reply to post by nahsik
Hi there, nahsik. Thank you for the linking the introduction to Ariel Levy's book, Female
, to your post. I think that article supports one of the (far too many) things I was trying to communicate in my overcondensed
and inarticulate earlier post.
Let me try again. You said
I'm glad i'm not the only one who has seen the problem with post modern feminism.
Well, actually, it isn't postmodern feminism, or any kind of feminism, that is the problem. You were right to add
If I could or should even call it that.
because it certainly isn't feminism that's causing girls to -- ahem -- go wild. It's just the same old same old, and it goes like this:
- Girl hangs it out and shakes it to get boys' attention
- Boys joust with one another until clear winner emerges
- Girl goes home with winner
- Babies ensue
the more girls present, the more the hanging out and shaking, and the one that shakes it best goes home with the winning boy.
This is instinctive human sexual behaviour and there's only so much feminists (or anyone else) can do to change it. I said in my earlier post that
human sexuality is protean, and indeed it is; but the basics are always there, however hard culture and society try to eliminate or alter them.
For feminists and male chauvinists alike, this is a scandal.
That's the reason why Ms. Levy is so upset. She's outraged that women who claim to share her feminist ideals still dress and act in ways calculated
to madden the men. She doesn't get why, liberated as they now believe they are, they still want to be sex objects. She doesn't get why she herself
has taken to wearing a thong*. She's asking herself -- what in the name of St. Germaine and the Blessed Martyr Betty is going on here? Why are we
still pandering to these male icons and fantasies of sexuality?
To anyone who accepts the biological roots of human behaviour, though, it's easy enough to understand. Men may encourage, even pressurize women to
behave this way -- as some of the posts in this thread prove -- but they don't really have to; women, left to their own devices, will make sex
objects of themselves anyway.
You don't believe me? Look to the evidence from history and anthropology; it's clear enough.
A feminist would say: ah yes, but all women, since the dawn of time, have been coerced into those behaviour patterns by men, who are bigger and
stronger and more aggressive than they are and have no compunction about using force to make women do what they want. So the evidence from history and
anthropology means nothing.
Fair enough. But then, what shall we make of the fact that, in societies where women are totally dominated by men, where they have been reduced to the
status of chattel slaves, you never
see girls letting it all hang out in public? On the contrary, they'll be covered in enveloping robes of
black, peering out at the world through tiny eyeholes in the fabric. Or be togged up drab, boxy floor-length dresses and bonnets (the white woman's
veil). Or trussed into geisha costumes that completely alter the shape of the body and hide the woman's real features behind a clown mask of makeup.
Or... but you get the picture.
In some of these societies (Coptic Christian, for example), women are even surgically mutilated in an attempt to make them feel less sexy.
That, not Girls Gone Wild, is what you get when male chauvinist pigs dominate the culture. The lap-dances, stripteases and all the rest still take
place, but behind closed doors; the appreciative audiences are men who essentially already own those particular women.
Conversely, whenever and wherever women have been allowed to wear what they like, they've always ended up wearing less clothes than men, flaunting
their sexuality to whatever extent they can get away with it. That's the birds and the bees for you.
Well, then: as I said before, sir_chancelot and you, nasik, have a point... but only up to a point.
The empowerment of women has enabled them to take back control of their own sexuality. That is, for the most part, a great boon. It means that women
are no longer forced to be baby machines, domestic chattels, marital-rape victims and punchbags. It means they get to keep their clitorises and let
the bones in their feet grow normally. And (to the profound relief of men such as I) it means that ordinary, decent fellows are no longer obliged to
dominate and dictate to their women, treating them as inferiors and keeping up a hopeless charade of male superiority, just because society expects it
Still, the empowerent of women is not an unmitigated blessing; like just about everything, it has its dark side. Some young women, given control over
their own sexuality, will simply follow the promptings of nature and use their newfound freedom to turn themselves into sirens, sluts and
croqueuses des hommes
. All women are wired to do this, but most, like the wonderful
, will exercise a certain self-control, displaying such behaviour
only under circumstances they consider both appropriate and safe. Others -- especially the younger ones who are smack-bang** in the middle of the
great sexual contest, will not be so sensible. Some of them will end up on Girls Gone Wild -- or on the streets.
Should we blame feminism or liberalism for this? I am sure the would-be patriarchs (and we've been hearing from them, too, in this thread) would. And
certainly, the postmodern take on feminism acts as an enabling factor in this sort of behaviour for women who are feminists in the first place
But as I said in my earlier post, very few women on GGW are feminists.
Blame the emowerment of women, if you like; put it up there in the dock alongside horniness, the media revolution and the profit motive. But don't
blame feminism, because the poor old feminists are as upset about the girls-gone-wild effect as the patriarchists are.
*And if that
didn't clarify matters for her, nothing will.
**If you'll pardon the expression.
[edit on 11-7-2008 by Astyanax]