Note: This was intended to be more of a provocative rant on feminism. This may be something way out in left field for this website; utterly irrelevent. I would hope not, but who knows. Anyhow, I welcome any discussion on feminism, how young women are portrayed, and the cultures of young women today. I would appreciate thoughtful comments only, though humor is fine.
---------------------
Where are the feminists?
I know of no young feminists. Feminism is deviant today. "No, I like men!" "I'm not a nazi!"
Maybe feminism had its place, but no longer. Many people think that now that women have a right to wage slavery and the American Nightmare of unbridled consumerism (and modern romance is just another facet of consumerism - where is the soul?), there is nothing left to work for.
Women's magazines are typically written by women for women. Here are some of the feature headlines of some top women's magazines: Elle - "Lunch Break Sex And other good reasons to live and work together." Cosmopolitan - "What Happened When We Asked Madonna, Cherie and The Queen for their best sex and love secrets." 19 - "SEX, Are You Getting As Good As You Give?" Red - "SO SEXY, Why Men Find Today's 30 Plus Women Irresistable." Company - "The Truth about Boob jobs, The Five Minute Orgasm, Topless Twins." More - "Real Life Sex Diaries/Are You Getting Enough?"
Excellent reading material! Well done!
Women are presented on TV as housewives and as dolls to be admired. Female celebrities modify their bodies and submit their images to computer modification all to appeal to the male gaze. There are now toy stripping poles marketed to young girls, and young women parade around in bikinis selling car washing services to raise money. Young women diet and fast to be like Britney Spears (or whatever woman is in the spotlight at the moment). Develop an eating disorder; you might please a man - if you compensate for the weight loss by enlarging your tits.
Interestingly, bisexuality is now accepted in women (not so much in men, I think). This is potentially a positive step, but is it that we are more sexually open as a society, or that women are objects to be desired by men, and bisexuality is merely a kind of enabling of male desire by women who say "it's ok, we women are objects, and we objectify each other the way you objectify us, and we do all this for your titillation?"
If you had the right moisturizer, he would want to touch you. If you had the right makeup, he would want to kiss you. Shave! You filthy things! Change your bodies lest you be utterly repulsive!
Many older women are proud of their feminism, but young women strike me as docile; afraid to rock the boat for fear that a man wouldn't want them, or for fear that their friends might think them strange. Afraid to rock the boat for fear that they will be seen as uncivilized, unreasonable, irresponsible, or crazy. This is the modern person in general, but Woman in particular.
I want to know where the feminists are.
And of course my ideal woman is a feminist who loves dicks. And she is not ashamed of her body hair or her smell. She doesn't need stupid poison products to be beautiful. She doesn't equate liberation with wage slavery or consumerism. She isn't afraid to be strange or to have strong unconventional opinions. I was in love with such a woman once, and it was nice.
I'll add one thing, related to your question: I am 25. I don't know about you, but when I was exposed to Playboy (admittedly not really a feminist publication) as a youngster - 7 or so - the women tended to have pubic hair (probably not a full bush, but at least SOME hair). And so that was my idea of how a sexy woman should look "down there."
But in general, yes - hairy legs, hairy armpits, hairy crotch..... And no makeup, no deodorant or scents.... Just a sexy natural woman.
On September 04 2008 13:21 nA.Inky wrote: But in general, yes - hairy legs, hairy armpits, hairy crotch..... And no makeup, no deodorant or scents.... Just a sexy natural woman.
I think I fit all those categories except the very last one. But six of seven aint' bad. PM me big boy.
I don't think you're really advocating for feminism. You're advocating for all natural body images, which is a totally different issue and is often applied to men these days also.
You probably won't believe me, but when I'm not speaking in jest I do consider myself a feminist, at least as much of one as any male can be. Equal treatment in all things where there is no significant biological difference and I'm a fan of the strong, independent type like a Maureen Dowd. That said, I don't want to date a slob and I don't think most women want to date male slobs. That doesn't have any impact on my views of feminism, only my views of regular body image and I expect a reasonable, low level of maintenance for both sexes.
What's wrong with a woman wanting to smell nicer or have softer skin?
On September 04 2008 13:33 nA.Inky wrote: Ancestral, assuming you are being honest in your joke, I applaud you. Go natural.....
Uhh well since I'd feel bad about lying...
I do shave a lot of stuff for hygiene, but I use organic bar soap and toothpaste, and non-organic fluoride rinse. I don't ever wear anti-perspirant or deoderant. I like to be clean but to be naturally clean .. sorry if I don't meat your hairy standards!
Although here is a picture of me from not too long ago...
...I just don't like hair in dark moist places like my balls and underarms because it's you know, slightly less healthy.
Jibba, I respect your interpretation of my writing, but I disagree with you. My contention is that many have abandoned feminism because they think that the right to work and the right to shop mean women are now equals in society (a search about feminism on the net will reveal many articles that speak this message - with sexual liberation added in, of course). A lot of my point focuses on body image, but that is only because women are objectified, and equated with an idealized body-type that has particular fashion, cosmetics, hygeine products, etc, applied. (they are reduced to a body) My broader point is that is that women are expected to be docile, complacent, etc. This is why I brought women's publications into my writing, for example.
I think you would find very few people that consider women to be equals to men in society on those terms. People abandoned feminism because the movement was highly polarized and their effect wore thin on people, plus as women grew older they became less radical. The younger generations were placated a bit more and thus not as hostile as women in the 60s and 70s were, and the general public soon lost interest. This is one of the movements that I've studied and I think the movement's death was a fairly standard one, with elite leadership abandoning their base and so on.
I also don't think body image stereotypes have much of an effect on behavioral stereotypes. I do think they are definitely sexist, but I don't know many people who expect women to be docile or complacent anymore. The objectification may certainly come from the fashion and cosmetics industry, but I think that's in combination with a many other things, since there is no doubt that women can be interested in shoes and nail polish and still be strong and independent.
Also, somehow I doubt we'll get any women posting in here simply due to numbers, which makes this kind of silly.
On September 04 2008 13:08 nA.Inky wrote: And of course my ideal woman is a feminist who loves dicks. And she is not ashamed of her body hair or her smell.
I wish I didn't find this gross but I do.
Anyways, it isn't just women who have grown complacent with being told who they are.
Hairy women should be dragged by said hair and shot in the streets where they are left to rot. Most disguisting shit I have ever seen. Patriarchal? Absolutely.. but it's one of the sexist constructs I will never disagree with. Fuck I shave my own balls.. women are more attractive than men and should treat themselves as such.
What is pretty awesome is how you can quote retard magazines out of context and dig up some psuedo-intellectual dribble about feminism. Why don't you quote PCGamer, IGN, or some other gaming magazine with a tagline "Where is the masculinity"?
Stupid shit exists because people buy into stupid shit. What about the countless female scientists that are publishing articles in journals, or the abundant amount of female professionals? Just like any other social group, women tend to vary, I think they are fine the way they are.
Feminism had a good premise and a decent start, but as with most things it was infiltrated by clueless drones with clueless agendas and driven to ridiculous proportions. Many women now are in reactionary mode against feminism's basics (instead of it's excesses, because that's just how brilliant us human beings are in these situations...) and that now is being carried too far. I think a general point you were getting at is very true, of course: the fact that feminists generally said "I don't need a man!" and women now tend to say "I want a man!" You could also consider it, at least in some respect, to be a realization that independence wasn't all it was cracked up to be (the women realized the men's lives were as shitty as they had been claiming) and a desire toward a more dependent role.
Conversely, to be a little subversive and obtuse, one could say that the magazines and TV etc. are portraying those aspects in a desperate attempt to trap women into the same box-like complacency they are able to trap men (though it is much easier to trap, so they spend much more time and effort on the women). If they can keep the women running from place to place working and buying and grinding on other women, they can keep them from realizing how broken the system is and from doing anything about it. God the rulers are just incredibly astute.
Since the previous reasonings don't seem quite good enough, here's another: women have finally become aware of what they really really want and have started to tell us what they want, what they really really want (to zigga zig ah) and the magazines, tv, etc. are simply catering to a market spurred up by confident women who know and demand what they want.
Bleh, I honestly can't sing a requiem for feminism (except for "na na na na, hey hey hey, good bye"), but I certainly understand your concerns. The main tenant of feminism was independence, and independence requires thought. As the conduct on the average female becomes reactionary to feminism, it only makes sense that they will eschew independence and thought as well. What you seem to be looking for in a women requires a lot of independence, therefore thought, and even in the occurrence of those two things will be most likely rare (at least in the case of a direct match). I would just like to point out that the likelihood of a "feminist" meeting your criteria for a mate would be very slim. Feminists almost all wanted to become wage slaves on equal footing with men, very few had any desire to aspire to actual independence since those that did went ahead and marched that path on their own.
Anyway, enough rambling for now I guess, and btw hi! Not sure if you remember me but I seem to remember having some pretty lengthy and engaging conversations with you back in the day on b.net.
On September 04 2008 14:48 BottleAbuser wrote: For some reason, when I think of the word "feminism," I picture extremely sexist females who are completely biased in favor of females.
I'm sure there could be endless discussion about this topic, but just to be concise, I agree with feminism in principle, but I think that people who identify themselves feminists are generally.........incompatible with my views.
As far as the OP, what is wrong with makeup, and the numerous other things you listed? I really don't care what other people do, but personally, I probably wouldn't be interested in any girl who didn't put some effort to look good for me.
Why should I abandon what I like for "feminist" reasons. If it comes at my expense (and not hers), then its not really fair or equal, is it? And why should she not have to do anything for me, but I still have to do things for her (such as give emotional support, listen to her talk, etc)? And don't say you won't have to do things for women, because they are women and my life experience tells me otherwise.
I don't see why people get so hung up about these things. Why would you even get involved with someone if there wasn't a give-and-take type of thing going on, instead of being completely mutual. You shave, cook, and do x, y, and z, and in return, I will do a, b, and c. Its pretty simple, and if its not working for you then just leave.
As far as equal rights in other areas, such as work environments, I feel very strongly that there needs to be equality. When dealing with money, you are basically dealing with people's lives and quality of life. If someone is qualified, pay them for what they are qualified for. If a woman can't lift a certain weight (and thats the job description), she shouldn't get payed as much as a man however. You are basically discriminating against the company in that case. Let business be business. Trust me business people only see the bottom line. The main problem is coworkers not getting along with a woman, which I agree is a problem.
I'm a white male, but I haven't done anything wrong to anyone and don't owe them anything. If a feminist tells me I've done something wrong, I'm sorry but thats BS and just manipulative propaganda. However, the worst part is, that they make women think that they have a special entitlement. That in turn causes unnecessary friction between men and women, making both unhappy, imo.
So my main point is this: cultural differences between how men and women treat each other are generally ok, monetary and education differences are generally bad. Russian women are a good role model. Generally highly educated, business oriented, and attractive. Meh, not very consice..
Hey Maar! I do remember you - not well, but somewhat. I'm TRYING to remember that we discussed religion, among other things. Good to see you again
I liked your post here. I resonate with your 2nd paragraph thoughts (power defining what women should be in consumerist terms). I also like that you bring out how feminism has often been interpreted as the desire to have the same kind of lives men have, and how that can be greatly dissatisfying (wage slavery sucks, consumerism is empty).
To Travis and Bottle: One reason I wanted to discuss feminism here is precisely because the term has been poisoned. Your reactions are evidence of that. Feminists are thought of as lesbians, women who hate men, women who just want to bitch about everything, etc. Radical folks in general are often perceived negatively, especially if they are more bold in their criticism. People often react negatively to war protesters, for example. But I see feminism as a continuous project that simply seeks equal power and respect for women. The trick is that power is more complex than violence. Power exists in ideas. And so when men and powerful groups (that consist even of women) create the image of the ideal woman, it is a kind of power over women. Women in this society often feel that if they don't do x y and z, they aren't good women. My point is not that women should never wear makeup or enjoy fashion, but that they should fight the forces that tell them they ought to embrace those things for the sake of their womanhood.
This also is to address Fight or Flight; I'm not saying relationships should be one sided. I'm not saying women shouldn't look attractive or that you shouldn't desire an attractive woman. I'm saying that the way society frames the ideal woman in terms of superficial beauty is a form of power over women that has negative effects (seen in low self-esteem, eating disorders, etc - and even beautiful women suffer because of this). I have a very open idea of what women can be, but my feeling is that society as it is now is telling women that their essential nature is to be pretty and subservient. It's been worse in the past, and some people here have hinted that because there have been improvements, feminism is a silly hangover from the past, but I disagree. This is an incredibly conservative attitude that if adopted on a large scale would result in problems never being addressed.
Why is it that female TV journalists seem to have to be beautiful? Why is it that women in movies/cartoons/stories are so often in the background; an object to be fought over or saved? Why is it that beauty is equated with expensive and often poisonous products? Why is it that beauty is such a central part of being a woman, when it is not for men?
Again, it's a somewhat subtle thing to talk about, because I'm not against beautiful journalists, and I'm not saying that women should never be rescued, or that makeup and fashion are universally evil. I'm not saying a woman's beauty should not be appreciated. But the way society imposes this stuff on women is problematic the same way it is problematic to say men should always be leaders, should always be competitive, bold, dominant, money making machines, etc.
Mahnini: you consistently address me in a very disrespectful way. I allow all words in my blogs, but if you expect me to respond to you, you will have to address me respectfully. I've shown you nothing but respect. I welcome critical comments, but I have no time for blatant hostility.
And Jibba: good post. As to female posters here, I know there are very few. I wasn't putting this up because I expected women to post. I don't think feminism is a topic that should be confined just to women. It is something I care about, and I am generally disappointed and pissed off at how I see women represented in the media and elsewhere. So I wanted to start a discussion on it here, among men, and see what others thought.
Part of why its an important issue to me is that there are few women I come across who are at all my type..... I don't like typical girly girls. I like strong, unconventional women. 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.
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.
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'
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 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.
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).
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!"
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?
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.
8Pylon, while I don't agree with what you are saying, I love the image you posted. F-cking hilarious.
Oneofthem, good post. Thanks. I agree with the (useful) distinction you are highlighting. And so obviously my thread here is falling into something more along the lines of a feminist critical project.
On September 04 2008 13:33 nA.Inky wrote: Ancestral, assuming you are being honest in your joke, I applaud you. Go natural.....
Uhh well since I'd feel bad about lying...
I do shave a lot of stuff for hygiene, but I use organic bar soap and toothpaste, and non-organic fluoride rinse. I don't ever wear anti-perspirant or deoderant. I like to be clean but to be naturally clean .. sorry if I don't meat your hairy standards!
Although here is a picture of me from not too long ago...
...I just don't like hair in dark moist places like my balls and underarms because it's you know, slightly less healthy.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://photos-f.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v291/204/14/606207094/n606207094_1335189_417.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://liammacuaid.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/bill-bailey-l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v730/TrueSeebo/foresight.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.d.com.com/i/lumiere/2006/01/19/11476-11476-20060119_152431-320x240.jpg)
