Why did feminism end up perpetuating the stereotypes it was supposed to destroy?

Great Debates
21

Great post, Stoid. Just one quibble: I don’t think even “old-school” feminists would have said that “no” ever means “yes”. Fantasies and role-playing are great, but that should be worked out ahead of time by mutual consent. I don’t imagine myself to be a mind-reader, so I’m going to take a woman at her word. Other than that, amen to everything you said.

Another good one is: “That looks just like a penis, only smaller”.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Could you be more specific? Having sex with someone you “didn’t want to” have sex with is not the definition of rape. The definitive element is whether you consented (without being coerced) - but I suspect you meant something else. Care to clear that up?

22

I saw her the next day, as she was in the throes of grim, post-wine sobriety. I mildly teased her about her girl-love comments. She said:

“The last time I showered with women was the day I moved out of the dorm at UTex. I swore I would never see another woman nekkid again. Once is interesting, twice, maybe, but two years is too much education.”

As to publishing: Not on your life! Publish and perish!

(Texas women. When my Aunt Ophelia was seven, she beat a rattlesnake to death with a ball been hammer. “It was ugly” she said.)

23

—Certainly some feminists object to pornography, but I’d have to say it’s not a front-burner issue for most of us.—

Amusingly enough, many conservatives are just as much against pornography: so those extremists tha they use to deride feminism are actually at the same time allies on a key issue.

Anyway, there have always been inconsistencies between mainstream feminist principles and feminist politics. Consider breast implants, which many feminist groups fought like hell to get banned, even after silcone was replaced with safer materials. The problem is: how is this in any way consistent with the philosophy of a woman’s body being her own to do with what she chooses?

Now, obviously breast impants, especially silicone, have horrible medical risks, but presumably women can be made aware of the risks without being told that they can under no circumstances choose to take those risks. If someone can choose to make a potentially dangerous choice to have an abortion, why can’t they likewise take on the risks of having breast implants?

Here is where a feminist principle: “woman have a right to decide what happens to their own bodies” runs into feminist critical theory about society. Feminist theory suggests that women, when getting implants, are NOT really choosing: they are doing it because of social pressure. And when they choose to have an abortion, they ARE choosing, because social pressure is going the other way. That is, whether a choice is free seems to be defined simply by whether what one chooses to do is with or against the social grain, or what men want (bigger boobs, women to be pregnant with no reproductive rights). Thus, feminist social theory seems to imply that feminist politics should seek to force people to choose freely: and the easiest options to do so are to limit access to body enhancement, and spread access to reproductive options. Thus, to those theorists who DO see things this way, the seeming contradition with the feminist principle of choice is not really a contradiction.

Of course, there is much to criticize in that sort of analysis of why women choose to do one thing over another.

24

I think that holding doors open is a matter of courtesy, and I think it is lovely when a man does it for me, or when a woman does it. I do it for both men and women… I don’t think anyone should go through a door first and let it slam in the face of the person behind them.

** istara, **, for those of us with breasts I think bras are a must. Floppy tits look sloppy, just like floppy dicks in pants do.

Absodamntootin’.

** Boris, ** your mother and mine would have been great friends. But this is no shock.

I don’t understand… were such comments directed TO the woman in question? Or was this just the way the shmoes she worked with happened to talk to each other? Because if it is the latter, I am not buying what you’re selling. Some people are jerks, and they make no secret of it. Hardly qualifies as sexual harassment. If the comments were directed AT HER, then it’s just plain ol’ harassment and should be dealt with by superiors. If the superiors support it, then further steps should be taken.

Sounds like a bit of sexual descrimination to me, not harassment.

Very shmucky behavior. Were you ever tempted to SUE over it?

As to your stalker, stalking isn’t what I’m talking about, as I’m sure you realize.

I don’t know…what is this behavior that you are defining as “oppressive”?

Probably so…but the likelihood is that he’s inebriated as well. Why is it or should it be taken as a given that ** he ** is somehow supposed to be responsible for his actions AND hers? And if she doesn’t have to take responsibility for having sex while loaded, why does he? I find that attitude infantilizing. If I’m an idiot that doesn’t know what I’m doing when I’m drunk, then so is he, and if he is not, then I am not.

You make an excellent point. Here is how I feel about it: if the implants are causing disease, ban them. Barring that, women MUST be permitted to do what they want with their bodies. That they buy into society’s expectations about what makes a beautiful and desirable woman and want to do that to themselves is something that should be * spoken out against. * Educate, educate, educate. But anything that can be interpreted as saving women from themselves (i.e., banning breast implants because women are pathetic sheep that have no choice because society pressures them so much) does abslutely nothing except contribute to a victim mentality and again, infantilizes them. Bah! No, no no!

stoid

25

An odd sideways insight, perhaps irrelevant…

A while back, there was a slight hoopla involving Nina von Palandt, rock star girlfriend. (You would have seen her if you subjected yourself to the cinematic nightmare Sir Jagger commited called Performance)

She was in her mid-thirtys (or thereabouts) and was having an affair (if thats the word) with a boy of sixteen.

The way I feel about it, thats one lucky kid. Ride 'em, cowboy!

On the other hand, I feel equally strongly that a man in his thirties who is having an “affair” with a girl of 16 is an odious creep whose License to Possess Testicles should be revoked.

Natasha, as to our mother’s prospective friendship…“wouldn’t it be pretty to think so”. In truth, I’m not at all sure, as my mother didn’t seem to like other strong women very much. Leastwise, I don’t recall meeting any.

26

** Boris, ** we are of like mind on this. But I don’t consider it a double standard. I said male and female are equal, but definitely different. And very much so when it comes to be 16 and sexual.

As to our mothers, interestingly enough, my mother didn’t seem to like other strong women all that much either. Or weak ones. She wasn’t a terribly social creature at all. So maybe they’d hate each other, but it still explains a lot about you and me.

27

Heh. Where I used to work, people would put op pictures from Maxim et al in their lockers. I put up a picture of children playing. It was very disturbing in context, and at least one person agreed to take his pictures down if I would. Perhaps you should try it.

28

Natasha

Maybe, maybe not. I’d still be left explaining why my brother is such a white bread dickhead.

But…I forgot! Feminist theory predicts that when two strong women meet there is instant amity and collaboration, and a bond of mutual support that instinctively…

Want to hear another one? You know about the lesbian feminist carpentry collective? No studs, no nails, everything tongue and groove?

29

What I object to in feminism is that the strident rhetoric demands a historic revisionism in which women were frail, powerless slaves or lazy housewives sitting in front of the TV all day. I strongly resent this. It was women and women’s organizations that built libraries, hospitals, parks. It’s been the matriarchs of the family who were feared and respected. Feminism denies that.

BTW, I find high heels much more comfortable than bras, which I haven’t worn in years. They should’ve burned Birkenstocks and* bras! :smiley:

30

Stoid, I must say that that is one of the best descriptions of ‘rational’ feminism I’ve read. And I agree with you 100%.

A couple of points:

First, don’t blame men for pantyhose and false eyelashes and fingernails. Speaking as a man, we generally don’t give a rat’s ass about stuff like that. I think most of the pressure to dress this way is exerted on women by other women. My wife works in a job where there are no men - she still dresses up in all that stuff.

Second, hysterical feminism has not been good for women. If telling an off-color joke can be defined as ‘sexual harassment’, then the end result won’t be the eradication of off-color jokes - it will be the isolation of women in the workplace. I’m not a woman, but it can’t be comfortable to hear a bunch of laughing in the lunchroom and then walk in only to have everything go deathly quiet as all the men quietly look down at their watches and go, “Uh, time to get back to work!”

We just had to go through a sexual harassment seminar at work, and here’s the example they gave us of an actual case the company was prosecuted for. There were three female engineers who had to go to work on a project. One of them was quite attractive and dressed attractively. She attracted the attention of men, and used it to do her job better. The men would spend more time with her, give her more information, help her out more, etc. As a result, at the end of the job, she got better results than the two other women. At least, that was their case. The other viewpoint is that the other woman got better results because she did a better job. She tried harder, which included dressing nicer and putting more work into maintaining a good relationship with the men.

The two women sued the company for sexual discrimination. Their point was that the other woman got better results for sexual reasons. So even though the woman in question was dressing nicely out of choice, and enjoyed the attentions of the men (and the men liked the way she dressed), it was still sexual discrimination. The company lost the suit.

The message we were given was this: You never know what sexual harassment or discrimination is. If you tell an off-color joke to a woman, it might be sexual harassment even if she liked it and laughs, because another woman in earshot might be offended. Or even, another woman might HEAR about it, and claim harassment because it makes her afraid to go into the lunchroom when such jokes might be told.

The unsaid message was, "relations between the sexes is a minefield. So stay out of it. Be cordial and distant. Don’t tell jokes, don’t ask women if they want to grab a beer after work. Don’t make appreciative comments about how a woman looks. Avert your eyes. Never close your office door if a woman is in there with you alone.

Needless to say, this makes everyone uncomfortable, but it’s just the kind of thing that is going to lead to less women being hired, and to the workplace becoming even more uncomfortable for men and women alike.

31

Off-color jokes-I don’t think it would be harassment unless you told someone, “You know, I really don’t appreciate those kinds of jokes and don’t find them funny, so I’d prefer you didn’t tell them to me,” and said person ignored that and continued to do so.

And there’s always a time and a place for everything. I don’t think the boss should be whipping out his dick during a business meeting, or anything.

32

Especially if, for instance, she hasn’t one.

33

And people shouldn’t pick their noses in meetings. All this just falls under the category of polite behaviour. Off-color jokes shouldn’t have their own, forbidden-by-law category.

34

Squish, I obviously can’t speak about your experience, but the feminists/feminism that I’ve encountered definitely don’t espouse the view that all women used to be passive, worn-down drudges or bon-bon-eating parasites. I’ve studied quite a lot of so-called “women’s history” and the emphasis seems to be on the ways in which women carved out meaningful lives for themselves despite sucky circumstances. My own research deals with women in 19th century western North Carolina and a good part of it has to do with ways in which they don’t fit the Scarlett O’Hara stereotype.

My own beef is the way in which the history of women is often ghetto-ized into “women’s history” as opposed to American history, economic history, etc., but that’s another rant.

35

Stoid, you’re a pornographer. And while that’s fine and dandy by me, you cannot simply impose your pornographer’s sense of sexual propriety on society at large and sexual harassment law in particular, no more than the most conservative tightass in the country can impose his sense of sexual propriety on you. It seems to me that what you are complaining about is that not everybody shares your sense of sexual morality. Tough luck, that. Fact is, many women are offended or even traumatized by repeated exposure to sexual material. Would you tell them to get over it if they were instead being harassed with racist comments, or full-color anti-abortion fetus posters, or Chick Tracts plastered all over a Catholic worker’s desk?

Moreover, neither you nor your supporters in this thread has shown any awareness of the actual legal standards for sexual harassment. Apparently, it’s more satisfying to beat the stuffing out of a strawman than take the time to understand what you’re ostensibly complaining about.

Since you’re fixated on porn and naughty jokes instead of quid pro quo harassment, you’re talking about hostile-environment sexual harassment. To succeed in such a suit, the plaintiff must prove that the conduct was either “severe” or “pervasive.” A centerfold in somebody else’s locker just ain’t gonna cut it, nor would a random come-on or a couple dirty jokes–the plaintiff’s suit would be quickly and firmly tossed out by the judge.

(Of course, the centerfold may well violate the terms of employment, in which case the pinup owner can kiss his job goodbye–but that’s a function of employment, not sexual harassment law.)

Oh, and once again, wring rocks.

36

Should have read “Fact is, many women are offended or even traumatized by repeated exposure to sexual material by their coworkers and superiors.”

37

I don’t consider that a fair comparison at all. Tell me, do think it is normal and reasonable for an adult woman to be traumatized by exposure to pictures of naked women somewhere in her vicinity? I don’t, and that’s not because I peddle smut…( I wasn’t born a smut peddler, you know.) I can understand that a given woman pay prefer not to view other naked women at work…but “traumatized”? Not a normal, reasonable reaction in my book, and aren’t society’s standards supposed to be based on reasonable, instead of extreme?

Now if, as a condition of employment, a woman (or a ** man, **, for that matter!) was forced to watch “Hardcore Sluts In Action” and they weren’t working for the producers or sellers of such material, I think that would be cause for some complaint. But I’ve never heard of that, have you?

Additionally, I have only peripherally addressed the law and lawsuits…my complaint is with feminist mouthpieces who spew this crap. Whether a given lawsuit succeeds in court is another matter.

38

Nice of you to pick out “traumatized” instead of “offended,” and also to remove “repeated exposure.” If you put all those qualifiers back into what I actually said, I would certainly agree that it is reasonable for an adult woman to be “offended or traumatized by repeated exposure to sexual material by their coworkers and superiors.” What is reasonable is determined with reference to what normal people believe or do, and it is quite common for people to respond that way. Unilaterally declaring that reaction “unreasonable” makes no more sense than Pat Robertson declaring that it is unreasonable to engage in sex outside of marriage–either way, you’re just imposing your morality on everybody else.

Of course I have. That’s precisely the sort of crap that goes on in winning hostile environment harassment suits. Of course, it’s never put into writing that it’s a term of employment to watch porn in the company breakroom. But when an employee goes to lunch and finds hot blank-on-blank action on the television every day, or is repeatedly subjected to lewd comments or other offensive material, that employee may reasonably conclude that she is being harassed because of her gender. Such discrimination is not to be tolerated.

Cites, please? And please demonstrate that any cites you find are representative of the group you are condemning.

39

When I was in High School, I worked part-time in an auto body repair shop. The auto mechanics tended to hang pinup posters around the shop. They hired a girl who was in my class to work at the front desk. From the shop side of the partitioned office she worked in, the window through which we’d see her or speak to her was surrounded by pussy shots that one of the guys hung up there.

Question: Would a “reasonable woman” experience it as a hostile workplace if her coworkers always viewed her through a window decorated with spread labia and phony-orgasmic faces?

Answer: Maybe, and if I were on the jury I’d consider that a reasonable reaction, depending in part on how the guys acted towards me. In this particular case, I know she wasn’t comfortable with it; she did know which of the guys had done it (and he also always made some double-entendre joke or question or comment about her recent sexual activities)and said with the other guys it was just embarrassing when she thought about what else was pinned up in their field of vision while she was looking up part numbers or order dates, whereas with this guy he was just a total jerk with a problem. You can see how one’s mileage might vary, though, and within the reasonable bounds of that variance, I think, would be the sense that it constituted a hostile workplace.

Of course, our little auto shop was too small and her job too trivial to be a likely site for a lawsuit, but if the same dynamics were replicated in another environment, I think lawsuits might be appropriate, and the laws on which they would be based do not strike me as unreasonable laws. (Laws that should not be necessary, yeah, obviously. But they seem to have been found necessary because too many people are jerks).

40

Alone, no way (IMO). But of course there are additional concerns, I think. Suggestive language and such combined with the pictures would make a compelling case to me. But suggestive language alone would also make a compelling case to me, so what can I say?

I wish women would have been in positions of authority previously, or been more prevalent in the workplace, and hung up pictures of nude men to gawk over. Wonder what the response would be.