Todays Youth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EAP

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My Dictionary

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, to be a member of a band whose hit song suggests that one should chose one's girlfriends entirely on the basis of hotness. Your source, somehow, manages to pull it off:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Third-Wave of Feminism Sells Sex To Young Girls

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Sure it exists, it just isn't feminism.

---

OK, but I imagine that's in the realm of debate.

Quote:

---

I am quite at a loss as to how one could confuse this with a competion, based on hotness, to be a member of a band whose hit song suggests that one should chose one's girlfriends entirely on the basis of hotness. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EAP

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

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..

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EAP

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.