Need Help : Paper on feministic views. (Serious)

[xzp]

So, taking a sex and gender roles (Sociology) class in college. Pretty fun and all as it's pretty interesting.

Then came the hard part. I've got to write a paper after reading this book called Female Chauvinistic Pigs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_Chauvinist_Pigs

Paper pretty much needs to consist of me picking a theme from the book, and then stating my opinion about it. I've read it..and the problem is, i can't come up with a concrete theme in the book. Or a proper view on it.

Was wondering if anyone's read it, and could give me a few tips, or their views on or about the book.

Thanks

[BlackBarbieDoll]

Ok..haven't read this book, but read the blurb, and know some of this rhetoric.

I would say that you should probably argue against the author's claim about lipstick feminists. You can cite several examples of women building entire empires by using their sexuality to usurp men. If you have a structure that you dislike...you work WITHIN that structure..within the confines of that structure to change it.

You might parallel it to other marginalized groups..ie blacks who have acted within the structure of race relations in this country...often adapting anglo/european dress, style etc to succeed in the corporate world. They have been criticized...like lipstick feminists for "selling out", but in actuality they have obtained the means to change the system

[KeepItMoving]

I think the tired old feminist philosophy incorrectly pits women against men. It has created a generation of angry, men hating feminists. (Not ALL, but many) The feminist playbook says you should be liberal, educated, not have any (or many) children, and have a certain level of distrust for men because they're all part of the old boy enemy network.

This old Feminist model is as tired as Gloria Steinem herself.

There is a new bread of feminist arising. They are confident and assertive, without needing to be abrasive. They may or may not have advanced degrees, but they definitely have practical sense. They have no problem looking beautiful because they are perfectly comfortable with their own beauty. They like men who act like men, not wimpy, elitist nerdy type men. They may or may not have children, but they embrace the idea of family and don't fight the critical, yet different roles men and women play in raising kids. They embrace the role of Mom, Ma, or Mommy in the lives of their kids. They embrace the differences between men and women, instead of trying to be more like the men the old school feminists both hate and try to emulate. They even have views which may go AGAINST the typical liberal ideologies of old feminists. In fact, many of them admit to having Conservative views!! GOD FORBID!!!

These new feminists scare the crap out of the old, man-hating liberal feminists. So, they are visciously attacked by old liberal-view feminists. They are personally attacked for how they talk, what they read, what their family is/does. It's pretty disgusting, really.

Nevertheless, I think the new feminists are here to stay. They will shatter the myths of the old, worn out liberal feminists views because young women coming up behind them will see that they are happy, successful people who have full happy lives without all the hateful baggage. I hope they can pave the way for other tired old views to drop the labels and get passed the old steroetypes and excuses. People can be judged on merit.

[Finner]

I think the tired old feminist philosophy incorrectly pits women against men. It has created a generation of angry, men hating feminists. (Not ALL, but many) The feminist playbook says you should be liberal, educated, not have any (or many) children, and have a certain level of distrust for men because they're all part of the old boy enemy network.

This old Feminist model is as tired as Gloria Steinem herself.

There is a new breed of feminist arising. They are confident and assertive, without needing to be abrasive. They may or may not have advanced degrees, but they definitely have practical sense. They have no problem looking beautiful because they are perfectly comfortable with their own beauty. They like men who act like men, not wimpy, elitist nerdy type men. They may or may not have children, but they embrace the idea of family and don't fight the critical, yet different roles men and women play in raising kids. They embrace the role of Mom, Ma, or Mommy in the lives of their kids. They embrace the differences between men and women, instead of trying to be more like the men the old school feminists both hate and try to emulate. They even have views which may go AGAINST the typical liberal ideologies of old feminists. In fact, many of them admit to having Conservative views!! GOD FORBID!!!

These new feminists scare the crap out of the old, man-hating liberal feminists. So, they are visciously attacked by old liberal-view feminists. They are personally attacked for how they talk, what they read, what their family is/does. It's pretty disgusting, really.

Nevertheless, I think the new feminists are here to stay. They will shatter the myths of the old, worn out liberal feminists views because young women coming up behind them will see that they are happy, successful people who have full happy lives without all the hateful baggage. I hope they can pave the way for other tired old views to drop the labels and get passed the old steroetypes and excuses. People can be judged on merit.

GREAT post. Will rep when my rep-power returns.

We had a huge discussion about this in a group that I'm in. I wrote an article taking Alice Walker (whose writing I like, but whose feminist views I despise) to task for treating her daughter like s hit. One example? When Alice Walker's daughter was little, she did not allow her to play with baby dolls, as baby dolls were "tools used by men to enslave women and to brainwash them into being mothers." Seriously. Can you believe that?

I AM a feminist. And being a feminist to me, is all about exercising the right to choose our paths as men did (and prevented women from doing) SO MANY YEARS AGO. The problem with those old school feminist is that they created a doctrine that actally tied women's hands - if you did not live within their doctrine, you were OUTTA THE CLUB! You were despised.

I CHOOSE not to have children. I CHOOSE to look pretty in dresses and make-up. I CHOOSE to participate in tomboyish sports (martial arts, surfing). I am a free woman and no woman (or man) is going to tell me that I'm wrong. Sure, they can tell me that I'm not "in their club," but I'm so confident in my life that I don't really feel the need to be a part of it.

Have I ever used my "feminine wiles" to get something I wanted? Not on purpose past the age of 8 (Hey, if anyone can get free candy and free pony rides by batting their eyelashes and smiling, then good on ya.), but do I suspect that I have sometimes had the advantage in a situation where I'm the better looking candidate? Yep. Do I suspect that I've lost out because I wasn't the best looking candidate? Yep.

I don't know if this post helps the OP, but I just had to respond to such a good and interesting post from Keep it Moving!

Well, I like to look pretty. I like frilly panties. I like the fact that my husband gets turned on every time I take a breath.

[KeepItMoving]

GREAT post. Will rep when my rep-power returns.

We had a huge discussion about this in a group that I'm in. I wrote an article taking Alice Walker (whose writing I like, but whose feminist views I despise) to task for treating her daughter like s hit. One example? When Alice Walker's daughter was little, she did not allow her to play with baby dolls, as baby dolls were "tools used by men to enslave women and to brainwash them into being mothers." Seriously. Can you believe that?

I AM a feminist. And being a feminist to me, is all about exercising the right to choose our paths as men did (and prevented women from doing) SO MANY YEARS AGO. The problem with those old school feminist is that they created a doctrine that actally tied women's hands - if you did not live within their doctrine, you were OUTTA THE CLUB! You were despised.

I CHOOSE not to have children. I CHOOSE to look pretty in dresses and make-up. I CHOOSE to participate in tomboyish sports (martial arts, surfing). I am a free woman and no woman (or man) is going to tell me that I'm wrong. Sure, they can tell me that I'm not "in their club," but I'm so confident in my life that I don't really feel the need to be a part of it.

Have I ever used my "feminine wiles" to get something I wanted? Not on purpose past the age of 8 (Hey, if anyone can get free candy and free pony rides by batting their eyelashes and smiling, then good on ya.), but do I suspect that I have sometimes had the advantage in a situation where I'm the better looking candidate? Yep. Do I suspect that I've lost out because I wasn't the best looking candidate? Yep.

I don't know if this post helps the OP, but I just had to respond to such a good and interesting post from Keep it Moving!

Well, I like to look pretty. I like frilly panties. I like the fact that my husband gets turned on every time I take a breath.

I'm really glad you got my point. You even stated it more clearly than I, given your personal experiences. I know I tread on thin ice when I interjected such a view, but I also know that there is a new bread of feminists on the rise who wouldn't attack or hate on me for it because you don't, as pure reflex, see me as the enemy just because I'm a man. The new feminists are way more "liberated" than the old style ones. Best of luck to you!!

As for the OP, I'd be somewhat careful in espousing these points in a college classroom. Colleges are crawling with angry old feminists who have the power of your grade in their hands. I'm sure you've already considered that.

[Deborah_Lyn]

As for the OP, I'd be somewhat careful in espousing these points in a college classroom. Colleges are crawling with angry old feminists who have the power of your grade in their hands. I'm sure you've already considered that.

Yeah, know your audience. I had someone try to give me a low grade because of my view point. I had to threaten to take it to the Dean.

I never read that book. But the feminist movement failed it's message: freedom of choice. They forgot to say it had to be their choice, not the individuals

I think the type of mind control involved - 'do as I want you to, not as you want ' is sad and pathetic.

Does anyone really feel bad about Pamela Anderson making $$$$ off her looks for 20 years? no, not really.

Ellen played straight females in a movie long ago... was she a sell out?

Modern feminism is a turn off to me, it's just a politcal action committe power base acting like it cares, but it's too much 'let them eat cake' in my book.

imo - real feminie power means doing what you want, when you want within constraints of your own personal ethics and morals.

This old Feminist model is as tired as Gloria Steinem herself.

lol...she got married. Sell out ( giggle)

[KLMARB]

The really tragic part about "old style" feminism was that it encouraged women to compete AS men, thereby ignoring all the traditional strengths inherent in women, which were developed over thousands of years of human societal development. Since the functions of men and women are clearly different in the sense of biology, with the extreme demands of childbearing and the consequent need for extensive care of young children, it should be no suprise that men and women evolved with a totally different set of species survival instincts. Men evolved with the "Provide, Protect, and Defend" mind set whereas women's instincts were much more emotion based and geared for the successful production of children as well as the maintenance of the intact family unit.

The strength of "New Feminism" is a woman's ability to see that men and women are fundamentally different (especially on the emotional level) and to use her ability (as a superior emotional creature) to relate to men AS A WOMAN. Women who understand this have little problem getting what they want from men, merely appealing to his traditional masculine instincts.

Manipulation? Of course. But in a normal sense, and clearly beneficial as opposed to attempting to deal with a man within a male-male dominance scenario which is much of what traditional feminism attempted to instill....

[norinicole]

I think the tired old feminist philosophy incorrectly pits women against men. It has created a generation of angry, men hating feminists. (Not ALL, but many) The feminist playbook says you should be liberal, educated, not have any (or many) children, and have a certain level of distrust for men because they're all part of the old boy enemy network.

This old Feminist model is as tired as Gloria Steinem herself.

There is a new bread of feminist arising. They are confident and assertive, without needing to be abrasive. They may or may not have advanced degrees, but they definitely have practical sense. They have no problem looking beautiful because they are perfectly comfortable with their own beauty. They like men who act like men, not wimpy, elitist nerdy type men. They may or may not have children, but they embrace the idea of family and don't fight the critical, yet different roles men and women play in raising kids. They embrace the role of Mom, Ma, or Mommy in the lives of their kids. They embrace the differences between men and women, instead of trying to be more like the men the old school feminists both hate and try to emulate. They even have views which may go AGAINST the typical liberal ideologies of old feminists. In fact, many of them admit to having Conservative views!! GOD FORBID!!!

These new feminists scare the crap out of the old, man-hating liberal feminists. So, they are visciously attacked by old liberal-view feminists. They are personally attacked for how they talk, what they read, what their family is/does. It's pretty disgusting, really.

Nevertheless, I think the new feminists are here to stay. They will shatter the myths of the old, worn out liberal feminists views because young women coming up behind them will see that they are happy, successful people who have full happy lives without all the hateful baggage. I hope they can pave the way for other tired old views to drop the labels and get passed the old steroetypes and excuses. People can be judged on merit.

Needed to quote this again since it is such a fantastic post.

GREAT post. Will rep when my rep-power returns.

We had a huge discussion about this in a group that I'm in. I wrote an article taking Alice Walker (whose writing I like, but whose feminist views I despise) to task for treating her daughter like s hit. One example? When Alice Walker's daughter was little, she did not allow her to play with baby dolls, as baby dolls were "tools used by men to enslave women and to brainwash them into being mothers." Seriously. Can you believe that?

I AM a feminist. And being a feminist to me, is all about exercising the right to choose our paths as men did (and prevented women from doing) SO MANY YEARS AGO. The problem with those old school feminist is that they created a doctrine that actally tied women's hands - if you did not live within their doctrine, you were OUTTA THE CLUB! You were despised.

I CHOOSE not to have children. I CHOOSE to look pretty in dresses and make-up. I CHOOSE to participate in tomboyish sports (martial arts, surfing). I am a free woman and no woman (or man) is going to tell me that I'm wrong. Sure, they can tell me that I'm not "in their club," but I'm so confident in my life that I don't really feel the need to be a part of it.

Have I ever used my "feminine wiles" to get something I wanted? Not on purpose past the age of 8 (Hey, if anyone can get free candy and free pony rides by batting their eyelashes and smiling, then good on ya.), but do I suspect that I have sometimes had the advantage in a situation where I'm the better looking candidate? Yep. Do I suspect that I've lost out because I wasn't the best looking candidate? Yep.

I don't know if this post helps the OP, but I just had to respond to such a good and interesting post from Keep it Moving!

Well, I like to look pretty. I like frilly panties. I like the fact that my husband gets turned on every time I take a breath.

You too Finner.

I like frilly panties too

The really tragic part about "old style" feminism was that it encouraged women to compete AS men, thereby ignoring all the traditional strengths inherent in women, which were developed over thousands of years of human societal development. Since the functions of men and women are clearly different in the sense of biology, with the extreme demands of childbearing and the consequent need for extensive care of young children, it should be no suprise that men and women evolved with a totally different set of species survival instincts. Men evolved with the "Provide, Protect, and Defend" mind set whereas women's instincts were much more emotion based and geared for the successful production of children as well as the maintenance of the intact family unit.

The strength of "New Feminism" is a woman's ability to see that men and women are fundamentally different (especially on the emotional level) and to use her ability (as a superior emotional creature) to relate to men AS A WOMAN. Women who understand this have little problem getting what they want from men, merely appealing to his traditional masculine instincts.

Manipulation? Of course. But in a normal sense, and clearly beneficial as opposed to attempting to deal with a man within a male-male dominance scenario which is much of what traditional feminism attempted to instill....

Great post, although I'm not quite in agreement with the whole 'manipulation' claim, but on the whole I agree with you.

[KLMARB]

Its when an eight year old girl totally understands "how" to ask her daddy for something, is an example of what I'm talking about. Not manipulation for malicious intent...

[norinicole]

Its when an eight year old girl totally understands "how" to ask her daddy for something, is an example of what I'm talking about. Not manipulation for malicious intent...

Ok, got it!

[NOVA888]

I just can't do the feminism thing, no way, no how. The word alone makes me nauseous because dudes aren't included. Sorry.

True equality means human rights for all.

[Elfie.]

I don't even understand what "feminism" is anymore. I believe all human beings are equal regardless of gender, race etc. and that we all deserve the same treatment, rights, oppertunities. Does that make me a feminist?

[Deborah_Lyn]

lol, this is funny. The sex expert at fox cited the book you mentioned.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509035,00.html

So are we sexually liberated? We?re not, as is outlined brilliantly in one of my favorite books, Ariel Levy?s ?Female Chauvinist Pigs.?

Here are some examples of how we are not sexually free:

? We?ve become disconnected from ourselves. People think, for example, that ads represent female sexuality, when they in fact they show how her body can be used and sold.

? We largely don?t know what it means to be sexually empowered. It?s rather ironic that the big businesses controlling our sexuality and those fighting ?the system? are using the same forms of social pressure and sex acts in getting us to spread our legs.

? We don?t understand how to attain true sexual pleasure. We?re not being taught that tuning into ourselves and becoming sensually oriented is the means to orgasmic bliss.

? We don?t truly own our bodies. We barter them. For example, girls who see ?porn sex? as the norm, use exhibitionism or trading sex for favors or social standing.

? There?s a sore lack of positive role models when it comes to personal choice in sexual pleasure and owning what is sexy. We?re all expected to be exhibitionist Barbie.

? We have a warped sense of what it means to be sexy. Some females are literally killing themselves to measure up to societal standards and what it means to be ?sexual.?

The messaging on becoming ?sexually liberated? isn?t healthy. It fails to outline what being sexually empowered really means, such as, you can say ?no.? You can keep your clothes on. You can keep your sex life private. You can express yourself sexually in your way and not everybody else?s

[Jaw-Knee]

^^^ Lol.

Girls totally can say no. They just don't want to.

[BittyMonkey]

I think the tired old feminist philosophy incorrectly pits women against men. It has created a generation of angry, men hating feminists. (Not ALL, but many) The feminist playbook says you should be liberal, educated, not have any (or many) children, and have a certain level of distrust for men because they're all part of the old boy enemy network.

This old Feminist model is as tired as Gloria Steinem herself.

There is a new bread of feminist arising. They are confident and assertive, without needing to be abrasive. They may or may not have advanced degrees, but they definitely have practical sense. They have no problem looking beautiful because they are perfectly comfortable with their own beauty. They like men who act like men, not wimpy, elitist nerdy type men. They may or may not have children, but they embrace the idea of family and don't fight the critical, yet different roles men and women play in raising kids. They embrace the role of Mom, Ma, or Mommy in the lives of their kids. They embrace the differences between men and women, instead of trying to be more like the men the old school feminists both hate and try to emulate. They even have views which may go AGAINST the typical liberal ideologies of old feminists. In fact, many of them admit to having Conservative views!! GOD FORBID!!!

These new feminists scare the crap out of the old, man-hating liberal feminists. So, they are visciously attacked by old liberal-view feminists. They are personally attacked for how they talk, what they read, what their family is/does. It's pretty disgusting, really.

Nevertheless, I think the new feminists are here to stay. They will shatter the myths of the old, worn out liberal feminists views because young women coming up behind them will see that they are happy, successful people who have full happy lives without all the hateful baggage. I hope they can pave the way for other tired old views to drop the labels and get passed the old steroetypes and excuses. People can be judged on merit.

Oh, my God. What bull****.

Do you make this crap up while you're pooping, or does it just come naturally to you?

[Miranda]

I don't even understand what "feminism" is anymore. I believe all human beings are equal regardless of gender, race etc. and that we all deserve the same treatment, rights, oppertunities. Does that make me a feminist?

'feminism' has been around for 100+ years and its meaning has shifted as society changes [partly due to feminists].

it's not so much what feminism 'is' than what people read into it. if you go by the definition 'women should have equal political, social, sexual, intellectual and economic rights to men' then i am a feminist. i never thought it should be otherwise.

i was never imposed specific gender roles when i was a child / teenager, nor has the idea ever occurred to me i couldn't / should do something 'because i'm a woman'. western cultures seem to differ a lot in that regard.

yet i do take advantage of the fact that i am [sexually] attractive. it's not 'non-feminist' in my book. sex is a huge driving force in life. to deny it is silly.

[Jaw-Knee]

yet i do take advantage of the fact that i am [sexually] attractive. it's not 'non-feminist' in my book. sex is a huge driving force in life. to deny it is silly.

Define "take advantage."

[Miranda]

Define "take advantage."

wriggle myself out of speeding tickets, better seats in restaurants, free drinks have a guy check the oil in my car because i can't be bothered myself (not that i'm technical). better treatment overall.

i have no problems looking like a homeless person and walking around totally unkempt. i like the freedom, i'm invisible. contrast that to getting all dolled up and playing up to the stereotypes. amusing.

in my experience, men tend to see women as status symbols.
the more attractive your girl, the better off you're likely to be - to your friends, anyway.

...

the problem with any -ism is that it tends not to account for reality.

people aren't 'equal'. they are born free, with equal value as humans. for the rest, sex, attraction, class, money, connections (and race, alas) rule.

[hillyrides]

I'm really glad you got my point. You even stated it more clearly than I, given your personal experiences. I know I tread on thin ice when I interjected such a view, but I also know that there is a new bread of feminists on the rise who wouldn't attack or hate on me for it because you don't, as pure reflex, see me as the enemy just because I'm a man. The new feminists are way more "liberated" than the old style ones. Best of luck to you!!

As for the OP, I'd be somewhat careful in espousing these points in a college classroom. Colleges are crawling with angry old feminists who have the power of your grade in their hands. I'm sure you've already considered that.

You're not treading on thin ice with me. I totally agree with every word. Although, are these new "feminists" you're speaking of really feminist? Or are they just normal women who love men like the rest of us? And you're right about the college classroom (coming from a college student). It's hard to express and conservative views at all, college is SUCH a liberal atmosphere, I've been fighting it since I enrolled haha. Anyways, bravo on your "new feminist" thoughts glad to see there's still some exception to the rule.

[Jaw-Knee]

wriggle myself out of speeding tickets, better seats in restaurants, free drinks have a guy check the oil in my car because i can't be bothered myself (not that i'm technical). better treatment overall.

i have no problems looking like a homeless person and walking around totally unkempt. i like the freedom, i'm invisible. contrast that to getting all dolled up and playing up to the stereotypes. amusing.

in my experience, men tend to see women as status symbols.
the more attractive your girl, the better off you're likely to be - to your friends, anyway.

...

the problem with any -ism is that it tends not to account for reality.

people aren't 'equal'. they are born free, with equal value as humans. for the rest, sex, attraction, class, money, connections (and race, alas) rule.

Sounds pretty feminist to me. If you've got it, flaunt it, 'cause it's the man's fault for buying into it and at the end of the day men are just tools to be used. Right?

No offense, but I hope one of these days a cop laughs at your attempts to "charm" your way out of a ticket and finds every excuse he can to fine you.

You're not treading on thin ice with me. I totally agree with every word. Although, are these new "feminists" you're speaking of really feminist? Or are they just normal women who love men like the rest of us? And you're right about the college classroom (coming from a college student). It's hard to express and conservative views at all, college is SUCH a liberal atmosphere, I've been fighting it since I enrolled haha. Anyways, bravo on your "new feminist" thoughts glad to see there's still some exception to the rule.

"If you're 18 and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you're 40 and not a conservative, you have no head."

[KeepItMoving]

You're not treading on thin ice with me. I totally agree with every word. Although, are these new "feminists" you're speaking of really feminist? Or are they just normal women who love men like the rest of us? And you're right about the college classroom (coming from a college student). It's hard to express and conservative views at all, college is SUCH a liberal atmosphere, I've been fighting it since I enrolled haha. Anyways, bravo on your "new feminist" thoughts glad to see there's still some exception to the rule.

It's a good question. Maybe the "new feminists" are strong enough that they don't need the comforts of a group identity or label.

But as for the "thin ice" reference, it's true. Say what I said in my first post above in front of an old-style feminist, and she'll go immediately into attack mode. (Check out the venom in that Bitty-whatever's above response to me. I figured I'd smoke at least one out.) Say what I said in my first post AND BE A WOMAN and that feminist will come after you twice as hard.

[Miranda]

Sounds pretty feminist to me. If you've got it, flaunt it, 'cause it's the man's fault for buying into it and at the end of the day men are just tools to be used.

why do you want to find 'fault'?
men use women so why wouldn't women use men?

if you had to choose between an ugly woman and a beautiful woman, based purely on what they look like, would you walk up to the ugly one and say: 'gee, you're ugly but i bet we can have a nice conversation.'

mother nature isn't a feminist.

I hope one of these days a cop laughs at your attempts to "charm" your way out of a ticket and finds every excuse he can to fine you.

not all men are drooling idiots. why would they be? don't think i haven't ever been burned.

nothing's ever 100%. it would be utterly stupid to rely on how i look all the time. it can be an added extra depending on the particular situation when i want it to be. at times, it's offered on a plate. why not use it?

[Jaw-Knee]

why do you want to find 'fault'?
men use women so why wouldn't women use men?

if you had to choose between an ugly woman and a beautiful woman, based purely on what they look like, would you walk up to the ugly one and say: 'gee, you're ugly but i bet we can have a nice conversation.'

mother nature isn't a feminist.

Why not stick to using the men who use women and leave the rest of them alone to get through whatever ****ty days they're having not being cream of the crop?

If I had to choose between an ugly woman and beautiful woman to actually get something accomplished, I'd pick the ugly woman to be on my team. She'd be there to work, not to try to shaft me with the added responsibility of doing her job because she "doesn't understand it."

Beauty won't get you everything, and a smart guy knows to avoid the pretty woman when there's work to be done.

not all men are drooling idiots. why would they be? don't think i haven't ever been burned.

nothing's ever 100%. it would be utterly stupid to rely on how i look all the time. it can be an added extra depending on the particular situation when i want it to be. at times, it's offered on a plate. why not use it?

It's taking the easy way out. You feel that you have to prove to somebody that you're good enough to work alongside him? Try handling things with a bit of integrity.

[Miranda]

Why not stick to using the men who use women and leave the rest of them alone to get through whatever ****ty days they're having not being cream of the crop?

men can be dicks, women can be bitches. or whatever terminology you like.

a smart guy knows to avoid the pretty woman when there's work to be done.

you sound biased.
attractive women are not to be taken seriously - based on what they look like?

You feel that you have to prove to somebody that you're good enough to work alongside him?

seems to be necessary, based on what you said above.

[besel]

I don't even understand what "feminism" is anymore. I believe all human beings are equal regardless of gender, race etc. and that we all deserve the same treatment, rights, oppertunities. Does that make me a feminist?

All people are not equal, its just a nice slogan. Here's a little exercise, a plane has crash into the ocean the raft has room for just one more person. Standing on the wing is a everyday person and a world renown doctor, the doctor is deceitful, selfish and arrogant. Who gets the last seat.

[Jaw-Knee]

men can be dicks, women can be bitches. or whatever terminology you like.

This is true, but are you cool with being a bitch instead of the cool person you could be otherwise?

you sound biased.
attractive women are not to be taken seriously - based on what they look like?

Biased against who, pretty women? It could even be seen as a lesser degree of your own "men can be dicks, women can be bitches" logic. You're not risking the well-being of a project you don't want to screw up due to white knighting for a woman who, if things go wrong, can charm her way out of getting fired with her looks. If the less attractive woman slacks off and screws up, then at least she's getting in trouble with me. If she takes it seriously, then it's a win for both of us; who cares about the other woman at that point?

seems to be necessary, based on what you said above.

Which is why I also said to try handling things with a little bit of integrity.

[Miranda]

This is true, but are you cool with being a bitch instead of the cool person you could be otherwise?

depends on the situation. some people allow themselves to be used.

You're not risking the well-being of a project you don't want to screw up due to white knighting for a woman who[...]can charm her way out of getting fired with her looks. If the less attractive woman slacks off and screws up, then at least she's getting in trouble with me. If she takes it seriously, then it's a win for both of us; who cares about the other woman at that point?

are you saying you would be inclined to treat a woman 'different' based on her looks - even if you wouldn't mean to?

a good-looking woman may 'charm her way out' of a situation if the opportunity arises; it doesn't mean she necessarily will 100% of the time. nor are attractive women per se less capable/serious workers.

they seem to be seen as such as your statements attest > negative discrimination. which means they must work that much harder to get any credit.

of course some attractive women can be complete airheads because they can get away with it > positive discrimination, if you will.

you also seem to imply 'ugly' people are somehow, as per default, 'better' people.

...

it is not that much that you expect others to treat you in a certain way in the first place. rather, they treat you in a certain way, you figure out why and can grow accustomed to it.

then you learn you are seen as less competent because of the very same thing . . .and this is when you start to grow up. the sooner the better. that doesn't mean you won't seize an opportunity when you see one. because it is offered to you.

life is not fair, for anyone.

[Jaw-Knee]

depends on the situation. some people allow themselves to be used.

So why contribute to the problem? Or is using people such a big part of how you get by in life that you'd rather see people put themselves in such positions rather than work that little bit harder for the good (or at least neutral) karma of not screwing with somebody else's life?

If to alleviate suffering is to do good then surely to cause undue suffering is to do bad.

You might say, "Oh, but these men put themselves in these situations and by using them I'm teaching them to think twice before doing it again." You'd be lying, though, if you said that you really thought this. You're just looking to get ahead, you don't care about the lesson. If you did then you might try putting aside the dog-eat-dog mentality and try being a decent person.

are you saying you would be inclined to treat a woman 'different' based on her looks - even if you wouldn't mean to?

a good-looking woman may 'charm her way out' of a situation if the opportunity arises; it doesn't mean she necessarily will 100% of the time. nor are attractive women per se less capable/serious workers.

they seem to be seen as such as your statements attest > negative discrimination. which means they must work that much harder to get any credit.

Because not teasing or propositioning your superiors to get a promotion others deserve a lot more than you do really is working that much harder, right? Charming your way out of getting fired instead of apologizing for your mistake(s) and moving on with your life really is working that much harder, right? Life must be so difficult for a woman who can flirt her way out of speeding tickets and "look good" enough to get things handed to her.

of course some attractive women can be complete airheads because they can get away with it > positive discrimination, if you will.

you also seem to imply 'ugly' people are somehow, as per default, 'better' people.

...

Who said anything about attractive women being airheaded? I'm just saying that there's less risk I'll get screwed by partnering up with a comparitively less attractive woman. If she screws up at least there's a better chance we'll both take the heat for it.

Never said ugly people were better, just that it makes more sense to work with them when the choice is presented because it lessens quite a few risks.

it is not that much that you expect others to treat you in a certain way in the first place. rather, they treat you in a certain way, you figure out why and can grow accustomed to it.

then you learn you are seen as less competent because of the very same thing . . .and this is when you start to grow up. the sooner the better. that doesn't mean you won't seize an opportunity when you see one. because it is offered to you.

life is not fair, for anyone.

"Growing accustomed" to certain treatment does mean you expect it. Why else do you think the courts order guys to pay their ex-wives a certain amount of alimony to "help maintain" the lives to which these women have "grown accustomed?"

I'd like to hear how hard you've had it, because honestly I have a hard time believing that things are really as bad as you make them out to be.

If life isn't fair for anybody, then it'd be worthwhile to avoid making it any worse for anybody else. The world does not stop and start at your convenience and there are plenty of good people in the world just trying to make it through their days with a bit of good karma. They don't need you making their lives any harder just because they make the effort to help you out when you're apparently competent enough to handle yourself.

[noho]

To the OP:

I haven't read the book, and want to put that out there right away (though from the looks of things, no one else here has either). However issues of gender/sexuality/empowerment/agency are extremeley interesting and very much my "thing"

The "sexual liberation" that has occurred within the past 30 years has had many effects. One of these happened to be a recasting of what was perhaps considered "sexploitation" into sexual liberation, freedom, and agency. As in, these women are not tools of a institution which casts them primarily as objects (sexual objects) over subjects, but rather, in this new environment women are agents of their own sexual destiny, wielding their sexual power forcefully. Is a load of BS?? Well, that's where arguments come into play.

Certainly, the ladies who expose themselves on girls gone wild (for what, a t-shirt? meanwhile the producer makes millions....) have a choice to do that. No one is forcing them. And because they have a choice, does that somehow make them more powerful, more feminist, just because when they lift their shirt, a camera will aim right at them? Errr... no. And that's what the author, I'm guessing, is arguing.

Primarily because these girls aren't making sexual decisions in a vacuum. They are chosing to do this in a particular environment. It's contextual.

When the primary power that you have in this world is contigent on how well you can be objectified as a sexual object, how liberated are you? I'm sure there are women that strip, or perform elsewhere in the sex industry that love what they do.

However the notion, and argument that they are feminists because if it, seems pretty shady to me. It basically co-opts traditional feminist rhetoric to say, "Look, I wear high heels, but I CHOOSE to do, it... so i'm a feminist!" That logic doesn't really add up. You can wear whatever you want... doesn't make you a feminist... 'cause frankly, we ALL make choices on what to wear. And, looks like Ariel's argument is precisely that the feminist rhetoric used by "sluts 'n proud of it" is false.

Rather the notion that we still consistantly equate a woman with her (hetero)sexuality and (hetero)sexual appeal is the problem. And the "female chauvinist pig" argument obscures that important point.

Most strains of feminism today focus on far broader issues. The social/political/economic climates that have strong impacts on individual choice. Deconstruction of bianaries, male/female, man/woman, race, and for the most part a rejection of essentialist theory that men have "these" characteristics and women have "those" characteristics. They are multiple, intersecting, and vary more among ALL individuals than BETWEEN the separate groups we identify and choose to recognize.

[KeepItMoving]

To the OP:

I haven't read the book, and want to put that out there right away (though from the looks of things, no one else here has either). However issues of gender/sexuality/empowerment/agency are extremeley interesting and very much my "thing"

The "sexual liberation" that has occurred within the past 30 years has had many effects. One of these happened to be a recasting of what was perhaps considered "sexploitation" into sexual liberation, freedom, and agency. As in, these women are not tools of a institution which casts them primarily as objects (sexual objects) over subjects, but rather, in this new environment women are agents of their own sexual destiny, wielding their sexual power forcefully. Is a load of BS?? Well, that's where arguments come into play.

Certainly, the ladies who expose themselves on girls gone wild (for what, a t-shirt? meanwhile the producer makes millions....) have a choice to do that. No one is forcing them. And because they have a choice, does that somehow make them more powerful, more feminist, just because when they lift their shirt, a camera will aim right at them? Errr... no. And that's what the author, I'm guessing, is arguing.

Primarily because these girls aren't making sexual decisions in a vacuum. They are chosing to do this in a particular environment. It's contextual.

When the primary power that you have in this world is contigent on how well you can be objectified as a sexual object, how liberated are you? I'm sure there are women that strip, or perform elsewhere in the sex industry that love what they do.

However the notion, and argument that they are feminists because if it, seems pretty shady to me. It basically co-opts traditional feminist rhetoric to say, "Look, I wear high heels, but I CHOOSE to do, it... so i'm a feminist!" That logic doesn't really add up. You can wear whatever you want... doesn't make you a feminist... 'cause frankly, we ALL make choices on what to wear. And, looks like Ariel's argument is precisely that the feminist rhetoric used by "sluts 'n proud of it" is false.

Rather the notion that we still consistantly equate a woman with her (hetero)sexuality and (hetero)sexual appeal is the problem. And the "female chauvinist pig" argument obscures that important point.

Most strains of feminism today focus on far broader issues. The social/political/economic climates that have strong impacts on individual choice. Deconstruction of bianaries, male/female, man/woman, race, and for the most part a rejection of essentialist theory that men have "these" characteristics and women have "those" characteristics. They are multiple, intersecting, and vary more among ALL individuals than BETWEEN the separate groups we identify and choose to recognize.

What a bunch of institutional, feminist gobbledygook. "Strains of feminism." "Deconstruction of bianaries [sic]" Get past the feminist college professor labels; they're constricting, not empowering. Watching old school, liberal feminists support Bill Clinton after he degraded a few dozen women, including his wife; watching feminists keep basically quiet about the atrocities of sharia law; seeing feminists who visciously attack strong, independant women who embrace Conservative political views all demonstrate the limitations of the hypocrital politics of "feminist," whatever the "strain."

Get past the labels. Celebrate the differences between men and women (instead of fighting them out of trying to become like men). Sure there are areas where men and women are the same, but thank God for our differences. Embrace the differences and see the ancient wisdom/plan for those differences to work together, not fight against each other with labels.