress it etc. although their works could be points of reference for understanding the process of choice and the effects that things like peer pressure, media influence and rights over ones’ body has on their ability to choose.

To me feminisim is not about men or women telling other women how to live their lives. It is about women making their own choices and taking responsibility for them: wearing what they want when they want; calling themselves what they want when they want; working in whatever industries or jobs they want; and not being persecuted or abused by others because of their choices :mad:

And getting back to the subject of “Today’s Youth”... :D

I really see nothing different with kids today then when I was a young teen. Like kilted wrote, if mobile phones were available when I was in grade 4-6 or whenever I probably would have had one and most of my friends. There was always some latest fad, toy, clothes, or gadget (skateboards were a big dealy-o when I was in grade 5) that everyone wanted. Me and my friends snuck makeup to school and put it on there because the `rents wouldn’t let us leave the house with it on and /or we would sometimes change our clothes at school because we weren’t allowed out of the house wearing some of those items.

In my experience I think that under normal circumstances kids rebel, they sometimes do things their parents don’t want them to do, they fight authority and try to find their own voice and place among their peers and society.

Now I’m not a parent so don’t pretend to know what it’s like having kids, but what I think is wrong is if parents don’t discuss such issues with their kids and teach/encourage them to think for themselves. Kids need rules and boundaries while they are dependents of their parents sure, but pretending these things aren’t a normal part of growing up, or at least happening with their own kids ‘normal’ or not, or, making them humungous ‘bad’ issues is I think wrong. And also other kids making fun of, bullying, or otherwise harrassing kids that they don't like based on this stuff is wrong.

IMO there are so many other more important/interesting things in life to focus on than all this external *stuff*. Severely punishing kids, embarrassing them, or making them feel terrible about themselves because they want to wear ‘slutty’ clothes or chose to experiment with make-up at age 10 I think is very sad, and maybe in some cases encourages kids to do these things even more.

But I'm glad to see some people here choose to *not* allow pop culture etc. to negatively impact their lives :) Take from it what you want, you might like the music but not the clothes? you might like the hair but not the attitude? but don't try to make others feel like crap because of their likes/dislikes/choices.

EAP

03-29-2007, 06:11 PM

Are you serious?

slut: NOUN: 1a. A woman considered sexually promiscuous. b. A woman prostitute. 2. A slovenly woman; a slattern.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being promiscuous or charging for sex - if that's the way you roll, for the latter - in theory at least [in practise, social mores ensures that almost no body will willingly choose to be a prositute, or at least openly admit to it being just one of the trades, except in certain circles]. In common vernacular, the word slut is usually used for a woman who sleeps around a lot - which is considered, well, socially destructive and morally bad behaviour for reasons which have nothing to with reason and everything to do with stereotyping for the sake of stereotyping...and jealousy and all that jazz.

Unfortunately [or perhaps fortunately in the latter case], societ(ies) will most likely never accept complete sexual freedom (apart from isolated pockets, which will be tolerated at the fringes) and sexual capitalism (even though it is one of the oldest and most exploited form of trade in the history of humankind).

One of the most significant tenants of 'feminism' is the concept of choice - and the right not to be shunned, snubbed and pigeon-holed into pre-concieved notions of propriety and 'moral' behaviour. This is the reason why a Hijab wearing, self-proclaimed subservient women can be as much of a 'feminist' as a bi-sexual, bosom flashing 'slut'. Theoratically speaking, they willingly choose their preferred vocation.

Of course, one can go out and call people with such views a thousand different names, justified or not dependent entirely on your moral compass etc, but most people fail to realize that the politically correct, mainstream form of empowerment [the image of a striking, confident career woman or a happy, articulate and intelligent stay-at-home mom being the most common ones] popular isn't the only kind of feminism practicable (or practised) in the world.

Or I could have used the word ironic instead of wasting so many bits but it doesn't really have the proper kinda ring to it.

Shalot

03-29-2007, 06:59 PM

*Resists urge to throw furniture*

No, it is absolutely not part of the new feminism. It is, in fact, anti-feminist backlash. Feminism takes a lot of heat for various developments, and maybe it deserves some of it, but I have never ever heard anybody calling themselves a feminist say that dressing that way is desireable, empowerful or in any way feminist. In fact, in my experience, the women who dress like that are the ones will absolutely insist that they are not feminists, that they never will be feminists, and that feminsits are a bunch of adrogynous, combat-boot wearing, misandrist, satanist baby-killers. Actual feminists are the first to complain about modern beauty culture, and the sexual objectification inherent therein.

I will see your Female Chauvanist Pigs, and raise you The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf, a very long critique of this very problem and others inherent in beauty culture.

Sorry about the rant, and I can certainly understand why you would think that, but that gets me a bit angry.

Hi, by the way. It's been quite a while since I've been here, I know, but reality intruded. It's certainly nice to see you all again.

I was just sharing a book that I am reading with the forum (and haven't completed by the way). There is absolutely no reason to lash out at me because you don't agree with a statement I made in post (which had a couple of these: ;) by the way). It was meant to be humorous. Why, why on earth would you respond with such anger?????

I haven't read Naomi Wolf and feminism really doesn't interest me so I am not qualified to argue with you about feminism and what it is or is not and I certainly don't wish to have any more discussion about it, except to say that I don't think you can speak for everyone who calls herself (or himself) a feminist. From what little I know, there have always been certain disagreements among feminists themselves about their purpose and what they're doing and what it's all about.

I picked up Ariel Levy's book because it was featured on Fresh Air and I was curious to see someone else's take on why 14-24 year old females are showing us their thongs at the grocery store. :confused:

So, please don't throw furniture at me!!!

cuppajoe_9

03-29-2007, 07:15 PM

Again, you'll have to pardon me Shalot. I certainly wasn't angry at you, but the common perception of what the term 'feminism' means these days makes me quite irritated. No, I certainly don't speak for all feminists, but I think I am quaiified in being a little arogant and saying that anybody advocating the sexual objectification of women isn't one. You are quite right that there have always been (and likely will always be) disagreement among them, but I think that the vast majority are not cool with competition for random male attention as the centre of one's life.

Again, I apologize, and let me assure you that the furniture was not travelling in your direction.

Scheherazade

03-29-2007, 07:18 PM

So, please don't throw furniture at me!!!Maybe he meant doll house furnitures???

http://www.kidestore.co.uk/images/pintoy_wooden_dolls_house.jpg

Virgil

03-29-2007, 08:40 PM

Yes, I realize that this sort of thing is commonly called feminism, but it is a complete corruption of the term. Here is what some actual feminists (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/03/05/the-new-feminism/) have to say about that article. The original feminists (and all others after) were in fact reacting against the idea that a woman's primary value is located in her girly bits.

You're right that doesn't stand for all feminism, but that is not the only place I have seen it. I quoted that one because I found it in a search. But I knew to search for it because i have come across the issue before. It is a strain of current feminism. I'm not sure how big a strain.

Edit: I would submit that perhaps Fox News is not the absolute best place to keep track of recent developments in feminism.
Fox news did not put words in the author's mouth nor had anything to do with the book the author of the article quoted.

Virgil

03-29-2007, 08:43 PM

slut: NOUN: 1a. A woman considered sexually promiscuous. b. A woman prostitute. 2. A slovenly woman; a slattern.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being promiscuous or charging for sex - if that's the way you roll, for the latter - in theory at least [in practise, social mores ensures that almost no body will willingly choose to be a prositute, or at least openly admit to it being just one of the trades, except in certain circles]. In common vernacular, the word slut is usually used for a woman who sleeps around a lot - which is considered, well, socially destructive and morally bad behaviour for reasons which have nothing to with reason and everything to do with stereotyping for the sake of stereotyping...and jealousy and all that jazz.

Unfortunately [or perhaps fortunately in the latter case], societ(ies) will most likely never accept complete sexual freedom (apart from isolated pockets, which will be tolerated at the fringes) and sexual capitalism (even though it is one of the oldest and most exploited form of trade in the history of humankind).

One of the most significant tenants of 'feminism' is the concept of choice - and the right not to be shunned, snubbed and pigeon-holed into pre-concieved notions of propriety and 'moral' behaviour. This is the reason why a Hijab wearing, self-proclaimed subservient women can be as much of a 'feminist' as a bi-sexual, bosom flashing 'slut'. Theoratically speaking, they willingly choose their preferred vocation.

Of course, one can go out and call people with such views a thousand different names, justified or not dependent entirely on your moral compass etc, but most people fail to realize that the politically correct, mainstream form of empowerment [the image of a striking, confident career woman or a happy, articulate and intelligent stay-at-home mom being the most common ones] popular isn't the only kind of feminism practicable (or practised) in the world.

Or I could have used the word ironic instead of wasting so many bits but it doesn't really have the proper kinda ring to it.

I'm not going to call you any names. I think your attitudes speaks volumes of your character, and let people decide what they think of you.

cuppajoe_9

03-29-2007, 09:24 PM

Virgil

03-29-2007, 09:47 PM

No, but it sure as hell was Fox News who credited third-wave feminism with unleasing the friggin' Pussycat Dolls one the world. Because there's nothing that says 'equality of the sexes' like six women whom make money for men by dressing like strippers and appearing not to have individual personalities. I'll say it again: this is the craziest kind of feminism I have ever heard of, and that includes the Orthodox Jewish kind of feminism.

Are disputing that this strain of feminism - and we can argue as to how wide spread it is - doesn't exist?

Blaming the medium is rediculous. It has no bearing on the debate. I could argue that academia is filled with left wing professors, so whatever they say is suspect to me. But that would be just as rediculous. The ideas are the ideas and i have read this strain of feminism in hard writing that had nothing to do with Fox. I picked this quote because I was able to find something on the internet to quote.

cuppajoe_9

03-29-2007, 10:19 PM

Are disputing that this strain of feminism - and we can argue as to how wide spread it is - doesn't exist?Sure it exists, it just isn't feminism.
feminism, noun: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social and economic equality to men.I am quite at a loss as to how one could confuse this with a competion, based on hotness (http://feministing.com/archives/006777.html#comments), to be a member of a band whose hit song suggests that one should chose one's girlfriends entirely on the basis of hotness. (http://www.lyriczz.com/lyriczz.php?songid=16798) Your source, somehow, manages to pull it off:

March is Women's History Month — so what better time to acknowledge the most recent contribution of feminism's so-called "third-wave"?
...
Promoters of "Pussycat Dolls Present" claim the show represents "third-wave feminism" because at its core, it's about "female empowerment."More good parts:

Third wavers, say Baumgardner and Richards, want to continue the fight for equal rights, but not to the detriment of their sexuality.Oh horrors! Women have sexualities! One could, of course, point out that this sentence does not in anyway imply that:

Third-Wave of Feminism Sells Sex To Young Girls

Virgil

03-29-2007, 10:57 PM

Sure it exists, it just isn't feminism.
OK, but I imagine that's in the realm of debate.

I am quite at a loss as to how one could confuse this with a competion, based on hotness (http://feministing.com/archives/006777.html#comments), to be a member of a band whose hit song suggests that one should chose one's girlfriends entirely on the basis of hotness. (http://www.lyriczz.com/lyriczz.php?songid=16798) Your source, somehow, manages to pull it off:
I'm not an expert either, but i think the going thought from that strain of feminism is that women actually achieve power by using the feminine parts of their bodies. I don't find it intellectually outrageous. I just disapprove of the value system of what it implies.

Look I believe in the basics of feminism. Women should be paid the same for the same job and treated with decency. But that rhetorical agreement (perhaps practice hasn't quite made it reality yet) has long been agreed to. It just strikes me that feminists, all various strains, have been groping for more issues to keep a movement alive.

SleepyWitch

03-30-2007, 02:25 AM

In my experience I think that under normal circumstances kids rebel, they sometimes do things their parents don’t want them to do, they fight authority and try to find their own voice and place among their peers and society.

Now I’m not a parent so don’t pretend to know what it’s like having kids, but what I think is wrong is if parents don’t discuss such issues with their kids and teach/encourage them to think for themselves. Kids need rules and boundaries while they are dependents of their parents sure, but pretending these things aren’t a normal part of growing up, or at least happening with their own kids ‘normal’ or not, or, making them humungous ‘bad’ issues is I think wrong. And also other kids making fun of, bullying, or otherwise harrassing kids that they don't like based on this stuff is wrong.

IMO there are so many other more important/interesting things in life to focus on than all this external *stuff*. Severely punishing kids, embarrassing them, or making them feel terrible about themselves because they want to wear ‘slutty’ clothes or chose to experiment with make-up at age 10 I think is very sad, and maybe in some cases encourages kids to do these things even more.

i agree with you 98% percent but:
problem no.1: today's kids don't do these things a form of rebellion but with their parents full consent/support/encouragemnt

problem number 2: of course there are more interesting things in to than extermnal stuff. but: do these kids know???? i think the problem with them is they don't and maybe some of them will never grow out of it, seeing as 'youth' becomes longer and longer as people are kept in schools and univs longer and longer(i.e. not making their own money, living with their parents= 2 out of 3 components of the sociological definition of 'youth' vs. adulthood). at least that's the situation over here.

about the media, i don't think they are 100% to blame.. the causes of all of this are social/economical etc... Ifanyone should be interested, I can explain what sociologists/psychologists etc have found out.

manolia

03-30-2007, 04:33 AM

slut: NOUN: 1a. A woman considered sexually promiscuous. b. A woman prostitute. 2. A slovenly woman; a slattern.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being promiscuous or charging for sex - if that's the way you roll, for the latter - in theory at least [in practise, social mores ensures that almost no body will willingly choose to be a prositute, or at least openly admit to it being just one of the trades, except in certain circles]. In common vernacular, the word slut is usually used for a woman who sleeps around a lot - which is considered, well, socially destructive and morally bad behaviour for reasons which have nothing to with reason and everything to do with stereotyping for the sake of stereotyping...and jealousy and all that jazz.

Unfortunately [or perhaps fortunately in the latter case], societ(ies) will most likely never accept complete sexual freedom (apart from isolated pockets, which will be tolerated at the fringes) and sexual capitalism (even though it is one of the oldest and most exploited form of trade in the history of humankind).

One of the most significant tenants of 'feminism' is the concept of choice - and the right not to be shunned, snubbed and pigeon-holed into pre-concieved notions of propriety and 'moral' behaviour. This is the reason why a Hijab wearing, self-proclaimed subservient women can be as much of a 'feminist' as a bi-sexual, bosom flashing 'slut'. Theoratically speaking, they willingly choose their preferred vocation.

Of course, one can go out and call people with such views a thousand different names, justified or not dependent entirely on your moral compass etc, but most people fail to realize that the politically correct, mainstream form of empowerment [the image of a striking, confident career woman or a happy, articulate and intelligent stay-at-home mom being the most common ones] popular isn't the only kind of feminism practicable (or practised) in the world.

Or I could have used the word ironic instead of wasting so many bits but it doesn't really have the proper kinda ring to it.

:eek2: :eek: :eek:

I will not comment what you say. You are entitled to your own opinion.
If you want to read a good book about feminism and woman's position in the world read "The second sex" by Simone de Beauvoir.
Here's a link in wikipedia about her

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_De_Beauvoir

Poetess

03-30-2007, 09:00 AM

Shadow, I am so with what you said.
I am like 20 and when I walk on the road with my younger sister, everyone thinks she`s older just because of the way I dress. I just look like a kid, I don`t know why this young generation does all of that.
It doesn`t only stop on wearing a miniskirt or so, it`s about seeing them in concerts with the metallic or gothic look :S like what the hell do you know about life still?
I would forever try to look young, although it`s beautiful to be a grown-up..

EAP

03-30-2007, 09:16 AM

I will not comment what you say. You are entitled to your own opinion.
If you want to read a good book about feminism and woman's position in the world read "The second sex" by Simone de Beauvoir.

I don't want to read a 'good' book about 'feminism'; I am familiar with Simone De Beauvoir but what is the actual relevence of that here apart from random name-dropping?

I'm not going to call you any names. I think your attitudes speaks volumes of your character, and let people decide what they think of you.

:lol: Very mature.

It doesn`t only stop on wearing a miniskirt or so, it`s about seeing them in concerts with the metallic or gothic look :S like what the hell do you know about life still?

:crash: :crash: :crash:

Poetess

03-30-2007, 09:55 AM

is there an "anti-female" in here? :D

.closed.

03-30-2007, 12:13 PM

I have to say that I would not like to be a child growing up now. The innocence of youth has been lost since somewhere in the mid 90s. Children nowadays have so many adverse distractions e.g. TV, media, bling and pop culture, video games, family breakdowns, that is it no wonder there is a lost generation. I think that the Internet is an amazing invention, a perfect example is online-literature.com but its unrestricted access has opened the minds of kids to good, bad and ugly. I remember as a kid having to read through encyclopaedia and books to complete assignments; now children can be find out anything in 0.23 seconds via Google. Where are the future scientists, writers, artists, philosophers, physicians, and doctors when all the youth are aspiring to be z-lister minor celebrities or gang banging get-rich-or-die-trying. We have images of young women half starving themselves to get on the model gravy train being transmitted to thousands of young and vulnerable girls around the world.

Parents are selling their souls to the allure of money and kudos of a high-flying careers, giving their children wealth and material possessions but forgetting that LOVE and just being there when you child gets home as important to their well being. What is the world coming to when we are trying to find ills for children’s quirks e.g. attention deficit disorder, depression etc? Thereafter doctors pump children with mind altering drugs to change, alter their personalities to make regulate behaviour, attitude and though processes.

I come to the conclusion that children are not to blame for the current situations affecting youth worldwide. There is a saying that you are a product of your environment and we as parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncle’s are contributing to this society and then complaining about the state of our youth. There are statistics to show that the happiest children are from the poorest countries on earth. Is this proof that money, success, material possessions are not the basis of HAPPINESS.

Lioness_Heart

03-30-2007, 02:35 PM

I agree with you, PrinceAndrei.

I feel so lucky that I had my upbringing, with a mother who loves me so much, and always spent time with me and my brothers. I think that without that, I would have been very different. In many ways, I had quite an old-fashioned upbringing, and I have firm beliefs and values. For example, I'm sixteen, and have only just got a boyfriend. Some people think that's weird, but I'm really glad that I didn't grow up too soon. I think that it's really sad when I see people in the younger years at school trying to be too grown-up, and not being able to be children. Lots of the people that I grew up with tried to act too old too soon, and none of them are reallly happy in themselves now.

It's not people's fault how they are brought up, but I think that it is dangerous when skewed values are passed on, as this will ultimately continue.

livelaughlove

03-30-2007, 04:54 PM

I completely agree with many of you. I just can't understand why girls these days wear half their body weight in makeup. It just doesn't make sense. I've always tried to restrain myself from judging others (god knows there's too much of that here too), especially my peers (I'm 17) but it is so hard when you walk into school and see the excessive foundation, mascara, etc. I'm probably not as exposed since I go to a private school, but believe me, it still runs pretty rampant.

While I do believe parenting does have to do with it, a lot of it is also (as some people have already mentioned here) the media. Everything is about popularity, about having the coolest things and following the hottest trends. Ha! is what I say to them. By trying to fit in, they are just losing their sense of individuality. Emerson and Frost and all the greats don't argue for nonconformism for nothing!! Granted they probably didn't have the current pop culture in mind, but it still applies nonetheless!!

I, too, am frustrated with our generation. :rage:

Koa

03-30-2007, 06:44 PM

I think what Prince Andrei said is a bit cliché though...
And livelaughlove, the personality thing has always been there, I had no friends in my early teens because unlike them I did have a personality and refused to act the same... and it wasn't about make-up back then, or at least it wasn't until we were about 14-15

Oooh I also remember now my cousins in the South saying they did wear make up at school when they were maybe 13-14, I was 12 and totally schocked by that.
It is different from the 90s, I do keep believing so.

manolia

03-30-2007, 07:01 PM

I don't want to read a 'good' book about 'feminism'; I am familiar with Simone De Beauvoir but what is the actual relevence of that here apart from random name-dropping? ::

Ok then. Maybe it is random name dropping to you. But to me, when i am thinking of feminism this book comes in mind. So i guess it is a matter of perception. (Although you should know that is one of the most famous books in the feminism-genre).
Everybody is familiar with Simone De Beauvoir. I just wonder how many of the so called feminists have actually read this book.

EAP

03-30-2007, 10:48 PM

Manolia,

Everybody has their own brand of feminism, Simone De Beauvoir just happens to be more adept and eloquent at preaching hers than most of us. This doesn't mean what she believes should be considered the gospel of feminism. When I think of feminism, what comes to mind is not a specific book or a personality or an incident but a set of basic principles which can differ widely from person to person, both in theory and implementation.

cuppajoe_9

03-31-2007, 06:44 PM

I'm not an expert either, but i think the going thought from that strain of feminism is that women actually achieve power by using the feminine parts of their bodies.Well, that would depend entirely on what you are using the "feminine parts" of your body as. I think most feminists (and most people in general) would agree that being comfortable with one's sexuality sure beats the hell out of Victorian-style sexual repression. However, being comfortable with one's sexuality is not the same thing as being promiscuous, or even engaging in the act at all. And when we're holding contests based on ability to attract the attention of random males, well...
Women should be paid the same for the same job and treated with decency. But that rhetorical agreement (perhaps practice hasn't quite made it reality yet) has long been agreed to. It just strikes me that feminists, all various strains, have been groping for more issues to keep a movement alive.But if we haven't achieved equal pay for equal work and women are still sexually assaulted with frightening regularity, there isn't a reason for the movement to go away, n'est pas?

Virgil

03-31-2007, 08:02 PM

Well, that would depend entirely on what you are using the "feminine parts" of your body as. I think most feminists (and most people in general) would agree that being comfortable with one's sexuality sure beats the hell out of Victorian-style sexual repression. However, being comfortable with one's sexuality is not the same thing as being promiscuous, or even engaging in the act at all. And when we're holding contests based on ability to attract the attention of random males, well...
Cuppa, I know you're a precocious young man, but I think you just haven't caught up with this part of contemporary feminist debate. I've seen it mention in several in several places. The author of the article I quoted cited a book and I take Shalot was referring to a book. It's out there and I think it's an internal debate where this strain of feminism (I don't know how pervasive it is) refutes the traditional feminist notion that women are objectified by sex. I'm not going to claim I'm knowledgable on the nuiassances of the debate. I think I remember Camille Paglia being in on it, so you might want to look her up if you're interested.

But if we haven't achieved equal pay for equal work and women are still sexually assaulted with frightening regularity, there isn't a reason for the movement to go away, n'est pas?
Fair enough, but do they have to go into some of thier radical ideas? I would support them if they didn't. But frankly, feminists stopped being a political infleuence in my country when they defended a certain President who had sexual relations with a young underling and other women. I haven't seen them in the midst of any public issue since.

cuppajoe_9

03-31-2007, 09:05 PM

Cuppa, I know you're a precocious young man, but I think you just haven't caught up with this part of contemporary feminist debate.Well, of the two of us, I imagine that I'm the only one who regularly reads feminist blogs. The general attitude towards sex is hardly black and white, granted, but there is a lot of hostitility towards the idea that women should be competing with one another for it, or that it is something that a woman should trade for something else. Attitudes towards burlesque are mixed, but I have yet to hear anybody defend the Pussycat Dolls.

The author of the article I quoted cited a book and I take Shalot was referring to a book.Yeah, but Female Chauvanist Pigs isn't a particularly feminist book, from what I understand. I haven't read Manifesta, and Fox was a bit ambivalent about what is actually said in it (dig the one-word quotes), so I won't pass comment.

It's out there and I think it's an internal debate where this strain of feminism (I don't know how pervasive it is) refutes the traditional feminist notion that women are objectified by sex.What traditional feminst notion that women are objectified by sex? The traditional feminist notion is that women are objectified by the idea that women exist to have sex, or are valuable only as objects with which to have sex and/or children. I think that one is still standing.

I'm a bit confused as to what I'm arguing against here. Is the anti-traditional-feminist notion that you are talking about the idea that competition for the attention of men is empowering?

Fair enough, but do they have to go into some of thier radical ideas?Well, some see sexual assault as the result of a society in which men are regarded as more valuable or posessing authority over women (a patriarchy, in other words). Opposition to what is seen as patriarchal structures in society is the dictionary definition of radical feminism. So yeah, some of them think that they do.

But frankly, feminists stopped being a political infleuence in my country when they defended a certain President who had sexual relations with a young underling and other women. I haven't seen them in the midst of any public issue since.I missed the issue that you refer to, on account of being twelve at the time, but since that time feminists have been busy with reproductive rights issues, sexual assault laws, equal pay for equal work, opposition to beauty culture, and for some retro fun, making fun of Phyllis Schlafly. They're still out there.

Virgil

03-31-2007, 09:53 PM

What traditional feminst notion that women are objectified by sex? The traditional feminist notion is that women are objectified by the idea that women exist to have sex, or are valuable only as objects with which to have sex and/or children. I think that one is still standing.

That's what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I'm a bit confused as to what I'm arguing against here. Is the anti-traditional-feminist notion that you are talking about the idea that competition for the attention of men is empowering?
I don't think they phrase it that way. I think they argue that their femine ability to attract men is empowering. Rather than minimizing sexuality, these feminists see it as a source of strength. I'm no expert but it does seem to me to be a break from previous notions of using feminity. I think that previous feminists emphasized an androgenous role of womanhood.

Shalot

03-31-2007, 10:18 PM

Yeah, but Female Chauvanist Pigs isn't a particularly feminist book, from what I understand.

I know I said that I didn't want to discuss it anymore, and I am not even sure if this what you meant by the above, but I think I may have made it sound like the author of Female Chauvinist Pigs thinks that objectification of girls and women is a good thing. That's not what the book is about at all. I've read it half way through and then I read the conclusion and afterword, and that is not at all the point of her book (in case that's what I led anyone to believe).

I am not sure what you meant by the above statement --- I think the author of Female Chauvinist Pigs may be on the same page as Naomi Wolf, whom you mentioned in an earlier post.

cuppajoe_9

03-31-2007, 10:59 PM

I don't think they phrase it that way. I think they argue that their femine ability to attract men is empowering.Ah, now we're on the same page. I know the idea you refer to now, and agree that it's rather damaging for all involved. I'm not sure whether or not one would call that 'feminism', or if that's relevant, but Wolf et al. write against the notion.
I know I said that I didn't want to discuss it anymore, and I am not even sure if this what you meant by the above, but I think I may have made it sound like the author of Female Chauvinist Pigs thinks that objectification of girls and women is a good thing.No, I didn't think that, and I don't know much about FCM. I may have to read it. It does sound that she and Wolf adress some of the same issues, but I believe that they are coming at it from different angles, and Wolf, writing in 1990, didn't talk very much about raunch culture (in The Beauty Myth, anyway).

Nightshade

04-01-2007, 06:42 AM

yep, i find it very worrying too... and it's not just Shadow's subjective impression.
of course, every generation had it's rebellious youth... but sociological studies confirm that adolesence beginns early then ever for today's kids and their childhood is cut dangerously short.
also there's a notable "sexualization" of kids that went unnoticed for a couple of years, although it has been gradually building up.

i agree with B-mental that fluffy wooly pullovers are horrid, but we're talking about 10 y/o kids here! they're not supposed to look sexy and aren't mature enough yet to engage in any kind of sexual activity...

As some of you know, my daughter recently joined the LitNet. Rest assured that I would not have allowed that if flaming had been a normal occurence here, so kudos to Admin, the moderators and well behaved members for keeping it enjoyable...
/Claes

really who is she? hello :wave: Claes daughter:D

I dont really see the issue here (with the exception of the claim by the OP about knowing 11/12 y.o girls sleeping with men of 30/40 - a claim which I have serious reservations about the validity of)

When I was growing up all the girls in my classes wore make-up and if mobile phones were available would've had them as well. I see no problem with any of this.

Regarding the "slutty" clothes. This all comes from wanting to wear similar clothes to what their favourite celebrities wear, it always has been - its just that currently all young girls want to look like Britney. The 10/11 y.o is not dressing to look slutty or to attempt to "turn people on" they see famous people dressed in a certain way and wish to be like them.

I agree with all this but Ive got to say ther is somthing just WRONG about a an eightyearold in a thong.

I think screw me pumps are great, they help make the intentions crystal clear on night outs.
.

But thats exactly the thing they dont nesserially mean what they are projecting I know a girl who dresses like than and then is horrified when some guy in a club pinched her.

i agree with you 98% percent but:
problem no.1: today's kids don't do these things a form of rebellion but with their parents full consent/support/encouragemnt

here is the thing when I wa sin sixthform for her 18th actually it might even been her oneof the girls parents sent her and her boyfriend on holiday together, yes they were both old enough to make their own desionse seing as they were 18 but dont you just find it wierd?

And then recently I heard somthing true enough as we know a realtive ( very shocked realtive of he person) this mum gave her daughter for her 15th birthday a vibrating penis with a smilie face on it. It might have made some obscure sense if it was a whats it called but it wasnt and exuse me but :eek2: what the heck is going?

As to teenager genarl not caring anymore I was shocked when the uk I guess the biggest shock was how little teens discussedpolitics and other world issues. In EGypt rom about 13 everyone I knew could hold their own out in a religious/politcal and even in somecase socioecomic debate. It was the best form of entertaiment groups of teens hanging out discussing modern politics, Egypt, the states the UN the ALN the israli-palstian conflict. All sorts of things. But here you rarley get a good debate going and if you do its with people who dont listen and who bang on and on on supposed facts. Its desperate.

about the media, i don't think they are 100% to blame.. the causes of all of this are social/economical etc... Ifanyone should be interested, I can explain what sociologists/psychologists etc have found out.

ME ME I want to know, is it thins like Social learning theory?

SleepyWitch

04-01-2007, 07:49 AM

r

ME ME I want to know, is it thins like Social learning theory?

heehee, well i'm not an expert on this, but i had to read the Shell Youth Study 2002 (GERMANY) and some other stuff about today's youth for my education exams last year...

first of all, it's important to note that 'youth' is a concept that has evolved historically, just like 'childhood' was invented.

well, the point is that "youth" as a phase in life as we knew it is being eroded.
sociologists defined youth as a period before adulthood in which young people were protected from the hardships of adult life.
this definition refers to what role "youth" plays in society as a whole. in this sense it's also sometimes called adolescence

the landmarks of adulthood are
1. having a job
2. having your own family (not your parents and bros/sis, but your own spouse and kids) and living on your own
3. being able to take part in the economy

psychologically, youth can be defined as a time when kids try to find their own identity, build up their own circle of friends etc.

as for the physical side of the issue, the onset of puberty is starting earlier and earlier (around 10 or 11 years for girls, a year later for boys).

previously, youth/adolescence was defined as a period of study in which kids could prepare for 'real life'. they were protected from things like unemployment, worrying about their future etc.
that was in the post war years/60s/70s when there were loads of jobs in the industry, so that even unqualified workers could find a job.
but today there's a shift of employment opportunities to the informational sector. i.e. there are less jobs for unqualified people --> even kids need to make sure very early in their life that they will have lots of qualifications to find a proper job.
i.e. competition is invading the previously cloistered phase of youth. this puts a lot of pressure on kids and makes them feel insecure.

generally, individuals want to act and be able to see the results of their actions. especially when you feel insecure, this urge needs an outlet.
but there's nothing much the kids can do about the pressures I mentioned.
What they can do, though, is take part in the economy, i.e. go shopping, buy trendy clothes and gadgets etc.
this is because people in general are more prosperous nowadays/ there is more mass consumption than in the past due to cheap imitation products --->
kids have more pocket money/ even poorer kids can take part in mass consumption. (= used to be one of the landmarks of adulthood)
plus, many kids work in part time jobs and make their own money.

combined with their desire to define their own identity, this increased purchasing power results in kids spending lots of money on 'outward' things like fashion.

also, todays kids are confronted with many problems (like unemployment, failing school, growing up in a single-parent family, poverty etc, the media, war, global issues etc) which they have no means of coping with, since their personality is not yet fully developed and they are confronted with these things at a time when they are not mature/strong enough to deal with them.
so they try to act in the areas where they can actually do something:
boys typically show aggressive behaviour towards others, are noisy, etc
whereas girls normally take it out on their own body: anorexia, bulimia, but also more 'harmless' things like putting on makeup, fussing about their appearance, diets, fashion...

heehee, i hope this impromptu lecture wasn't too boring. hope i got everything right, i didn't look it up in my notes...
of course this doesn't explain every aspect of the issue...

yeah, i know this explanation sounds clichéd but it's what sociologists and psychologists have found out. so even if it sounds boring, it seems to be true.

EAP

04-01-2007, 06:19 PM

But thats exactly the thing they dont nesserially mean what they are projecting I know a girl who dresses like than and then is horrified when some guy in a club pinched her.

In that case she is either incredibly ignorant or a huge tease.

Nightshade

04-01-2007, 07:47 PM

Neither EAP and I think thats the point your missing for a few reassons I wont get into. But the idea is that women dress to pleasethemselves, so what they wear gives them a feeling of empowerment.
For example a couple of weeks a go a simple window shopping vintage rummaghe turned into lets turn night into our personal Hijjabi Barbie ( sadly my new nickname) and get her a whole new wardrobe...apparantly I dress too old. then my friend called my other friends and everyone got an opinion but me. It was tighter tighter from one corner and ' she cant do that its against her religion' from the other and your only dressing for yourself and we need to introduce to makeup
and well you get the picture the only thing I manged was NO POINTY SHOES...I hate pointy shoes.

But the thing was alot of girls and women today dress however they hell they want not to 'impress men' but because dressing up to the nines makes them feel good, its not meant to give off the signals you seem to think they do and I guess thats what causes so many problems the fact that not evefryone takes the same , for lack of beteter terminolgy turning to media studies, reading of certian clothes and manners. Which is why they dont percive the purpose or need for the Hijab, although at the same time I will admit weraing the hijab has personal meanings and generally makes my life easier. but still there it is. The way you dress nolonger if it ever did is mean to reflect your opinion or leanings in any one way or the other.

Virgil

04-01-2007, 07:57 PM

yeah, i know this explanation sounds clichéd but it's what sociologists and psychologists have found out. so even if it sounds boring, it seems to be true.

I didn't copy your entire post over but I could have Sleepy. Perhaps it's a matter of perspective, but frankly I don't think kids today have had it so good, at least economically. Do you think the problems you listed didn't exist in previous generations? I can vouch for my generation. I'm sure other generations faced worst, with world wars that they had to go fight. Kids today have opportunity for college that was not available to others. They have pocket money which even for my generation was not common. They have all forms of entertainment just geared for them. The one negative that I see today that wasn't in the past is the number of single parent homes, either from divorce or out of wedlock children. That is the big negative today, and is perhaps driving the dysfunctional behavior.

Nightshade

04-01-2007, 08:00 PM

Lets not forget the cool factor of Asbos everyone...:rolleyes:

Anti-social behaviour orders (Asbos) have become a "badge of honour" among young people, says an official study.more (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6107028.stm)

EAP

04-01-2007, 08:37 PM

Neither EAP and I think thats the point your missing for a few reassons I wont get into. But the idea is that women dress to pleasethemselves, so what they wear gives them a feeling of empowerment.

If you wont get into the reasons then what's the point of commenting?
Women dress for a variety of reasons, all of which differ from woman to woman, in other words generalizations in this case aren't appropriate. However, the point here is that the aforementioned **** me pumps and assorted paraphernelia is identified with a certain cultural outlook - most people go to dance clubs/bars to hook-up (unless you are going as a mixed group, at least in my experience) and the aforemention **** me pumps and the associated paraphernelia is just another distinguishing factor, another variable used to filter out likely prospects. Your mate is ignorant if she isn't aware of that [which is normal unless one goes clubbing regularly] - the tease thingy was more tongue in check. (but *****ing about a pinched cheek in a danceclub? I won't appologize if I don't find any sympathy for her)

and well you get the picture the only thing I manged was NO POINTY SHOES...I hate pointy shoes.

Well, there you go, classic example of peer pressure. And it's hard to resist. :p

But the thing was alot of girls and women today dress however they hell they want not to 'impress men' but because dressing up to the nines makes them feel good, its not meant to give off the signals you seem to think they do and I guess thats what causes so many problems the fact that not evefryone takes the same

Well, more power to them if it feels good to them. But just as you can't go out on the street naked (even though it may feel good to you), there are occasions when the way you dress is linked to the way you are expected to behave. You can buck the trend but don't be surprised if that creates mutterings and a few dirty looks.

And really, signals are just part of the whole process (and extremely easy to misinterpret), but I think that's a totally different discussion.

'Anti-social behaviour' is one of the worst terms ever coined.

Nightshade

04-01-2007, 08:57 PM

Women dress for a variety of reasons, all of which differ from woman to woman, in other words generalizations in this case aren't appropriate. However, the point here is that the aforementioned **** me pumps and assorted paraphernelia is identified with a certain cultural outlook - most people go to dance clubs/bars to hook-up (unless you are going as a mixed group, at least in my experience) and the aforemention **** me pumps and the associated paraphernelia is just another distinguishing factor, another variable used to filter out likely prospects. Your mate is ignorant if she isn't aware of that [which is normal unless one goes clubbing regularly] - the tease thingy was more tongue in check. (but *****ing about a pinched cheek in a danceclub? I won't appologize if I don't find any sympathy for her)
.

here is the thing from my expeirance and I will admit its limitted to mostly second hand experiance as loud noises tend to make me physically ill so I dont to the clubbing thing. most singles women I know dont go to the clubs to 'hook up' they go to let their hair down and dance away the stress of the week, sort of like taking up a sport re the want an opinion thread in the genearl section. yes undinaibly some women go clubbing to 'hook up' or do things in bathrooms that is way beyond what I deem suitable for details here. But that whole argument of yours rests on the idea that women have a fundimental need to attract people .... women and those blue zappy light things oooh what a random image...anyway point is alot of people go out for other reasons. And the mate does go clubbing alot.

kilted exile

04-01-2007, 09:25 PM

If you wont get into the reasons then what's the point of commenting?
Women dress for a variety of reasons, all of which differ from woman to woman, in other words generalizations in this case aren't appropriate. However, the point here is that the aforementioned **** me pumps and assorted paraphernelia is identified with a certain cultural outlook - most people go to dance clubs/bars to hook-up (unless you are going as a mixed group, at least in my experience) and the aforemention **** me pumps and the associated paraphernelia is just another distinguishing factor, another variable used to filter out likely prospects. Your mate is ignorant if she isn't aware of that [which is normal unless one goes clubbing regularly] - the tease thingy was more tongue in check. (but *****ing about a pinched cheek in a danceclub? I won't appologize if I don't find any sympathy for her)

Ok, I go to bars/clubs on a fairly regular basis, and I have met people who go for numerous reasons. Now depending on which meat market you go to you will get a different reaction to pinching the *** of a girl you dont know as she is walking by - but I am reasonably confident that only in about 0.1% of the responses will be favourable. It does not matter what the woman is wearing "wandering hands" are generally considered unacceptable. You want to get with the girl: first off you grow a pair, second you talk to her have a dance, a drink, then go about getting allowed to touch her (something infinitely more pleasurable than grabbing a piece as she walks by.)

Even if the woman is going looking to "hook up" it certainly doesnt mean that any guy with a penis will suffice, the clothes she has on does not give anyone the freedom to harrass her in any way.

SleepyWitch

04-02-2007, 02:55 AM

I didn't copy your entire post over but I could have Sleepy. Perhaps it's a matter of perspective, but frankly I don't think kids today have had it so good, at least economically. Do you think the problems you listed didn't exist in previous generations? I can vouch for my generation. I'm sure other generations faced worst, with world wars that they had to go fight. Kids today have opportunity for college that was not available to others. They have pocket money which even for my generation was not common. They have all forms of entertainment just geared for them. The one negative that I see today that wasn't in the past is the number of single parent homes, either from divorce or out of wedlock children. That is the big negative today, and is perhaps driving the dysfunctional behavior.

heehee, Uncle Virgil
1. that's not what I think (as in personal opinion) but what numerous studies have shown

2. maybe it's a bit different in the US (that Shell Youth Study I quoted was only for Germany), but the general trends should be the same or similar

3.
I don't think kids today have had it so good, at least economically
that's exactly part of the problem. they do have more money as compared to earlier generations. but shopping is one of the few areas where they can be independent.
youths want to be independent, but they are not allowed to take part in politics, social work (except for volunteering, which many of them actually do, but probably not the ones we're whining about here :)), so shopping/ buying fashionable clothes is one way of proving their 'independence'.
actually, the ability to take part in the economy is one step towards adulthood--> todays youths no longer fit the definition of youth that evolved when you were a kid. they are more 'adult' in some respects, but still immature in others

4.
Kids today have opportunity for college that was not available to others. heehee, read my post again. part of the problem is that
a) today there are no more jobs for unqualified people. even for jobs were an apprenticeship/vocational training on the job was sufficient in the 60s/70s you need a college degree now ---> competition for these chances starts in youth. getting accepted by a college is not so much a choice as a 'must' if you want to live a decent life

5. no all kids have equal access to these chances (college etc); even though kids in general may get more pocket money there are still disparities between kids from different social strata... can you see where this leads to? i don't want to ramble too much :)

The one negative that I see today that wasn't in the past is the number of single parent homes, either from divorce or out of wedlock children. That is the big negative today, and is perhaps driving the dysfunctional behavior.
now that is extremely narrow-minded... sorry to be so upfront.
I think it's ridiculous to blame all of this on single parents/divorce. These changes affect all youths not only those from single-parent families.
i think it's extremely reductionist and unfair to blame it all on one single factor after you have seen that there are various factors involved.

sorry if the explanations in my original post were confusing, I just jotted them down. if there are unclear passages it's probably because i've never read about this topic in English and don't know the right terms.

(by the way, the causes for the behaviour of today's youth don't need to be "negative" in a material sense/ in a sense we'd normally call "negative". do you know what i mean?)

sorry if i was impolite (heehee, please don't use my post as an excuse to start a heated debate about current politics, so this thread doesn't get locked:p )

Nightshade

04-02-2007, 08:18 AM

There kilted explained it perfectly :nod:
Sleepy so basically there are less 'skilled and unskilled' labour jobs so your whole life depends on what you do now and unfortunatly the youth of today is aware o f this and it pies up the pressure??

I dont know if this contributes but recently \i had a converstaion and we sort of came to the conclusion that we live in a lay the blame else where society. Noone wants to satand up and say I was wrong so they blame someone else, the media, divorce, lack of divorce, the fact they were told coffee is hot etc etc.

kilted exile

04-02-2007, 09:21 AM

The one negative that I see today that wasn't in the past is the number of single parent homes, either from divorce or out of wedlock children. That is the big negative today, and is perhaps driving the dysfunctional behavior.

Ok, just seen this & it is one of my touchy subjects. Growing up in a single parent family has ZERO effect on dysfunctional behaviour. The area where people grow up and the opportunities available for them there do have an effect. My parents divorced when I was 3/4 y.o and I believe I turned out to be a reasonably well adjusted individual. I know using the statistics, it can be shown that children from broken families are more likely to commit some types of crime (usually the mindless kind) but these figures do not take into account other socio-economic factors.

EAP

04-02-2007, 01:58 PM

Nightshade,

But that whole argument of yours rests on the idea that women have a fundimental need to attract people ....

No, it doesn't. I don't really understand how it's relevent at all, actually. My original comment was a statement based on my observations, which is, if you are wearing certain type of clothing then you are statistically more likely to be there for a certain reason. I can understand if you disagree with that co-relation but please don't put weird motifs behind it.

women and those blue zappy light things oooh what a random image...anyway point is alot of people go out for other reasons. And the mate does go clubbing alot.

Of course they do, I am not denying that.

kilted,

pinching cheeks in a club is kinda assholish behaviour, but unless it turns into harrassment, I don't think *****ing (too much) about it is warranted. (and I have actually seen more girls pinch guys cheeks than the other way around)

Harrassment is a totally different kettle of fish and is deplorable.