Trying to promote feminism.
So, does anyone here actually agree with her? So far this reads like a debate against no-one but some irritating author in Australia who will probably never see this.
Good grief. Really? Really?? When it comes to feminism, the Dope never fails to disappoint (with some exceptions, e.g. NightRabbit’s excellent post).
The problem with the article in the OP is that if you’re a feminist, then you obviously don’t agree that feminsim is dead, so you can’t ‘blame’ anyone for killing it. If you do think it’s dead or no longer needed (ha!) you’re obviously not involved in feminism anyway, and you’re not likely to spend much time considering the broader social implications of stilletos, sex work, hair removal, etc. So even if you do agree with her, why should you care?
Well, we could move it to the pit.
Or I can try and provide something to work with off this.
I’m a new school feminist. The type that thinks high heels are sexy and fun. The kind that thinks women should be able to make choices about their sexuality - partners, porn, whathaveyou. I say “you go girl” when my girlfriends decide its best for their families to stay at home with their kids. Isn’t nice to have the freedom to be either a man hating lesbian or a pole dancing slut? (And one of my real problems with the kind of feminist that wrote that article is women end up with those sorts of stereotypes).
But buried in here may be a point… Feminism (to me) is about being able to make those choices - but I’m not sure how many women are making choices and taking power from those choices. That’s a little sad. Add in that so many women reject feminism - that gave them those choices. If you aren’t making a choice, do you have a choice? I think its worthwhile to make sure women understand that its great to decide to be the object of desire - it stop being great when its one of your few choices - and once you are given the role of slut its hard to shake. We are lucky, in our era we get to pick up and try on roles throughout out lives - we get to play good girl, and slut, and careerwoman and mother and wife and political being - and we can move through these roles pretty much at will. It hasn’t always been that way and it doesn’t always have to be that way. If we encourage our own objectification - even through choice - will it surprise us when we are objectified? And when we reject feminism, have we rejected an understanding of what that will mean?
Given that Murphy is promoting a strawman argument as if it were a defensible position, no, I don’t think so.
Pretty much what Finn said…excellent post IMHO. Should be bookmarked for future use.
What do you (or they) base that on? Historically, do you think that prominent sexuality in women only happens in ‘male-dominated’ cultures? What evidence is there for that? Is there no overt sexuality in female-dominated societies?
I think that Murphy (and some of the old school feminist types) don’t understand basic human sexuality OR it’s historical context on the human psyche. Sexual attitudes in the US are certainly effected by our cultural attitudes…but at their root they are more effected by the underpinnings of human (male AND female) sexuality.
Adults should be able to express their own sexuality as they see fit in the context of their society. Trying to deny that is like saying a duck should act like a polar bear just because someone thinks that polar bears act ‘right’ while ducks don’t.
Well sure…because most human interaction involves ‘sexualizing’. Sexual displays are pretty much the POINT of human interaction at the basic level…you know, propagation of the species and all that? This has pretty much always been with us. Ever seen Earth Goddess statuettes? Think this was from a male dominated society?
The point, again, is that adult women should be free to decide for themselves what their standards are…not have to conform to some person or groups standards of what is right and when they don’t, suddenly feminism is dead.
I think this is an inaccurate portrayal of Finn’s points. A more accurate (IMHO) portrayal would be ‘Adult women should be able to decide what THEY want, how they want to express it and what’s best for them sexually.’ What some old school feminists are saying is that THEY know better what is best for adult women, and if women don’t conform to this ideal then those women have been tricked by the evil male dominated society and are to shown pity and a touch of scorn for being so weak. Don’t you see how condescending this attitude is…that people can’t make their own choices, and when they DO make them it is because they weren’t strong enough to make the ‘right’ choice?
Our culture has nothing to do with it. It is a basic human expression and has been with us since…well, pretty much forever I guess. Women put on sexual displays to get a male response. Why? Why is water wet? Can a woman be attractive without being overt? I guess that is up to the woman AND the male in question. Seems like a silly question though in the context of human sexuality.
I think this is where the disconnect is between you and some of the old school feminist types. It’s not our culture so much as our underlying sexual nature that drives sexual displays. Our CULTURE shapes those displays and tells us what is acceptable and what isn’t. But whether you wear a burka or a bikini the end goal is for females to attract males sexually. In a free society such as ours it’s up to the women (as adults and all) to decide HOW they want to display themselves sexually in the context of the over all culture they are in. Thus, a woman in the US can display a lot…or not a lot. Depending on her own wants and desires.
Why? Who decides that this is a problem? You? The feminist types? Me? Or the individual women who’s decision it is? Sexual display is part of every culture that humans belong to. It’s not an ‘epidemic’…it’s the reality of being human. At root we ALL measure ourselves based on how we see ourselves, and how others see us. This has nothing to do with our culture…it’s hardwired into our behavior. It’s only a problem for those who want to make women (or men) fit into some predetermined mold of their own choosing. Sort of like the religious types trying to make humans fit a mold of sexual behavior predicated on THEIR standards and philosophy, the feminist types are trying to do the exact same thing.
How do you think that is working out for them these days?
-XT
(apologies if this was only semi-coherent. I’ve been in and out of meetings and was writing this between times. On preview Dangerosa’s post is also very good)
Oh, this is gold…reminds me of this bit of wit:
"Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don’t need badges. I don’t have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabron and ching’ tu madre!
…and what Finn and catsix said…better wordsmiths than me.
Okay, I want to respond to everything individually, but I feel like that would be long and repetitive.
I understand that women should be able to choose what they want out of their sexuality, blah blah blah. Got it.
But even the option to USE their sexuality as a TOOL rather than to simply BE sexual is, I think, an important distinction. Sexuality is not seen as a private domain of women, but their SOURCE OF POWER to wield over others. And this is where feminism, or the feminism I’m comfortable with, steps in and says, this is not cool. Can a woman possess sexuality in a private way without USING it?
Do men use sexuality as a tool? It seems to me that they have other means of authority, of getting people to pay attention to them and feeling good about themselves. When they are overtly sexual, it’s for a primarily sexual end- to get a woman into bed. With women, it’s almost an onus to use one’s sexuality for certain ends that have nothing to do with actually getting a man or men into bed- for more of a display of status, or power, or wealth, etc. than anything else. Maybe women’s status has historically been based on sexuality or attractiveness, but this is what modern feminism wants to get rid of. Women are sexual beings, but not ONLY sexual beings.
And what happens when a woman decides not to be sexual, or overtly display her sexuality? Is there fallout for her in society? How about when a woman begins to age? How about women who are ugly? How about lesbians?
No, the end goal is NOT for women to attract men sexually! That’s the end goal in life? Bullshit! At some point, the woman no longer wants to, or they never wanted to. What then? Women need to exist INDEPENDENT OF a sexual effect upon men. Women SHOULD NOT BE defined through their sexual effect upon men. When a woman fails to attract a man, she is definitely still a woman, right?
I’m beginning to think no one actually agrees with me…
If she so chooses.
Yes, they do.
And you think women don’t? Isn’t that a little misogynistic?
This makes absolutely no sense unless you’re talking about using sex to acheive power, wealth or status, in which case, women aren’t the only ones who do that. Plenty of men use their looks to gain status, power and wealth. They just don’t whine about it.
The only people who still think this is the case are ‘modern feminists’ who spend all their time in their womynz studies classes, where no man is allowed to tread.
At the very bottom line, human beings are still animals. We are 100% driven by evolution to find the strongest, best possible mate and attract that mate to us for the purposes of furthering our genes and the species. We may’ve gotten the conscious ability to decide when and if to breed, but in reality, a billion years of evolution is driving us toward one goal: propogate the genes.
Sure. It’s just that basic biology and evolution dictate that when any animal that reproduces sexually fails to find a mate, that animal is pretty much a failure in terms of propogating its genes. Cut through all the philosophical bullshit and what you’ll see is that men and women are still spreading their tail feathers and grunting in the woods. Men are, at the end of it, also driven to attract a mate suitable for passing on the genes. We are all driven by it, even those of us who are child-free.
It appears that way.
It’s not cool because…why? It’s part of human nature…but this isn’t cool? Why exactly should a woman conform to your idea of possessing sexuality in a private way (whatever that means) but not use it…if she chooses not to conform to your ideal? Especially since it’s a part of being human?
Then you misunderstand human nature. Of COURSE men use sexuality as a tool. As to your assessment of the difference between men and women using their sexuality…as with most of what you say, I totally disagree. To me, your attitude smacks of feminist ideology…not a rational assessment of the human animal and said animal orients toward sex and sexual display.
Yes, men use their sexuality as a tool to get women ‘in bed’…but WOMEN also use their sexuality for exactly the same thing. This is hard wired into us…to deny it is to deny a human is a human. You see, getting the opposite sex ‘in bed’ is how the species propagates.
I think where you are missing my point here is that you are thinking in terms of culture…you say ‘Maybe women’s status has historically been based on sexuality or attractiveness’ for instance. Well, there is no ‘maybe’ about it. And this isn’t a cultural phenomena but a physical, hard wired one. You go on to say ‘but this is what modern feminism wants to get rid of’. You want to ‘get rid of’ something that is hard coded in us…you want to get rid of something that is PART OF BEING A HUMAN BEING. And you want to do this because YOU think it’s wrong somehow, because it doesn’t meet your own expectations or assumptions on what a human SHOULD be and act like. This is the the essential problem with a lot of old school feminist types…they can’t look beyond their own ideology and see that there ARE critical differences between males and females, and some of those are hard wired into us.
It is, IMHO, the same failing a lot of religious types have…they WANT humans to act a certain way, and so therefore they feel that humans SHOULD. And when they don’t act in those ways they try and blame the humans. Sort of like blaming that duck for not acting more like a polar bear…
Of course it’s the end goal, evolutionarily speaking. Anything beyond that is a construct…the GOAL is to procreate. To attract and find a mate. That our modern society has more in it than that ignores the fact that we were molded BEFORE said modern society, before modern culture. We have been shaped and molded toward the goal of procreation…and we are hard wired for that.
Women don’t exist independent of their sexuality…just as men don’t exist independently of their sexuality. It is a part of us. To deny that is to deny what MAKES us human. To say this is cultural is to fail to understand what drives us, at the core. Feminists, as with religious types, are misguided by their own ideology or faith or whatever in to ignoring this…as you are.
Well, answer your own question. What happens when a woman decides not to be sexual, not to overtly display her sexuality? My answer to that is…nothing much if we are talking about US/Western culture/society. Where is the fallout? How ABOUT when a woman ages? What happens then? Nothing much as far as I can tell…you tell me. How ABOUT when a woman is considered ‘ugly’ by the norms of society? What happens then? How ABOUT when a woman decides to be a lesbian?
Sexual display (or lack there of) is up to the individual. As it SHOULD be for adults. They should be able to make their own determinations as to what THEY want…not what this group or that one thinks. If one does not want to put on an overt sexual display…well, this doesn’t automatically make it ‘good’ because you think it is right. If someone decides to put on a sexual display, this doesn’t make it ‘bad’ for the same reason. This ability to actually decide for ones self IS part of our modern culture…and trying to decide for some group without the touch stone of actually understanding human sexuality is part of that dust bin of history thingy that I for one would like to see us finally toss out…along with the old school ideology driven feminist types (we can toss out the religious types to for all of me).
I’m sure there are some who agree with you.
-XT
You should see how I open walnuts.
Well, there have already been a few excellent responses, but I’ll throw a pair of pennies into the mix anyways.
Nope: gargoyle. 
Why? If a woman or man can use their intellect to dazzle and woo someone, why can’t they use sex appeal? What’s at all wrong with using something like that as a tool? It is a tool. Tens of thousands of years of continuing the species has shown that much.
So do women. But for either person, sex feels good, desire is fun to receive, and going out to the club and coming home with someone is generally more fun than reading a good book.
She doesn’t have as much sex.
Surely you don’t think that old, doddering men or ugly men have it any easier than old women or ugly women?
And how, by the way, do you explain Margaret Thatcher? You could cut onions on her nose, but she was still a powerful and respected woman. Right?
Evolution says: nope. There’s a reason we have sexual dimorphism, and there’s a reason why your genetic code is dedicated to reproduction.
While the important things in any given individual woman’s life may have nothing to do with sex, from the perspective of her genes, if she doesn’t reproduce she is a total failure. Same for men.
Ignoring that continuing the species is pretty much the most important biological imperative besides the survival instinct is not wise.
I didn’t say that. I said that her position was that if they held different views that they were unable to make the ‘correct’ decisions. Or, as has already been pointed out, the old model of how things were done had men determining what any individual woman’s proper role is. The new model that some ‘feminists’ have is that they should be the ones telling any individual woman what her proper role is.
What data, if any, is there to actually support that?
Moreover, isn’t it a fantastically insulting and degrading position that women make decisions about their own bodies, not because they are qualified to lead their own lives, but because “male-dominated culture” has somehow brainwashed them?
I’d also note that your entire argument is circular. Women commit ‘bad decisions’ because they’re brainwashed by a male-dominated culture and their ‘bad decisions’ in turn feed into invisible attitudes that in turn brainwash women to engage in those ‘bad decisions’.
This is part of the problem. Don’t you realize that there is something truly odd about using the word “sexualizing?” Women are humans, the vast majority of humans are naturally sexual creatures. So women who express, indulge in, or use their innate, human sexuality, have to be marked out somehow. Even a woman who has a clean shaven crotch, which nobody else but her lover could even possibly know, has somehow done something wrong in this warped worldview.
Doesn’t that strike you as being terrifically demeaning to women?
Isn’t it strange that a woman has to close off a part of her nature, can’t aggressively seek a sexual partner and can’t enjoy being desired without being a ‘slut’ or brainwashed into committing ‘bad decisions’ by the ‘male-dominated culture’?
Isn’t it at all interesting to you that it’s considered perfectly natural for a man to go looking for someone to have sex with, but if a woman does the exact same thing, it’s not normal or natural, but she’s been “sexualized?”
Who says that this is the primary method that girls can make themselves feel good? I mean, other than you, got any proof, at all?
Are you honestly and truly asking why having sex with someone or feeling desired has value for some people? Honestly?
To some people, sure. Just like pudgy but considerate nerdish guys can still find someone to have sex with. But if you feel like having access to the largest playing field, it helps to be sexually attractive to the majority of people.
You have yet to provide any actual reason why that’d be a bad thing, other than ‘bad decisions’ made due to brainwashing from a ‘male-dominated culture’ and ‘invisible, unspoken assumptions’.
Again, any proof for this at all?
And, again, I’d point out that having sex appeal might simply be enjoyable because it leads to sex. Which tends to feel good.
And yet again, sexuality is part of human nature for most people (women are people, yes?) So just as men might feel enjoy being able to go out and charm women, women might enjoy being able to go out and charm men. Right?
And, let’s be frank, going out and seducing someone is quick and generally rather easy. Sex is a great emotional boost. Asking why some women might like to go out and find someone to have sex with is a bit like asking why some people might like a drink, or a joint, or to work out until their endorphins peak. Along the same lines, being admired feels good for most people. You haven’t provided any substantiation, at all, that being admired forms the totality of any significant percent of women’s views of themselves. Nor is there any real reason that being admired for transitory elements (like athletic ability, attractiveness or even intelligence) is a bad thing. Even if it was the guiding principle of your life.
Well, you haven’t proven it’s the first way, and certainly haven’t provided a statistical study showing that, even if true, it’d be true for a significant number of women.
As for why having sex and/or being desired are easy paths to a quick emotional boost, I’ll leave that to the peanut gallery.
“Objectification” is a nonsense word. It has no meaning in 99% of its instances of use.
Sometimes, men as well as women just want someone to fuck. They don’t care about their one-night-stand’s hopes, dreams, or achievements. Only whether sex is going to happen. A man who gets chosen as a one night stand is no more a sexual ‘object’ than a woman is in the same position. It’s also interesting that “objectification” is only alleged when a specific facet of someone’s person is being considered. Looking at Stephen Hawking as a great big ol’ brain isn’t “objectifying” him. Being impressed with Lance Armstrong’s athletic achievements isn’t “objectifying” him. But looking at a woman and saying ‘damn, nice tits’ is “objectifying” her. (Is it, also, “objectification” when a woman look at a man and say ‘damn, nice butt?’)
And while I’m at it, Murphy’s argument was not about women who do those things in order to feel satisfied with themselves. Simply women who had the audacity to do things like wax their pubic hair for reasons like, oh, I don’t know… improving oral sex with their partner. Nor have you shown that any significant percentage of women are actually doing things like that to feel satisfied with themselves, simply looked down upon women who enjoy publicly displaying their sex appeal, as if saying '“hey, look at me, anybody want to fuck?” is anything less than a perfectly normal and natural human behavior.
Murphy lists such things as Brazilian waxing, getting cosmetic surgery and wearing high heels. In other words, her argument directly contradicts what you’re saying. You, yourself, say that (many? most? all?) women engaging in some of those behaviors are only being ‘lead’ into them by a male-dominated culture, and that publicly flaunting sex appeal makes them into objects.
So which is it? Is it okay to be sexy, to play sexually, and to embrace that part of human nature? Or is it wrong if you do it, and it gives you an emotional boost, and when you’re feeling down a quick emotional boost is the easiest way to feel better? It’s okay if they do it, as long as they don’t enjoy it? Or at least as long as they don’t enjoy it too much? Or at least as long as they enjoy it a whole lot, but it isn’t the first and easiest thing they do to get a ‘rush’?
All y’all are oversimplifying greatly. If evolution were the 100% powerful giver of our only real goal in existence, there would be no such thing as homosexuality or asexuality. Obviously, the story is a little more complicated than that.
Sexuality is of course the most primal and important urge in most people, but the actual expression of that sexuality is far from perfectly oriented toward a single, easily identifiable goal. Moreover, our evaluations of people as people don’t have to center around biological theory. We can still judge people on their own terms when they consciously choose lives for themselves that are seemingly contrary to finding a mate and and gettin’ sweaty. Being an evolutionary “failure” shouldn’t be our only metric, since we’re smart enough to find others.
Not saying y’all were implying that. Just wanted to get it down on record.
Not sure about the ‘deciding’ to be a lesbian part, but for everything else… well, she disappears. Am I really living in an alternate universe? Because I’d love to join this aforementioned world where men and women are finally on equal footing, where there are as many female silver foxes as male, where ugly but successful 71-year-old women marry male models (okay, there are a few cases), with no virgin/whore dichotomies, slut/player double-standards, knee jerk comments about the physical attractiveness of any and every woman in the media, medicaid coverage of birth control and viagra, news coverage devoted to good looking women only, ads without floating female body parts… Most of these comparisons don’t even make sense given the context.
The fact that someone compared a man’s brain and another man’s physical accomplishments, you know, things they’ve cultivated and trained for, with a woman’s tits and couldn’t see the difference… for fuck’s sake. That’s the type of person who cat calls and then can’t understand why the woman wasn’t flattered.
Yes, there are feminists telling other feminists how to live their lives. Do I have to embrace Paris Hilton just because she’s making money and choosing lovers, playing by her own rules? There are plenty of people telling others how to live their lives. There are black people saying Obama’s not a ‘real’ African American, gay men and lesbians- sorry, women who’ve decided to become lesbians- who don’t ‘believe’ in bisexuality. To discount a movement that’s trying to improve the lives of over half the planet’s population… this is too depressing.
I’ve asked this question in feminist threads before, but never really gotten any kind of a straight answer. Why are people who think feminism is no longer needed crazy?
I started compiling a list of links (this this this this this) but it may be easier for you to just read Feministing for a few weeks. If you think they’re being irrational (or, what the hell, use the old fave hysterical), then I guess we don’t agree.
Here is a blog post that address your question (however briefly) and a Guardian article called We Still Need Feminism. An excerpt
Not true at all. Mutations happen all the time, and there are even findings that suggest that homosexuality may give a definite reproductive advantage to mothers of homosexual children.
No, but asking healthy, heterosexual women to ignore their biological nature because of ‘invisible attitudes’ would be a bit like Jane Goodall, instead of documenting behavior, moralizing at the chimps to adopt different sexual behavior.
Sure, granted. Having kids is not a good metric, at all, to judge a person. But by the same token, ignoring (because it contradicts some branches of feminist theory) that women and men have a very basic, very primal and perfectly justified set of reasons to want to be attractive isn’t a path to greater understanding. It’s just Goodall yelling at the chimps to stop fucking in public.
xt is right… religious zealots want to restrict personal sexual freedom because it contradicts their religious views. Some feminist zealots want to restrict personal sexual freedom because it contradicts their views.
There is a profound difference between equality and egalitarianism.
And yet Murphy and her fellow travelers are helping to perpetuate those dynamics. Interesting, isn’t it? A man who takes care of himself and enjoys being attractive is a powerful individual. A woman who takes care of herself and enjoys being attractive is killing feminism and/or brainwashed by invisible attitudes that the ‘male-dominated culture’ forces upon her, even if she enjoys them and is naive enough to think she chooses them of her own free will. :smack:
You want to eliminate that? Why? Men have evolved over a long, long time to be visually stimulated. Is there something wrong with sexual attraction? And don’t tell me that there aren’t a fair number of women out there who’ll look at a guy and have a ‘kneejerk’ reaction as to whether he’s cute or not.
Oh come on! Do you even believe that?
How many stories on Thatcher should I link you to? Hillary Clinton?
Mmm hmmmm. You think that maintaining a good figure requires no ‘cultivation’ for most women? Moreover, as I was that ‘someone’ and you are deliberately distorting what I actually said and pretending that I “couldn’t see the difference”, I’m calling bullshit.
I stated, correctly, that paying attention to one facet of someone’s person, be it brains, athletic achievement or looks, isn’t “objectification”. I would also point out that women are in general perfectly interested in cute guys, just as guys are in cute girls. And that it isn’t “objectification” in either case.
It’s not like a girl who sees a guy across a dance floor and smiles at him is thinking “I bet he’s good at solving differential equations!”
Possibilities:
- I really am the type of person who not only cat calls, but doesn’t understand why women don’t enjoy it.
- Your argument is full of shit.
I’m familiar with the logical fallacy that suffering somehow enobles people, but now we have the reverse fallacy, from people like Bill Cosby and the author cited in the OP: that, once removed from suffering, people are obliged to be noble.
To quote from “Frasier”: