|
On September 05 2008 09:13 nA.Inky wrote:
...But it is my contention that power tends to shape women into complacent people who express themselves through consumption and do not think or dream big. This is largely true of men, and I address this elsewhere, but I think feminism can and should address this stuff in women.
ye then there would actually be more women i could stand.. most females act all too obtrusively within their role making it hard for me to muster real respect towards them. (for me a person gains respect who is able to look over the rim of basic society based conditioning)
|
Alright, look here. Feminism isn't about all the superficial stuff you listed. It has nothing to do with ditsy women reading magazines or how the feel the need to shave because it's social convention. Feminism is about women having self-respect and being able to hold themselves up to their own standards. Why was there a feminism movement in the 19th century? Because women thought, "hey fuck this we can do better" and set about abolishing social norms.
You look at all these absolutely meaningless superficial crap like women shaving or wearing makeup and say that's an example of failing feminism? Why? because they do it to feel better about themselves, because they want to fit in, or attract men? What does this have anything to do with feminism?
Just because women wear makeup or shave doesn't mean they don't have respect for themselves. Yeah you can make it some weird social issue about whether society shapes women to be this way but this has absolutely nothing to do with feminism, as it applies to EVERYONE.
|
Where are the feminists?
Extinct?
|
Well, there are certain common perceptions of aesthetics concerning the look of men and women alike and our western society approves the striving for physical and mental perfection. Whether you want to live up to that expectation is mainly your own choice but of course, society influences your decision.
My point is, that our society has developed these perceptions and people who aren't answering it just have to put up with the rejection they get. If you don't like the western idea of aestetics either leave or accept the exclusion.
Further more, it's not like the pressure is all on the women, because men are expected to look and behave in a certain manner as well.
|
Mahnini, feminism can be many things, and address many issues. You may find this topic, and particularly the things I mentioned in my post to be "absolutely meaningless superficial crap," and that's fine, but I do not see it that way. I also am not merely focusing on fashion, shaving, cosmetics, etc. What I intend(ed) to do is state that just because women can get a job, have sex with who they please, and spend their money the way they wish, does not mean that women are equals in society. I bring up the body because I think that women are still largely conceptualized in terms of their bodies, having children, and attracting a mate. This is why I brought up the women's magazines which, again, focus on bodies (weight loss, fashion, cosmetics, etc), children/family shit, and attracting a mate. Look at men's magazines..... SO MUCH MORE diversity! Is it because men are just smarter and more diverse and less self absorbed?
There are literally toy companies that are marketing toy stripper poles to LITTLE GIRLS! There are all kinds of highschool girls parading around in bikinis to get people to come over and have their car washed (a highschool version of stripping). Little girls emulate Britney Spears, and provocative/sexy clothes are marketed to little girls. Young women exposed to American style media representations of women experience increasing rates of eating disorders and problems of low self esteem. Meanwhile, I would contend that a lot of the media men are exposed to teaches us to objectify women, seeing them in terms of their bodies, to treat them as bitches, sluts, whores, etc. Look how men talk about women here, and talk about sex here.
And to focus on media (in my case, primarily women's magazines) is not silly or superficial or meaningless; we live in a media saturated society. Apparently the average person watches about 4 hours of TV a day, and is exposed to an incredible amount of advertising. Where women are concerned, advertising tends to depict women in mother/housewife/sex toy roles.
I agree that some of this stuff is bigger than feminism. That doesn't mean these cease to be feminist issues. I am into feminism because I am an anarchist; I see the issues and struggles of feminism and anarchism as intensely related.
I love women, I love attractive women, I love sex, etc. That does not mean I want a sex toy for a partner. It doesn't mean I want a docile partner. I see feminism as a necessary and important project, not just for women, but for progressive men. I also think conventional ideas of what it is to be a man ought to be challenged. And what it is to be human. But that is beyond the scope of this particular thread.
|
This has nothing to do with feminism and using this under the feminism moniker is just diluting the ideal. If women are fine with the way they are, who are YOU to tell them they aren't feminists? Just because they don't fit YOUR ideal of feminism?
Half of the stuff you're whining about is basic biology. Guys like girl's who dress provocatively, therefore girls dress provocatively in an attempt to attract guys and vice versa. Guys objectify women because that's what guys do, and if you ask me it's more biological than social.
As a matter of fact, men and women will never be equal in society, quite frankly because we are completely different. This is dictated by our biology and I think you are living in a dream world if you think one day we will consider all women "just one of the guys" or vice versa.
Also, I would like to see the stripper poles marketed towards little girls, as that is, I agree, horrendous; but I won't believe it till I see it.
|
Hey, you know what I just realized? You are, in fact, being anti-feminist. Just because women aren't conforming to what you expect them to be, you consider it to be wrong.
+ Show Spoiler +Queue backtrack and neutral stance on 'right or wrong'
|
I never did see the connection between not shaving and being a feminist.
|
I like you.
You take all the hairy feminists and the I will take the pretty ones.
|
On September 05 2008 12:21 mahnini wrote:
Feminism is about women having self-respect
I like the way you put this.
I don't think there is anything wrong with social pressures that cause people to be self conscious about how they look. Even animals have pressure to look good.
A lot of media teaches women not to respect themselves, and I think that is the problem.
|
On September 05 2008 15:32 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2008 12:21 mahnini wrote:
Feminism is about women having self-respect I like the way you put this. I don't think there is anything wrong with social pressures that cause people to be self conscious about how they look. Even animals have pressure to look good. A lot of media teaches women not to respect themselves, and I think that is the problem.
I don't agree that the media has a very large role to play in evaluating anyone's self-respect. Some shows are retarded like those housewives of [enter city here], but do you honestly believe that that show would affect someone that profoundly? People watch shows like that for shits and giggles, women are not as impressionable as you seem to think. The media may increase social pressure to look or dress a certain way but just because a woman chooses to do so doesn't mean she lacks self-respect, and just because a woman chooses to read pointless magazines in her spare time doesn't mean anything either. Yeah, they may be tools, but call them a bitch and they'll still slap you.
Inky's rant is more some twisted idea of anti-consumerism and has very little, if anything, to do with feminism.
|
Let me guess, you are not affected by commercials either?
|
Mahnini, you bring up a totally valid point, and it is not one that is alien to me by any stretch. You are highlighting the difference between 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminism. In many ways, I am essentially representing 2nd wave feminism here (think radical 60's). It would be a simplification to say I am 2nd wave, though, as there is much in 3rd wave that I like. 3rd wave basically says, in the simplest terms, that there is no essential female nature. (Your own post would seem to posit that there IS an essential female nature, but your critique of my post as anti-feminist could just as easily have come from a 3rd waver).
The implications of the idea "there is no essential female nature" are profound. This means that we cannot say a woman is betraying her gender by stripping, prostituting herself, wearing makeup, catering to men, being subservient, being a housewife, etc. Some women will want to do those things, and they are no less a woman for wanting to do so. 2nd wavers would be (and were/are) appalled at this idea. I'm not.....completely. I agree that women (and men) have no essential nature (my argument in the thread about manliness is of an anti-essentialist nature). My problem with 3rd wave feminism is that it can quickly go from being a feminism to being a kind of complacency.
You really nail the dilemma on the head, Mahnini, and I'm glad you bring it up. We face this problem: if women love being sex objects, love being subservient, love being powerless (I'm not saying they ARE these things, but making a strong example), is it our place to tell them that their own interests are wrong? Or that they don't REALLY want what they THINK they want? Do we know them better than they know themselves? And you can apply this problem to many different situations. Is it for me to tell you it's not in your interest to eat poison food, and watch TV all day? I think a lot of radicals and activists wrestle with this.
If you look at Gramscian interpretations of Marx, you have the idea that people are duped into ideas and practices that they THINK are their own and are in their own best interest, but really serve power (they suffer from a "false consciousness.") Is this true? Do I have a right to tell women that they, too, suffer from false consciousness - a system of practices and beliefs that really serve men/power?
Here is where I come down at this moment: yes - it is for me to express the view that many people have succumbed to ways of being that aren't truly in their interest. It is for me to question cultures and practices. I don't want to fall into too powerful a relativism because doing so is too often an attempt to "stand nowhere." I have my own beliefs, desires, etc, and I'm going to act upon them. HOWEVER, it is not for me to force anyone to do anything they don't want to do. I will keep my own practice to simply sharing ideas. If people reject them, fine.
|
And to add to the above, part of my problem is that I don't see young women even asking the feminist questions. Let me be clear: to me, feminism is not about specific objectives. Feminism, like anarchism, is a process - an OPEN QUESTION. It is a project that should never be completed, and never abandoned. What bothers me is that no one is even asking the question, and I see many good reasons to be asking the question. My post here is just a tiny way of raising the feminist question.
Boil it down to this: Socrates said that "the unexamined life is not worth living." Take those words or leave them, but from my perspective, many people are not critically thinking about the world around them, or critically thinking about themselves.
|
On September 06 2008 00:16 nA.Inky wrote:
And to add to the above, part of my problem is that I don't see young women even asking the feminist questions.
Yeah right...
Seems to me that you are only talking about the pretty girls, ignoring all of the less pretty ones. But really, the pretty girls were never strongly feminists even at the feminism prime time they were just backstage supporters of it.
They are still plenty, however the movement is no longer dominant. Before the feminism grew huge due to being "The right thing to do" but it grew old and now we have other ideologies taking its place.
Why are woman bodies being objectified? Because women themselves do not have the balls to make their move on a guy and thus needs to compete with every other girl to attract the attention of the guy she wants. They keep each other down by trash talking someone if she makes moves on guys since they themselves do not want to have to do that.
The problem is that there is no way guys can make this thing change, it is all on the feminine side to stop behaving like bitches among themselves. As long as guys have to make the first move he will only be able to go on looks, you can't see the personality of a person just by looking at them which means that in these cases girls will always be objectified on the basis of their bodies since that is all they are letting the guy judge on.
The day women hits on men as much as men hits on women is the day these things can be equal, until then it is impossible to change.
|
There are real feminists out there. Sometimes they are just people who have a sharp social stance on what it means to be a woman; sometimes they have beliefs that defy biology. Sometimes they believe that pornography is disgraceful and should be abolished; sometimes (even from some of the same people who are against pornography) they promote freedom of sex saying that since men will sleep with everything in sight, women should too (and of course men won't complain for the cheap thrills).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Steinem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_for_Women
|
Klockan - I say this somewhat ironically - where is your citation? Where do you get your information? More seriously - you tell me there are (some) feminists out there, but don't see that there are some women who do make the first move and ask guys out. But even disregarding all the above, it is strange that you seemingly reduce feminism primarily to issues of women competing for men, and the "fact" that women do not take the initiative in romance.
I was in love with a woman who identified as a feminist. She was 36, and I found her to be beautiful, literally a very beautiful woman. This may be seen as statistically irrelevent, but I don't see the necessary connection between beauty and feminism. I see what you are saying; beauty elevates a woman's status, so the beautiful ones have no reason to challenge the status quo. That makes sense, but I still disagree. I'm nearly a degreed individual, part of the wealthy elite (not at all by American standards, but by world standards), above average in terms of looks (not my judgment - I've merely been told), etc, and I very much would like to change much of the system that benefits people like me, because that strikes me as the RIGHT thing to do. Beautiful women can feel the same way in terms of feminism and injustice towards women.
Mortality - I stated in the OP and throughout the thread that I am primarily talking about young women and the lack of feminists among young women. Gloria Steinem is certainly a strong feminist (I'm not sure I agree with her on a lot of things, but she is certainly a feminist), and I am aware of NOW (my Mom gets their emails). But my contention is that most young women know and care nothing about NOW, and my limited (ie statistically irrelevent) experience is that young women actually jump to NOT be associated with the likes of Gloria Steinem - in conversation about feminism, women have told me "I don't want to be like Gloria Steinem" or "I'm not like Gloria Steinem - I like men!"
|
|
|
-sigh- e.e
If a woman/girl wants to look like an object why question it? You female? You gay? or are you man?
If they have no desire to change then give them their 30 pieces of silver to the woman race. Its an endless cycle of one that wont change for awhile. Im over it and im working with it. Soo..who cares?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the old civil rights feminism has taken firm roots, the cultural and social works of the new feminism, worthy as they may be, remain fringe by ignorance and misperception. it is largely an academic movement, but it does not have to be. the core ideas, that the image of women is historically and socially constructed, and there are obviously bad ideas among the forces shaping our ideas of women, are as sound as any.
in any case, people simply do not care, and caring requires a process of education that only a small minority undergo. the core ideas of second wave feminism are very good, but apparently less attractive than the image of raging dykes to the average person.
the productive question is not who to blame, and on this count the public is far more guilty than so called raging feminists. rather, look at the lack of a mainstream feminist movement as a distinct problem. does the public share the blame for looking past such presentations, of course, but compared to the resources going into analyzing and raging at the problem, actual efforts of outreach are underpowered. maybe do mandatory feminine studies courses with emphasis on materials that can convince people of the seriousness of such problems, and not merely theoretical work discussing the viability of a feminist revision of plato or other dead guys only grad students care about.
anyway, glancing at the thread, it is necessary to make the distinction between feminist ideologies of women that will tell you what it means to be a woman, and feminist critical projects that look at social trends and tell you what's wrong with them. they are pretty different things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v730/TrueSeebo/foresight.jpg)
