Printable View
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
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.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ibid
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ibid
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ibid
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ibid
That's what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
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.Quote:
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 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).Quote:
Yeah, but Female Chauvanist Pigs isn't a particularly feminist book, from what I understand.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Shalot
Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
really who is she? hello :wave: Claes daughter:DQuote:
Originally Posted by ClaesGefvenberg
I agree with all this but Ive got to say ther is somthing just WRONG about a an eightyearold in a thong.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by EAP
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
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.
ME ME I want to know, is it thins like Social learning theory?Quote:
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
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.
In that case she is either incredibly ignorant or a huge tease.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
Lets not forget the cool factor of Asbos everyone...:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbc
If you wont get into the reasons then what's the point of commenting?Quote:
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.
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)
Well, there you go, classic example of peer pressure. And it's hard to resist. :pQuote:
and well you get the picture the only thing I manged was NO POINTY SHOES...I hate pointy shoes.
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.Quote:
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by EAP