Blame women for the death of feminism ?

[Auntbeast]

Whenever people start screaming that feminism is dead, they forget that one of the first visible permutations of it was man-suits for women. The early feminists burned their bras and dressed like men. It seems to me that once we are free to embrace our entire selves and not partition out the acceptable parts, is when we win.

I had a customer asked me if I was one of those “liberated women.” I said “Are you seriously asking me this at 9pm, while I AM AT WORK?” Of course I’m liberated. It also breaks my heart to hear women say they are not feminists because it has become such a dirty word, thanks to articles like the OP mentioned. When I see how sexualized young girls dress today compared to my youth, part of me thinks “no, no sweetie, the sexiest thing you could possibly have is your brain.” and the other part says “well, this is the other side of the coin we fought for.”

If you want to pull Media in to this, Cuddy from House, M.D. is a stellar example. She dresses far more provocatively than I think is strictly necessary, however, she is the head of a hospital. Looking back, shows such as Ally McBeal made it more ok for women to dress in more physically appealing ways in a professional environment than ever before. I seem to recall the “feminism is dead” thing about that show also.

Anyone who wants to argue that men don’t get attention for their looks, think back to Clinton. My god, I felt like the entire nation was on drugs every time I heard about how that dough faced man was “handsome.” BLEH! Yes, women are judged more harshly for our looks than your average guy, however, we are the harshest critics. We get what we give.

I’m reminded of the phrase “If women could sleep their way to the top, why aren’t there more women at the top?”

Tit modification? See, when a man loves a woman very much…BOOBY FAIRY! See also: boob jobs, push up bras, inserts, etc.

I have a phenomenal halloween costume. I am approaching 40, so finding a great costume that wasn’t a hooker witch, hooker nurse, hooker fireman, hooker pirate was quite difficult. I don’t really want all my stuff on display, nor do I feel like most people want to see it. The costume I found exposed nothing, in an absolutely phenomenal way. A customer said to me “I have a whole new respect for you now.” I said, “Oh yeah? Which parts?” He said “All the parts I can’t see.” My point is, we are treading through the waters of the opposite side of the coin. We will find a happy medium. The absymally mannish dress of the 70’s, the over sexuality of the 90’s and 00’s, will work it’s way to a middle ground. It is already happening.

My Grandmother was Rosie the Riveter, My mother burned her bra, I am the next logical step, and the younger girls are the step after me. Regardless of the death of feminism, we ARE better off than we were. We will continue to be better off than we were.

I have a friend who is 24. She doesn’t even understand the concept of not being equal to a man. In her world, it is not an issue. She is also majoring in astrophysics, has a job in a very male dominated industry and is a single parent who conceived out of wedlock. In HER world, in her mind, she is pretty normal. I don’t think she realizes how abnormal she is to people my age and older. That to me, is a very good sign that indeed, feminism is alive and well, it just wears Care Bear socks to physics class.

[FinnAgain]

@catsix

And here I see that you already understand what I meant when I said ‘Nobody’ gave men the power.

Heck, this is text. Checking never hurts.

@Spoons

This may be an aside to the discussion, and he’s hardly an investigative journalist, but at the time of the Augusta flap, Rick Reilly of Sports Illustrated did a terrific column on another gender-restricted golf club–this one for women only. You can read the column at this link.

An interesting article, and actually part of why I’d argue that feminism has become a pointlessly divisive philosophy and that individualistic humanism is what anybody who is truly concerned about equality and justice for all people, regardless of race, creed, nationality, gender, etc… should champion.

Some ‘old school’ feminists wouldn’t bat an eyelash over the situation he describes in the article. After all, it’s not men oppressing women, so it doesn’t count. Some would even justify it as ‘getting even’. Sooner or later, I think, we’ll need to quit this bullshit system of identity-politics and everybody who is interested in justice and equality will simply demand it for all people. Period.

[Justin_Bailey]

@Auntbeast

I have a friend who is 24. She doesn’t even understand the concept of not being equal to a man. In her world, it is not an issue. She is also majoring in astrophysics, has a job in a very male dominated industry and is a single parent who conceived out of wedlock. In HER world, in her mind, she is pretty normal. I don’t think she realizes how abnormal she is to people my age and older.

If everything she does is normal, doesn’t that mean “feminism” is dead?

Or maybe we should start calling this new phase of the equality of the sexes “masculinism”, it means the same thing right?

[NightRabbit]

I think part of the problem is that we do NOT still live in the forests and the plains. We live in a supposedly “modern” culture. To say that the end-all be-all of the female existence is to attract men is no longer true. When you are dealing with women in a professional environment, her existence is not about attracting you. To boil it down to that degree, and to not be able to separate “women’s gender” from “women’s sexuality” is, what I see to be, the big fallacy looming over this entire thread. Your “evolution” argument is that they’re one in the same.

[Sarahfeena]

@NightRabbit

I think part of the problem is that we do NOT still live in the forests and the plains. We live in a supposedly “modern” culture. To say that the end-all be-all of the female existence is to attract men is no longer true. When you are dealing with women in a professional environment, her existence is not about attracting you. To boil it down to that degree, and to not be able to separate “women’s gender” from “women’s sexuality” is, what I see to be, the big fallacy looming over this entire thread. Your “evolution” argument is that they’re one in the same.

The problem with living in the modern culture is that evolution can’t possibly keep up with it. I read a book recently about evolutionary psychology in which the author says that we are virtually the same as the hunters and gatherers from 10,000 years ago, and we are trying to force-fit that into our modern culture. To say that the end-all be-all of the female existance is to attract men IS still true, at least on a biological level. Our sensibilities might have changed, but what that means is that we are constantly fighting our biology. We are lucky…because humans have control over their behaviors, at least to a much greater degree than other animals, we can break free from the constraints of biological destiny with some effort, but it doesn’t mean those constraints don’t exist.

[NightRabbit]

@Sarahfeena

The problem with living in the modern culture is that evolution can’t possibly keep up with it. I read a book recently about evolutionary psychology in which the author says that we are virtually the same as the hunters and gatherers from 10,000 years ago, and we are trying to force-fit that into our modern culture. To say that the end-all be-all of the female existance is to attract men IS still true, at least on a biological level. Our sensibilities might have changed, but what that means is that we are constantly fighting our biology. We are lucky…because humans have control over their behaviors, at least to a much greater degree than other animals, we can break free from the constraints of biological destiny with some effort, but it doesn’t mean those constraints don’t exist.

Wow, I just realized that “reward” backwards is “drawer”!

Anyway, I find all this “evolution” argument to be more like justification for old sexist habits of thought and action than to say, “we can do better as a society” and move towards changing things. No one said that it isn’t a struggle, or that it’s easy.

Maybe there are “evolutionary” arguments to explain why we automatically like people of our own race better than those of other races- but this doesn’t discount movements of equality and colorblindness. Do you really think that we’re incapable of being colorblind because there’s some sort of natural impulse towards preferring those of our own race? Give me a break!

[Sarahfeena]

@NightRabbit

Wow, I just realized that “reward” backwards is “drawer”!

Anyway, I find all this “evolution” argument to be more like justification for old sexist habits of thought and action than to say, “we can do better as a society” and move towards changing things. No one said that it isn’t a struggle, or that it’s easy.

Maybe there are “evolutionary” arguments to explain why we automatically like people of our own race better than those of other races- but this doesn’t discount movements of equality and colorblindness. Do you really think that we’re incapable of being colorblind because there’s some sort of natural impulse towards preferring those of our own race? Give me a break!

Actually, I DO think we are incapable of being colorblind. People will always notice differences and categorize people…it’s human nature. But I never meant to justify bad behavior based on an evolutionary argument. Humans are obviously capable of rising above their baser instincts, and should always strive as individuals and as a society to do so. Here’s the rub, though…you have to figure out at some point what is truly “bad” for society and what isn’t. I made a comment once here that I think right now women, at least here in the US, are more or less as liberated as we want to be. Meaning, I find that there isn’t a lot that holds women back from achieving what they want to professionally, but that the women themselves are finding that professional achievement isn’t as important to them as it is to, say, their husbands. My question is…is this bad? Is it a “backlash against” or the “death of” feminism for women to be able to decide for themselves what it is that fulfills them? And if that fulfillment is something that is evolutionarily driven, does that make a difference? Should women try to make professional achievement be their prime motivator in life, even if it doesn’t make them happy, just to fit a feminist mold that is unrealisticly at odds with our biological drives? I’m not sure they should. I think that each woman should do what it is that makes her happy, regardless of what works for other women or what people think SHOULD work for her. For some, it’s a career, for some, it’s a family, for most, it’s probably a blend of the two. Sounds fine to me.

[Hellestal]

@NightRabbit

Anyway, I find all this “evolution” argument to be more like justification for old sexist habits of thought and action than to say, “we can do better as a society” and move towards changing things. No one said that it isn’t a struggle, or that it’s easy.

Maybe there are “evolutionary” arguments to explain why we automatically like people of our own race better than those of other races- but this doesn’t discount movements of equality and colorblindness. Do you really think that we’re incapable of being colorblind because there’s some sort of natural impulse towards preferring those of our own race? Give me a break!

I haven’t seen anyone here advocating sexism. A few lame jokes, but nothing beyond that. It’s kinda tacky to imply something more sinister is going on without justifying the claim.

Near the beginning of this thread, you spoke about “invisible, unspoken assumptions” while providing no evidence of those assumptions. You also claimed that “If [sexualizing oneself] is the FIRST and EASIEST way of feeling good about oneself, it’s a problem.” I would tend to agree with you on this last point, but that’s because I don’t think concentrating on overt sexualization to the exclusion of other facets of life is conducive to long-term happiness for anyone, whether they’re men or women. But people like Murphy in the OP aren’t even capable of making that distinction, which makes their arguments entirely without merit.

And you put forward your statement as if it’s an important principle in and of itself, with no further justification necessary. But that’s not true. My knowledge of psychology is limited, but if it really is possible to lead a full, happy life (by their standards of those words, not ours) with nothing but sex, sex, sex, then I don’t see what’s wrong with that. Frankly, I doubt it’s possible, but I don’t know for sure, which is why I’m putting the idea out there tentatively instead of stating categorically that “it’s a problem”.

You could be right. It might very well be a problem. And I would bet that there are happier ways to live for so many people rather than mindlessly trying to reach unattainable standards of beauty for the sole purpose of attracting the right mate. But what are they? I don’t know. Well, I do believe that I know for myself, but I don’t know for other people.

And yes, we should continue to denounce cases where men deny women an equal place in society. But what we should not do is what Murphy does, which is to claim that freely acting women making choices for themselves are automatically making the wrong choices. Maybe there’s a better way, but it’s better to suggest that better way rather than putting it forth as a universal for all of womankind and then complaining about sexism if they decide differently for themselves.

@me

Mutations are bred out extremely quickly if they work against reproduction.

@FinnAgain

Not true. Certain mutations like Down’s Syndrome cannot be bred out of the population, ever.

Not true unless you’re treating Down’s as if it’s a single mutation and not multiple mutations in multiple people. If that’s how the terminology is actually used, then I think that’s counterintuitive and unhelpful language, particularly when you decide to concentrate on that language and pass over the underlying point.

Due to the decrease in fertility, supplemented by a healthy dollop of social stigma, each individual case of Down’s is bred out extremely quickly (speaking on an evolutionary timescale, of course). That more cases of the same problem inevitably appear due to our genes’ predisposition to this particular defect doesn’t change the fact that each individual case is drained from the gene pool promptly.

[elucidator]

I think its important to remember that it is entirely legitimate to think in broad terms, and gender is the broadest term possible, as a subset of “human”. Do I think women tend to be more conciliatory and less directly competitive than men? Sure, and Uncle Darwin will be happy to tell us why. It comes natural, and no one should be surprised or particularly worked up over it, it is what it is. We are human, but we are still monkeys.

But that is thinking in the general, which should be flat out ignored when thinking in the specific. If a woman would prefer to be an astronaut than a homemaker/Mom/whatever, more power to her, no one should tolerate any impediments. Same thing applies in reverse, there’s nothing wrong with parenting as a life goal, if more of us did a better job of it, world be a much better place, fer sure. Used to think it was pretty easy, till I tried it. Now, not so much.

So, yeah, go ahead and think, ponder, and investigate those broad categories. Just remember to toss them aside instanter when dealing with a specific person.

[Dangerosa]

@Cat Fight

Zoggie just because you’re a feminist doesn’t mean you have to be an activist. In can be depressing. But you don’t need to follow a particular theorist’s writings to be troubled by sex trafficking or domestic violence and see how it’s supported by certain laws and social attitudes. If anything, the femnists I know are the most outspoken about sexuality and getting off because they’re not grossed out by their own bodies or afraid to ask for what they like.

Although I’m a feminist, I’m not troubled by sex trafficking or domestic violence out of any sort of feminist principles. Sex trafficking is bigger than a women’s issue - is an economic issue when someone sells their child into sexual slavery to feed the rest of the family - as has been known to occur in Thailand - because you are more likely to sell a girl than a boy doesn’t seem to make it a women’s issue. Its a drug abuse and public health issue when a women sells her own body to feed addiction. And domestic violence affects all of us - women, children AND men can get into violent and abusive home situations. To make them feminist issues makes them FAR too small for any worldview I want. Those are HUMAN issues.

[BrainGlutton]

The article in the OP, BTW, seems to be complaining mainly about the sexual objectification of women. But who says that’s incompatible with feminism anyway? Women can be sex objects and still have respected professional careers and men who do their share of the housework/childcare.

[XT]

@elucidator

But that is thinking in the general, which should be flat out ignored when thinking in the specific. If a woman would prefer to be an astronaut than a homemaker/Mom/whatever, more power to her, no one should tolerate any impediments. Same thing applies in reverse, there’s nothing wrong with parenting as a life goal, if more of us did a better job of it, world be a much better place, fer sure. Used to think it was pretty easy, till I tried it. Now, not so much.

Is anyone in this thread saying this, or are you just making an observation in general?

-XT

[FinnAgain]

@Kendall Jackson

Not true unless you’re treating Down’s as if it’s a single mutation and not multiple mutations in multiple people.

But that is what Down’s Syndrome is. It is often a spontaneous mutation that would continue to arise, generation to generation, even if we forcibly sterilized everybody with it today. There’s also the fact that even mutations which are detrimental to an individual’s (or a population’s) health can and sometimes are fixed into the sate of high allelic frequency due to thinks like the Founder Effect.

A change in the genetic code is a mutation, the multiple mutations in multiple people are instances of that mutation within the population.

@Kendall Jackson

If that’s how the terminology is actually used, then I think that’s counterintuitive and unhelpful language, particularly when you decide to concentrate on that language and pass over the underlying point.

I’m not quite sure that I’ve passed over the underlying point (even if it had lamb’s blood painted on its door posts). Can you elaborate as to how I’ve done so?

@Kendall Jackson

Due to the decrease in fertility, supplemented by a healthy dollop of social stigma, each individual case of Down’s is bred out extremely quickly (speaking on an evolutionary timescale, of course).

Well the problem here is that you are using “bred out” incorrectly. The instances of DS popping up in the population cannot be bred out via eugenics, for example. There will always be spontaneous cases. Individuals can fail to breed, but that doesn’t mean that their genes will be ‘bred out’ of the population.

@Kendall Jackson

That more cases of the same problem inevitably appear due to our genes’ predisposition to this particular defect doesn’t change the fact that each individual case is drained from the gene pool promptly.

Not necessarily, even with things like homosexuality. To the extent that it is genetic, it can still be passed on. I know, homosexual, no sperm and egg through normal sexual behavior… but humans are crafty. We have a female friend who is a lesbian Rabbi (no joke), she was actually married in one of the first same-sex ceremonies performed by the Reform movement. Anyways, she has had two baby girls via a sperm donor.

So even something like homosexuality, which at first blush appears to remove itself from the genepool, might not.

@Dangerosa

Although I’m a feminist, I’m not troubled by sex trafficking or domestic violence out of any sort of feminist principles. Sex trafficking is bigger than a women’s issue - is an economic issue when someone sells their child into sexual slavery to feed the rest of the family - as has been known to occur in Thailand - because you are more likely to sell a girl than a boy doesn’t seem to make it a women’s issue. Its a drug abuse and public health issue when a women sells her own body to feed addiction. And domestic violence affects all of us - women, children AND men can get into violent and abusive home situations. To make them feminist issues makes them FAR too small for any worldview I want. Those are HUMAN issues

Yes I said yes I agree yes. (ahem)
This is exactly my point about individualistic humanism, and how looking at some of these things as a “feminist” instead of just a human being can be divisive in ways that aren’t intended.

In any case, right now EVE Online is finally back up, and imma gank me some noobs. Mwahahahaha. Patriarchy.

[elucidator]

@xtisme

Is anyone in this thread saying this, or are you just making an observation in general?

-XT

Yeah, me. Is there a problem with that?

[XT]

Nope…no problem. I wasn’t sure if you were responding to someone or just rambling there. Carry on…

-XT

[elucidator]

Well, neither, actually. Have you a point you’d like to make, or have you been assigned as my case worker this month?

[XT]

I made my points back up thread in a series of posts earlier. Feel free to comment. I was just trying to see what you were getting at in the context of the discussion. That you were just rambling without engaging anyone cleared up things for me…as I said, carry on.

-XT

[fessie]

@elucidator

Do I think women tend to be more conciliatory and less directly competitive than men? Sure, and Uncle Darwin will be happy to tell us why. It comes natural, and no one should be surprised or particularly worked up over it, it is what it is.

/hijack — That is SO true with my boy/girl twins. It’s been the case since before they could crawl, and is becoming more pronounced as they develop fuller personalities.

And yes, I agree with you that mothering as a career goal is not supported - economically, politically, socially. It’s looked down upon.

[elucidator]

@xtisme

I made my points back up thread in a series of posts earlier. Feel free to comment. I was just trying to see what you were getting at in the context of the discussion. That you were just rambling without engaging anyone cleared up things for me…as I said, carry on.

-XT

As always, I am grateful for your critiques of my posting, and look forward to more, and the warm spirit of correction in which they are offered.

But, as you are the very paragon of pithy relevence, I worry that others are deprived of the valuable insights that you lavish so generously on me. It is more than sufficient, I am replete. With so many clamoring for your guidance in these things, it would be unseemly to squandor such attention, when so many are denied.

[XT]

No worries 'luci…all part of my friendly service. glad I could help out there. In future, I wish you would at least consider sharing whatever drugs you are on with the rest of us…it may help smooth things over.

-XT