Todays Youth.

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

Quote:

---

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."

^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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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/for...ad.php?t=23463

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

No. See http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.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:

Quote:

---

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!'"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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.

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 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.

Edit: I would submit that perhaps Fox News is not the absolute best place to keep track of recent developments in feminism.

Edit again: The article I link to contains some profanity. Consider yourself warned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleepy

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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

*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!!!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shalot

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

---

Maybe he meant doll house furnitures???

http://www.kidestore.co.uk/images/pi...olls_house.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

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 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.

Quote:

---

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.