The ability to deconstruct a social phenomenon and to examine the possibility that the women's movement may have inadvertently contributed to its creation, is dynamic and audacious. It demonstrates that feminism is embedded in the DNA of critical thought and that we do not smugly sit on our laurels. We are confident that on balance, the changes that we have instigated have been positive and thus we can facilitate ongoing explorations on the impact of our interventions.

La Gazette des femmes does not make its articles available online. It is available, I think, in the kiosks of 'La Maison de la presse internationale'. I will purchase it and summarize some of the points raised in English, in this thread. This issue also contains an interview with Judy Rebick.

[ 12 September 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]

quote:

---

posted by faith: The question is a good one. I have three daughters and have tried to expose the dominant media controlled pop culture stereotypes produced for their consumption ... pointed out to them that the whole 'look' that they and their friends try to achieve is not an invention of their own but something that is being cynically imposed on them.

---

If a woman had worn tight jeans and a thong 100 years ago, she would be forever branded as a "loose woman" and never be able to hold up her head in her community again. She might have been raped with impunity, and if she had any male relatives she was embarrassing through her style of dress, she'd possibly be shut away in an asylum.

Women who publicly showed or declared any interest in sex were hussies and worse. Losing her virginity, if it became public knowledge, would mean being completely devalued as a woman because she would be almost guaranteed to not be able to reach the pinnacle of feminine success - walking down the aisle in her white dress. And she would certainly not be seen as having a good enough character to earn her own living in one of the three honourable professions open to her as a spinster - schoolmarm, nurse, or nanny.

The sexuality of women was tightly regulated and guarded and kept in check by men and women.

Over the decades, these restrictions to women's sexual freedom have been falling away. Women began dressing more provocatively, and started demanding freedom from strict moral codes about what they could and could not do with their bodies, sexually, reproductively and fashionwise. Women were more free in the 50's than at the turn of the century, but I don't think anyone would claim that they were really free then, compared to now. At that point, at least they had more choice when it came to divorce (and even more the next decade and the decade after that). And yet, there was still a pretty strong moral code then. Girls still got "reputations" if they "went all the way," and if they got pregnant, it was backalley butcher time or off to the nine-month hairdressing course in another city.

Nowadays, things aren't perfect. Women still get raped (and date-raped, although at least now there's a recognition that date rape IS rape), and they're still beaten by partners and they're still earning a percentage of the male dollar and they're still being as objectified as they ever were.

But now, we're freer to make decisions about sex that don't impact whether or not we're going to be able to get married in the future or earn a living. Now we're free to wear a push-up bra and a short skirt if we feel like dressing sexy, without being shamed by the entire community and being followed by a "ruined reputation". Now we are free to date boys in high school, and not be considered "sluts" if we do the same experimentation with sex that our male classmates do.

And yes, now it's in style to wear revealing clothing.

I don't see that as a terrible thing. I certainly don't see it as a "feminist failure". I think it's too bad if girls feel they HAVE to put their skin on display, but I think most girls and woman who dress skimpily LIKE dressing that way. Sure, there are some who do it because of peer pressure, and probably that's more prevalent in the teens than for women in their 20's and 30's.

But "feminist failure"? God, no. I think it's important for women to deconstruct media images and the reasons we might have for wanting to conform to fashion. But women have been conforming to fashion for a long time now - that hasn't changed. What HAS changed is the fact that women have a lot more choices about which fashions they conform to, and more importantly, they have much more autonomy to make choices about their own sexuality without the kind of social sanction they would have received even 30 or 40 years ago.

To me, that's real progress. And I think when we start getting over our "shock" at seeing thongs and skin, we'll start making it possible for girls to see themselves as empowered rather than fashion pawns. Teenagers are trying out their sexuality and the images they see around them and trying to make sense of what fits their own personality. If that means wearing a visible thong and lowrise jeans when they come in style, then so be it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:
I know what you are saying with the damned if we do or don't thing but I refused to accept that . I t is one thing to celebrate female sexuality in general as well as your very own sexuality, it is another thing to advertise it just by your choice of clothing.

---

But what if I LIKE to advertise my sexuality with my choice of clothing?

See, to me, describing revealing styles as the "ho" look isn't feminist either. First of all, it assumes something negative about the character of the woman who chooses to wear revealing clothing, or who decides to "advertise" her sexuality through the clothes she wears. Secondly, it assumes something negative about women who work as prostitutes, that they are somehow shameful.

The other problem I have with people criticizing revealing clothing as "advertising sexuality" is that it assumes that if a woman puts on revealing clothing, she is advertising herself as sexually available. That's a really regressive attitude if you ask me. Maybe a woman is wearing revealing clothing because she wants to be sexy, not sexually available. Maybe the woman wants to be both sexy AND sexually available. Or maybe the woman just likes how it looks and is rejoicing in her body and thinks the outfit looks neat. Who knows. But the assumption that any of these is automatically a bad thing is a morally puritan position that I have a hard time stomaching.

I think the way to resolve differences between different feminist attitudes towards clothing is, again, for feminists to encourage women to own their sexuality and start pushing for women to define their sexual parameters for themselves.

This means that a woman who doesn't want to dress in skimpy clothes doesn't have to, and she can decide what her sexual boundaries are, but that she also doesn't get to make moral judgements about women who choose to dress differently. And by the same token, it means that women who do like to follow the revealing clothing trends should be encouraged by feminism to examine their sexuality, define their sexual boundaries and take control of their sexual freedom rather than allowing themselves to be defined by the fashion.

Feminists will never get anywhere by being puritans about dress and clothing. Feminists over the years have fought against externally-imposed boundaries to their sexuality and their bodies, whether they are imposed by men or by feminists.

During the day, a mild mannered private school girl with a kilt and tie ... at night out with the gang ... A SHAMELESS HUSSY!

Most teens go through a phase of wanting to be conformists, wanting to wear a uniform, be it Goth or tarty or whatever. I think it's part of how they distance themselves from their parents and identify with their peers. I don't see it as anti-feminist, and I don't see it as necessarily dictated by Big Fashion. A lot of the skimpy spaghetti strap tank tops and tiny wrap skirts I see the students I know wearing are coming from small independent shops which import them from Indonesia or Thailand. (And yes, I'm aware that they may be coming out of sweat shops ... my point is that these kids aren't buying them at the corporate malls.)

quote:

---

posted by Ron Webb: ... IMHO pushing sexual self-images on ever-younger girls is inexcusable. ...it's commercial advertising that's mostly responsible - the sooner they grow up, the sooner they can start buying stuff. This is more about consumerism than feminism.

---

The first marketing strategy tells its adolescent female consumers: You too can get the Paris Hilton/Nicole Richie glam 'ho style if you buy all this stuff.

The second one, for men tells them: What you see is what you get.

quote:

---

But "feminist failure"? God, no.

---

Exactly Michelle!

But I come from it from a different perspective. Part of mainstream feminism was not just about embracing our sexuality, it was also about de-sexualizing women's bodies. In many cultures (present-day and historical) where feminism has not made the samee gains as in 2005 Canada, women are/were required to be covered up because random body parts were considered erotic (elbows, for God sake, one of the most boring parts of any body!). As feminism has had its impact, more and more female body parts can be revealed without men getting erections because women's knees, elbows and necks are displayed on our streets. Similarly, it is with the advent of feminism that public breast-feeding is slowly becoming more accepted.

Michele, I don't think your well-wishing for teenaged girls to be embracing their whole selves when they dress in 'the uniform' faith described is reflecting the reality of these girls' lives. The freedoms you claim have happened simply don't look very acheived from where I'm standing.

For example, "Now we are free to date boys in high school, and not be considered "sluts" if we do the same experimentation with sex that our male classmates do."

The sexual double standard is very much still alive and girls cannot do the same experimenting boy classmates do without condemnation from peers. As a child of the 1980's I was told I could do everything boys could do but when I actually did sexually experiment I was ridiculed and shamed and the boys I was with suffered no such backlash. I have heard this said by many 20-something feminists who thought in their heads that they were not doing anything wrong but who still suffered mistreatment from boys and female peers.

You're praising the "whore card" of the virgin/whore split but we've not gotten past men sticking all women into categories of virgins and whores. That hasn't really changed much, though the pendulum swings back and forth every now and again. It has always been fashionable for men that women act like prostitutes, and the men who run capitalism on t&a fuel wouldn't have it any other way.

Considering how impossible society makes being a "good girl virgin", how convenient for men's sexual satisfaction that there's the handy stereotype of the "bad girl whore" for impure girls to adopt as their identities. The only females most boys think of as virginally pure are their mothers, which is oddly ironic.

We as feminists need to question desires, our own and others. What has been done to women has mostly been done to us through desire as we are the people most defined by our gendered sexuality. I question the desire of many young women to display pink thong underwear at school as a statement to their unique personality because there's nothing unique about mimicking pornified celebrities like Paris Hilton, Pamela Anderson and Britney Spears (not coincidentally the three personalities that young girls say they most want to be like). At least that other fake blonde, fake breasted, fake named model of modern femininity, Jenna Jameson, didn't make the top three. Yet.

[ 12 September 2005: Message edited by: Thalia ]

I think there are some things that are marketed to teenagers that are not appropriate. Very skimpy clothes are not appropriate for school, and I'm hard pressed to think of a situation that anybody under 19 should normally be in where skimpy clothing really is appropriate.

I wore short skirts and revealing clothing, but mostly not until university (where I once wore a bikini to a party in March...). I'm also all for sexual freedom, but my advice to my niece has been not to get sexually involved until she is older (at least 18) -- not because virginity needs to be preserved or sex is wicked, just that sexual relationships can be very emotionally charged, and it would be better if she was old enough to deal with that without getting too badly hurt.

Anyway, back to the point -- just because they market certain styles of clothing to teenagers doesn't mean it's appropriate for teenagers. That's where parents have to give some guidance.

edited to add:

There's also a certain literacy to dressing. I think it's important to help your kids decode the messages they send with the clothing they choose, and that they are able to articulate the message and why they feel the need to send it. It goes hand in hand with media literacy -- image is language without words, whether it is on screen or in person. This is an idea that I've used many times as an actor and as a filmmaker. I think it's important for girls (and boys, for that matter) to understand that it's about more than fitting in.

[ 12 September 2005: Message edited by: Zoot ]

quote:

---

There's also a certain literacy to dressing. I think it's important to help your kids decode the messages they send with the clothing they choose, and that they are able to articulate the message and why they feel the need to send it. It goes hand in hand with media literacy -- image is language without words

---

While the law draws a solid (and not always accurate) line between child and adult, in feminist discourse, we often fail to distinguish. We refer to twelve-year-olds as 'young women'. They are not. They are girls. And from there down, they are children.
While children have their own sexuality, it's not ready for market: not ripe enough to demonstrate in public, not confident enough to expose to inspection, criticism and ridicule by a status-driven peer group.

A few reminders to folks:

"Revealing" clothing on young women has always been a trial for well-meaning parents. When I was in grade 7 in 1979 the skinny girls wore skin- tight jeans, whose material was also very thin. We're talking "see her labia thru the material" thin here. Gloria Vanderbilt anyone?

Teens follow trends and insist such trends also just happen to be their personal taste. I remember from high school (1980 to 1985) that everyone used to say "The style now is any style at all" (When everywhere there were jeans, trackpants and sweatpants. Yes, sweatpants were an acceptable outerwear when not jogging when I was a young'un. ) Of course, nobody would wear floods or big bell bottoms because those were super-nerdy, but we still insisted that we were "freely" choosing what we were wearing. That's what teens do.

As a mildly plump teen I did not succum to those trends, not because I didn't want to but because I knew that my body type was not of the "mainstream desired" type. I've since gotten over that.

There is, of course, no failure of feminism here. I'm a serious kick-ass feminist, but I didn't get there overnight, and although some teens are feminists and activists (and a huge YAY for them) many aren't. That's okay. I was in 3rd year university, in 1988 before I grabbed onto feminism and began to frolic in its wonders.

As far as sexuality goes, I would like to offer another reminder. Being focussed on how men react to how we dress is antithetical to feminism. Some men will remain sexist pigs, and some will ogle women, and some will say "she asked for it" and other nonsense. My feminist energy is not for them.

Judging women's bodies and what women wear is a classic tool of domination and distraction. Men do it, and patriarchal culture has passed it on so that we also do it to each other, often focussing on the "young people".

Watch what happens when we try to make actual social change, like the frikkin ERA that has yet to pass in the US, or public daycare and housing, or increasing the baby bonus (or whatever it's called now). It's better for the PTB that we bicker over "Yes that's too revealing for a 14 YO" "No it isn't"

My focus is not on getting men's approval for anything we, as women, and as feminists, do.

[ 13 September 2005: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]

quote:

---

There's also a certain literacy to dressing. I think it's important to help your kids decode the messages they send with the clothing they choose, and that they are able to articulate the message and why they feel the need to send it. It goes hand in hand with media literacy -- image is language without words, whether it is on screen or in person. This is an idea that I've used many times as an actor and as a filmmaker. I think it's important for girls (and boys, for that matter) to understand that it's about more than fitting in.

---

I also think that that is worth pondering, and further, that it is related to bcg's closing comments about how useful it is to the powers that be to keep us debating thongs and uniforms and such.

It is next to impossible to think outside the box when we are thinking about fashion or, a little more deeply, style. Even when we think we're making deeper connections between particular styles and frames of mind or attitude, so little of that is truly original (see comments on capitalism, above). The eye of the rebel or the libertarian is every bit as much conditioned as the eye of the puritan.

What we can do is learn to read our own times and to become self-aware. Vague, I know, but we all are aware that every time we step out the door, we are broadcasting something about ourselves to everyone who looks at us.

Me? I broadcast: distracted; busy; practical; anonymous; f*** off and leave me alone. And I do that because that's basically the way I feel right now.

In some ways, I wish it were different. I wish I felt different, for one thing; but I also wish that the world wouldn't read me so predictably.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
One source of confusion is in how we define 'woman' - or rather, that we don't define womanhood in any meaningful way.

---

Nonesuch's point is spot on. I was a gymnast in highschool, so when the Olympics roll around I make a point to watch the women. At some point in the 70s, the commentators must have been told not to call them 'girls', so they started calling them 'young women'. As the gymnasts got younger and younger, this label was patently absurd, but they couldn't go back to 'girls', so they started calling them 'young ladies' [why can't I get the rolly eyes to go here?].

So, around we go, and the main point is we (still) don't know what to do with the girls.

Under patriarchy, the boys have a huge range of role models. And now they have 'metrosexual' as well.

Under consumerism, and increasingly for young people who are under even more relentless pressure from the media and advertisers, we are all encouraged to feel good by buying stuff.

(There was a piece in the Glob's Style section some months back about very young children of both sexes being encouraged by their parents to develop fashion sense and brand awareness. These dipwicks were PROUD that their little proto-consumers were so savvy.)

When I was at my most fashion-vulnerable stage (junior high), it wasn't so much about sexuality as it was about class, or as we know it in North America, how much can you spend. I was beaten on this from the get-go. We just didn't have the dough for me to get into the game. So I went the weird route, and weirdly to me at the time, my 'style' was copied by the cool girls. [more rolly eyes needed]

As a second-waver, like others here, it really bugs me that we're still having this discussion. And we're still having this discussion, because it still matters what women and girls wear. I wish it weren't so, but it is.

If feminism had defeated patriarchy, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I think nonesuch is spot on with this too:

quote:

---

If feminism has failed, it has done so in these areas:
- no rite of passage for girls
- not grounding the self-esteem of girls in practical skills and intellectual attainments
- allowing commercial interests to control culture
- allowing the continued segregation of children and adolescents from the community at large (thus their social environment is run by the most aggressive kids, not adults)

---

quote:

---

In other words, feminism has not suceeded in changing the world into a place of beauty and freedom.

---

quote:

---

When I was at my most fashion-vulnerable stage (junior high), it wasn't so much about sexuality as it was about class, or as we know it in North America, how much can you spend. I was beaten on this from the get-go. We just didn't have the dough for me to get into the game. So I went the weird route, and weirdly to me at the time, my 'style' was copied by the cool girls.

---

I expect this was a much more common experience than having mom and dad buy you every latest fad-thing.

When I was in school there were definite "cool" things to wear for boys or girls. The guys, at one point, favoured satin jackets (I know... sounds horrible) and some girls got in on that. Also popular were "Cougar" boots with the tongue flipped down, and at various times, big sweatshirts with big words on them ("RELAX"), painter pants, etc., etc., etc.

What always seems to get forgotten when talking about these teen fashions is that for various reasons (poverty, rigid parents, disinterest, etc.) most students could not or did not follow each and every fashion slavishly. The majority of us weren't in the in crowd on most things. Maybe we'd spend our allowance on some trendy item, but for the most part we had to sit out the majority of fashions and fads.

Forgotten along with this is the fact that we didn't shrivel up and die, nor were we treated as pariahs, spat upon, shamed until the end of days, and so on. We managed to make it into adulthood just fine, thank you very much, even if mom and dad wouldn't buy us that leather jacket that all the cool kids were wearing.

And for what it's worth, not having everything the cool kids had as a kid prepped me for the eventuality of not having everything the cool adults have as an adult. No plasma TV, no sports car, no jet-ski, no whatever. Also, no big deal.

quote:

---

posted by fern hill: In other words, feminism has not suceeded in changing the world into a place of beauty and freedom.

---

A few years ago, when I facilitated peer-helper education programs for university students, one of my favourite exercise was to let the participants (women and men) brainstorm about what they imagined a world free of violence to be. They described, in practical terms, how they would behave, what they could express, how they (the women in the group) could dress, in ways that are not safely possible at the moment. Painful revelations, exploration and discussions about sexism, homophobia, racism and other forms of oppression would recede as the participants "got it", well, at least for one very poignant moment.

[ 13 September 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]

quote:

---

posted by skdadl: Ah. How would we look beautiful? How would we? How do we even start to imagine that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Ah. How would we look beautiful?

How would we? How do we even start to imagine that?

---

I know a woman who was given a gift of a portrait of herself by Karsh. She was in her 40s at the time, an ordinary woman, no great standard-type beauty, and IMO kinda limited in scope. The portrait is stunning. She looks as if she's led an interesting life and is having interesting thoughts right then.

Hanging around the artsy-fartsy crowd, I've had some wonderful photos of me taken, in which I look (variously) dangerous, sexy, demented, etc.

That's what girls are dressing for now - for the attention, whether they realize it or not, which they probably do. Not being seen is worse than anything else.

If I had girls, I'd love to make them think about what they're wearing and why. With boys, the big struggle is to get them to wear clean clothes.

Growing up in the 70s and 80s, it was easy - and it was thanks to feminism, I'm convinced of it. I decided when I was four years old that dresses were icky (you couldn't run, climb, or just be a kid wearing a dress) and even though it was my mum's fervent desire to see me dress in frills and curls, it wasn't going to happen because fashion had become a wide open field for girls, and we could dress with exactly the same freedom of movement as boys.

It's a whole different issue for women, and when that starts has a lot to do with the age at which you finish public school, IMHO.

I don't think it's a failure of feminism that girls' clothing has become oversexed - it's a failure of society to endorse feminism.

(fern, I was a gymnast too, during the years when the shift had occurred and it had become ridiculous to refer to us as young women. At a certain level, one of our fundamental goals was to stave off puberty as long as possible, because once it happened, it was game over. It was simple physics - once your centre of gravity shifted, you couldn't do the same moves in the way you had trained your body to, and were subject to injury on top of injury.

I think that even in gymnastics there was feminist influence, for a while, before it got hijacked by economic and even sexual interests (naked Romanian gymnasts anyone?) I found that sport to be very physically empowering, at the time, but I don't think that's the case anymore. Strangely, this coincided with the fall of Eastern European dominance and the rise of the U.S...)

Edited for grammaire...

[ 13 September 2005: Message edited by: brebis noire ]

When it comes to a girl selecting her outfit for the day I agree with the sentiment that I shouldn't criticize her for being overly revealing or sexual.

But when I see a sexualized 12-year old on a sitcom adults watch, or product marketed to younger girls and boys as explicitly sexual, I get angry. That has little to do with girls expressing themselves, and everything to do with adults' sexual appetite for young girls.

We know that expressing that appetite creates a harmful atmosphere for children, which is why we don't let adults engage with children sexually (and I'm not just talking about contact, I'm talking about inappropriate conversations, etc. with inapproproate people that we've all tried to shield girls/boys from). So if we expect adults to restrain themselves with kids, I think it's reasonable to ask adults to restrain themselves by foregoing placment of that sexy 18-year old who looks 12 in their magazine ad.

ah, fashion..style...when I was fifteen Cowboy King jeans came out with Cowboy Queen...with a flap front instead of a "fly"...three or four brass buttons on either side of a wide "navy" type flap...and the big feature for me, you got them in 14oz denim...most "girls" jeans were made of sleazy near cheesecloth, didn't last long, didn't keep their shape...I positively lusted for Cowboy Queen's...saved my babysitting money...bought two pair...we weren't allowed to wear jeans to school, so it was the weekend before Annie saw me in my Queen's...14 oz denim or not she went up like skyrockets!! I think it was the first time she actually SAW what her little girl had become...I headed off to my softball game in my old jeans...wasn't allowed to wear my cherished Queen's outside the house for months...and then only when I wore a shirt or blouse under my sweater...Annie didn't have the vocabulary to explain to an enraged daughter why she reacted against the jeans... and that vocabulary might seem less than important to those raised WITH it, but a lot of us have toiled for decades to make it available to all of us.

quote:

---

I don't think it's a failure of feminism that girls' clothing has become oversexed - it's a failure of society to endorse feminism.

---

quote:

---

I don't think it's a failure of feminism that girls' clothing has become oversexed - it's a failure of society to endorse feminism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the answer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:

Perhaps we need to start feminism in pre-school instead of letting women 'discover' it at twenty something.

---

This would be a great start.

quote:

---

Isn't society the patriarchy we all speak of constantly?

---

When it comes to feminism, the split isn't down the heterosexual middle: a great many men support a great many feminist issues. If all women did, as well, we'd have a clear - perhaps overwhelming - majority.
So, where are all the women?
Why have they not been converted?
Why do so many not recognize their own long-term interests?
Why do they keep voting for Bushes and entering their babies in beauty contests?
Somebody's failed somewhere....

quote:

---

Ah. How would we look beautiful?

---

[ 13 September 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

but they weren't dressing in a social vaccuum either. Libertarians thought it was great, clerics hated it and hated women even more for it, and mothers were feeling ambivalent because on one hand their daughters were exposing more flesh than what the mums were comfortable with, but on the other, how were they going to catch the attention of a potential husband?

---

Alright, But as skdadl pointed out, it isn't really possible to live in a vacuum where fasion is considered. I pretty much lurk outside the mainstream as far as clothes are concerned. I wear jogging trousers 24/7 and shun longsleeved T-shirts. My wardrobe is also pretty much logo free. However, I, like most young men in small rural towns all over canada, wear a baseball cap when I go out.
You can't escape the fad bug completely.

quote:

---

But I come from it from a different perspective. Part of mainstream feminism was not just about embracing our sexuality, it was also about de-sexualizing women's bodies.

---

Question: Why dress scantily and "sexy*" if not to be looked at by men, or women for that matter?

Comments: I noticed the word "Patriarchy" a good bit so far. Remember that men aren't TOTALLY to blame here. PLEASE, allow me to explain.

Firstly, if women weren't buying it, they wouldn't be selling it.

Secondly, there are female fashion designers and such that reinforce the modern view of "sexy*".

It's not a fault of a "Patriarchy" or a lack of embrace from feminism so much as it is a fault of PEOPLE in general and an abuse of feminism. How is it abuse? Ever see a woman in a tight miniskirt get gawked at and say angrily to her lookers-on, "Don't look at me like that!" Well woman, if you didn't LOOK like that, I wouldn't, and it's not lust, It's shock.

*=the modern view of sexy isn't sexy, it's whorish. There's a difference. Sexy involves classiness, charm, intelligence as well as beauty. It doesn't involve looking like you can't tell the difference between dental floss and panties.

What one person sees as scanty and sexy isn't the same to another person so frankly why can't someone dress any way they want without having to deal with someone elses bullshit assumptions about their character based on their clothing.

quote:

---

Firstly, if women weren't buying it, they wouldn't be selling it.

---

No, that' not really true. Not all women are "buying" it. What ever "it" is in your little world. Women around the world suffer from assinine declarations about their garb daily and it isn't always about crop tops and low rise pants.

quote:

---

It's not a fault of a "Patriarchy" or a lack of embrace from feminism so much as it is a fault of PEOPLE in general and an abuse of feminism.

---

Wearing what ever you want is an abuse of feminism? The patriarchy is blameless? So it's all us whores fault for not wearing our burkhas and embracing feminism.

quote:

---

*=the modern view of sexy isn't sexy, it's whorish. There's a difference. Sexy involves classiness, charm, intelligence as well as beauty. It doesn't involve looking like you can't tell the difference between dental floss and panties.

---

I have said many times, and been criticized for it, that the fashion and pop culture industries have enormous power and they do very much influence the "choices" made by individual women and girls. That dynamic of business power, expressed through the medium of advertising and popular culture is one that no honest social democrat can ignore or gloss over with psuedo-philosophical hand-waving.

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: MasterDebator ]

quote:

---

Isn't society the patriarchy we all speak of constantly?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Come now, surely the definition of society is a bit more complex then that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

I remarked that her little girl almost always wears dresses or skirts, whether for play or for school, and we talked about how 'when we were kids' we only wore dresses for special occasions, like picture day at school or to church. We noted that today's dresses and skirts are easier to move around in because the materials are lighter and more flexible. I can accept that, because my memory of dresses and skirts is that they were either really restricting of movement or else you just didn't want to get them dirty.

My neighbour said, "Well, C really likes to wear dresses. It's all about being a princess, you know. They call the boys, their 'boyfriends'." I've had other mums from my son's school say the same thing about the interactions between girls and boys.

I don't recall that this was the dynamic when I was a kid, and I'm not too sure what to make of it. I'm not sure that the kids are just doing what comes naturally to them. I think they're decoding the surrounding adult culture and applying it to their little lives. Whether it's Disney, cartoons, pop songs, Céline Dion, or whatever, the most easily accessible culture promotes the whole princess/boyfriend/'tais-toi et sois belle' attitude. I wish there were more kids' films like Mulan and even Lilo and Stitch, and less Barbie-princess ones. I also can't help but notice that it's still the case that 'boy' characters are the norm - they get to be humourous, adventurous, the 'main character' - whereas the girl characters have to be girls first, and anything else they choose to be is modified and limited by their very 'girlness'.

I wish, like someone said above (I think it was faith) that kids were taught feminism starting in preschool. I think I was - back in the 70s, there was a breakthrough - and in spite of what's happened since, it stuck.

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: brebis noire ]

quote:

---

What one person sees as scanty and sexy isn't the same to another person

---

quote:

---

so frankly why can't someone dress any way they want without having to deal with someone elses bullshit assumptions about their character based on their clothing.

---

Ps.

quote:

---

This is simply a view that a Patriarchy isn't entirely to blame.

---

quote:

---

The Patriarchy is blameless

---

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

not wearing our burkhas

---

Scout, I would like to request that you reflect on what you're saying when you use this kind of reference. I read that quote as an attempt to show an example of how certain women are soooo oppressed and how Western Christian women are so much better off.

This type of image is problematic, has racist and Islamophobic roots, and is not included in the kind of feminism that I work and sweat for.

Please consider what the use of those words means. Thank you, Scout.

quote:

---

*=the modern view of sexy isn't sexy, it's whorish. There's a difference. Sexy involves classiness, charm, intelligence as well as beauty. It doesn't involve looking like you can't tell the difference between dental floss and panties.

---

Wow. I was hearing this "plop-plop-plop" sound coming from my computer and it was driving me nuts!

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
Yesterday, i saw a girl (maybe 16) in the usual flimsy halter and low-rider jeans. She was terribly overweight and didn't look a bit sexy: she looked pathetic. I couldn't help noticing and wondering why would she want to wear something so utterly unsuitable and unflattering, when she had all the choice in the world? I couldn't help making one assumption about her character: that she's not independent enough (yet?) to buck fashion and find her own style.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:

Scout, I would like to request that you reflect on what you're saying when you use this kind of reference. I read that quote as an attempt to show an example of how certain women are soooo oppressed and how Western Christian women are so much better off.

This type of image is problematic, has racist and Islamophobic roots, and is not included in the kind of feminism that I work and sweat for.

Please consider what the use of those words means. Thank you, Scout.

P.S. "Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate" by Leila Ahmed (first edition 1992, Yale University Press) is a great place to begin.

---

Disguise your body -- you're giving in to misogynist stereotypes. So how do you not disguise your body? Wear "the same clothes as everyone else"?

Come again?

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]

quote:

---

If she'd conformed to your fat person fashion rules, she'd be wearing what?

---

Well, if she consulted me (not about rules, but about self-presentation), she might be wearing a dress in some light, soft fabric, unpatterened but maybe subtly textured, in earth-tones to set off her lovely complexion and dark hair. Or, she might be wearing pants or a skirt that starts at or above the waist, not below the overhanging belly. She might be wearing a top that falls loosely from the shoulders to the hips, maybe with a slashed sleeve, or crossed under the bust and cinched, perhaps with a narrow sash - rust, i think, or navy or dark green. Plenty of possibilities to show off the best features and minimize the worst. Isn't that what we all hope to accomplish?

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

I'm sure it has mainly to do with my age, with the time at which my eye got "fixed" on ideal typologies of design and style, and maybe it has something to do with the fact that my body often feels vaguely sore (again, a function of age, although a different one), but:

For at least the last ten years, it has made me feel sore just to look at advertisements for women's clothing. For at least the last ten years, we have been in what I think of as a "shrunk" period: especially the tops that are considered fashionable for women all look shrunk-on to me, and both my eye and then my tender body really recoil from them.

I've watched this happen to women's clothes since the fifties -- I'm not sure it quite goes by decades, but there are times when clothes get very Big and others when they look shrunk -- in, out, in, out, in, out -- that effect has been even more obvious than shifting hemlines, I think. (There's a straight line in there for anyone who wants it.)

Even I found the ultra-outness of the hugely shoulder-padded early eighties just a touch big -- I mean, Barbara Frum in her heyday sometimes looked like a very small woman who was getting her underpadding from the Argos. I do like some shape.

But I do not like to feel that I am wearing a sausage casing, and I'm sure that I never did. Especially in the summer -- aren't those tube things incredibly sweatiness-producing?

Anyway, for someone of my mindset, there hasn't been much to buy for quite some time except for the vaguely sweat-pantish. And that's probably a good thing -- who wants to spend money anyway?

But I don't see a lot of women dressed in ways that I find beautiful -- and I'm including self there, just because I am dressing so plainly. But the stuff that is supposed to be fashionable -- to me it all looks ... like rags.

At the moment, we are seeing every morning in the Grope and Flail photos of glamorous young Hollywooders, and I guess that what they are wearing is what younger people admire. But they look awful to me, I gotta tell you. Like, really awful. Gwyneth Paltrow: honestly.

Ok. Throw rotten tomatoes now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
Well, if she consulted me (not about rules, but about self-presentation), she might be wearing a dress in some light, soft fabric, unpatterened but maybe subtly textured, in earth-tones to set off her lovely complexion and dark hair. Or, she might be wearing pants or a skirt that starts at or above the waist, not below the overhanging belly. She might be wearing a top that falls loosely from the shoulders to the hips, maybe with a slashed sleeve, or crossed under the bust and cinched, perhaps with a narrow sash - rust, i think, or navy or dark green. Plenty of possibilities to show off the best features and minimize the worst. Isn't that what we all hope to accomplish?

---

Just a thought. No flames, 'kay?

I also think that there are two seperate issues in this thread. The first is that women should have freedom of choice in the clothes that they wear. The second is what is appropriate and inappropriate for children and teenagers to wear.

While I'm all for (adult) people wearing what they like, I can't entirely let go of the idea that one does not dress in a vacuum -- and this goes beyond choosing. Image is communication. I have dressed in a wide variety of modes in order to influence interactions with other people, and it is surprisingly effective if you really know what you're doing. It can also provide disastrous results if you aren't conscious of the dynamics of dressing -- like the day I couldn't get a cheque cashed because the teller was put off by my work jeans.

The problem of teen dressing is that I am not convinced that they entirely understand the communication they are setting up by how they dress. Teens also don't read reactions the way adults do -- they've found this in neurological testing (sorry, no link... I'll see if I can find one later). So I think it goes beyond a freedom of choice issue with kids.

quote:

---

I don't recall that this was the dynamic when I was a kid, and I'm not too sure what to make of it. I'm not sure that the kids are just doing what comes naturally to them. I think they're decoding the surrounding adult culture and applying it to their little lives. Whether it's Disney, cartoons, pop songs, Céline Dion, or whatever, the most easily accessible culture promotes the whole princess/boyfriend/'tais-toi et sois belle' attitude. I wish there were more kids' films like Mulan and even Lilo and Stitch, and less Barbie-princess ones. I also can't help but notice that it's still the case that 'boy' characters are the norm - they get to be humourous, adventurous, the 'main character' - whereas the girl characters have to be girls first, and anything else they choose to be is modified and limited by their very 'girlness'.

---

I struggle with this.

We've had to veto certain movies, and I am becoming more careful about what I allow my girls watch. We also talk about the meaning of behaviours and decisions in the context of the girl characters in movies. I'd rather they watched Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon than Pocohontas, although CTHD is not a children's movie. I also did not like Disney's version of Mulan -- I found an Aussie animated movie about her which does the legend far better justice.

It bothers me that people think the princess thing is hardwired into girls. It's a social thing. Not that my daughters haven't gone through the dress stage -- Ms B did and has grown out of it, and Ms T is still in it (she's only 4). I think it's better to let them get it out of their systems, as long as it's weather and situation appropriate.

Another thing with this new "junior 'ho" trend that has emerged since I was in high school is the brands that these kids are wearing. When I was there, the brands were Billabong, Roxy, Dish, Orb, stuff like that. Surfer clothes. Lookin at about $110 for a pair of jeans and $90 for a hoodie. But now, NOW they are into Chanel, Dior, Louis Vuitton and such. At my Nana's birthday party, one of her 14 year old grandkids was toting a Louis Vuitton bag. Jeans are a no no now. Not to mention the cars these kids are (or will be) driving... God bless graduated licencing.

quote:

---

Scout, I would like to request that you reflect on what you're saying when you use this kind of reference. I read that quote as an attempt to show an example of how certain women are soooo oppressed and how Western Christian women are so much better off.

This type of image is problematic, has racist and Islamophobic roots, and is not included in the kind of feminism that I work and sweat for.

Please consider what the use of those words means. Thank you, Scout.

---

quote:

---

Lookin at about $110 for a pair of jeans and $90 for a hoodie.

---

I need to get a job as a starving student then.

Currently, employed at two jobs, I find spending more than $40 on a pair of jeans to be too much.

When I was a student, I bought the vast majority of my clothes at Buy the Pound, for $1 per pound. If you find the idea of $110 jeans to be "the norm" against which you'll compare even more expensive clothing, I'm going to suggest that you're not really all that different from the Vuitton crowd. Different by a small factor of scale, but certainly not any different in type.

Kaitlin, I am about to cannibalize this passage of yours for the other thread:

quote:

---

the brands that these kids are wearing. When I was there, the brands were Billabong, Roxy, Dish, Orb, stuff like that. Surfer clothes. Lookin at about $110 for a pair of jeans and $90 for a hoodie. But now, NOW they are into Chanel, Dior, Louis Vuitton and such. At my Nana's birthday party, one of her 14 year old grandkids was toting a Louis Vuitton bag. Jeans are a no no now. Not to mention the cars these kids are (or will be) driving... God bless graduated licencing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
I have reflected. BCG you can kiss my ass. Thank you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
But Dex: I repeat: you yourself said that your ideal was "she should be able to wear the same clothes as everyone else."

---

I'm sorry if you don't find it objectionable that some think overweight women should be subject to a different set of standards than other women. 'Thin folks can wear X and Y and I find it objectionable, but it's MOST objectionable when an overweight person does so.' 'I guess it's ok that the model types wear W and Z, but it's definitely not appropriate for overweight folks to do that. Overweight folks should wear the following, and people with this coloring should wear the following.'

quote:

---

From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: ev·ery·one
Pronunciation: -(") w&n
Function: pronoun
: EVERYBODY

Main Entry: ev·ery·body
Pronunciation: 'ev-ri-"b&-dE, -"bä-
Function: pronoun
: every person : EVERYONE

---

When I said she should be able to wear the same clothes as everyone else, I meant EVERYONE. As in, all of the options available to everyone else. You know, like not just the people conforming to the fad of the day. Like, not just the people wearing thongs or low rise jeans. I submit that if you weren't so bent on disagreeing with me personally, you would also have a problem with the assertion to which I objected. Perhaps not, but I suspect so. I mean, holy crap, the only standard I raised was that people should be free to wear whatever they wanted. There are all kinds of people firing out standards left and right and you single me out? Very strange. To be expected of late, I guess, but strange nonetheless.

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: Dex ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:

...She might be wearing a top that falls loosely from the shoulders to the hips, maybe with a slashed sleeve, or crossed under the bust and cinched, perhaps with a narrow sash - rust, i think, or navy or dark green. Plenty of possibilities to show off the best features and minimize the worst. Isn't that what we all hope to accomplish?

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

---

No it is not. You are assuming she should dress to look attractive.

Maybe she has a boyfriend who loves that look on her. Maybe she loves the outfit for other reasons and doesn't give a hoot about how it flatters or doesn't flatter her body. Maybe she's actively trying to look unattractive for her own reasons.

Or here's a thought: maybe she thinks she looks good in it. Maybe she's a healthy, happy, well-adjusted child, experimenting with her wardrobe, dressing for her peers, and giving no mind to whether or not an adult might think she looks "pathetic."

I was a cranky teenager, and I often dressed in outfits that accentuated my lack of chest, scrawny built, and sallow complextion, specifically because I couldn't stomach the thought of going outside and being looked up and down approvingly by judgemental men.

Bottom line: you don't have a clue as to her motivations for dressing. You think that her motivation ought to be pleasing you and others with her appearance. I think there's plenty of other motivations for dressing that are just as valid and none of your damn business. And that is exactly why I refrain from judging young girls on their outfits.

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: vmichel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
I don't think I am taking your post the wrong way as I truly don't think you have a clue what your talking about. I think I am about to take it exactly the right way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
What one person sees as scanty and sexy isn't the same to another person so frankly why can't someone dress any way they want without having to deal with someone elses bullshit assumptions about their character based on their clothing.

---

But answer this: When you see a woman dressed in a short skirt and tight shirt with her thong sticking out the skirt, what's your immediate thought?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
That's simply your opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
You have decided who is "whorish" based on clothes that make you uncomfortable. I'd appreciate it muchly if you'd stay the fuck out of these threads if you can't manage to have a clue.

---

And I apologise for that.

Like I said, which you apparently ignored for whatever reason,

IF people weren't BUYING these clothes, stores wouldn't sell them.

Answer me this about "dressing however you want". Who does a woman wear a thong for? It's sure as hell not for comfort from the women I've talked to. So who is it for?

Wow. How's that for an example of reasoned and intelligent debate?

I can certainly use abusive language, Scout. I refrain from doing so on babble as much as possible. More, I agreed with your post in which the offensive sentence fragment was written.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pr0m37h3iu5:

Answer me this about "dressing however you want". Who does a woman wear a thong for? It's sure as hell not for comfort from the women I've talked to. So who is it for?

---

I can't resist throwing out some possible answers:

1. To avoid panty lines.
2. For comfort (yes, believe it) especially in physical activities.
3. Because she likes looking at her own bum in the mirror.
4. Because it's the only clean underthing in the drawer.
5. For the sexual gratification of every man in the universe except you.

I could continue...

Is it not possible to dress without caring whether you appear sexually attractive to others? The thong is the best example of this -- I don't know if it is sexy and I don't care, but I do care that pantylines don't show through my skirt on that interview. Because pantylines call attention to my bum. I don't want to call attention to my bum. I wear the thong because I don't want to call attention to my bum. Quite the opposite motivation to what prometheus suggests above!

There's a narrow acceptable zone, even on this board: dress too unattractively (nonesuch's example of the large 16-yo) and you are failing to make yourself appear beautiful, and are criticized. Dress too attractively (the thong) and you are oversexualizing yourself, and are criticized.

I am an adult and I am having trouble navigating this -- I am genuinely unsure what outfit of mine would meet with the approval of everyone on this board. So good luck to a teenage girl trying to figure it out, with peers and hormones and everything else going on! That's one reason I think it would be compassionate to take it easy on girls and their outfits, and maybe keep our judgement in check when possible. I can withstand someone thinking I look "pathetic," or assuming my thong is in place for his benefit. I'm not so sure that every 13-year old girl would stand up so well to those criticisms.

If you are trying to teach girls that they have a power beyond their sex appeal, then it would be helpful to tone down the attention paid to how their dress expresses or doesn't express that sex appeal. There's a definite message sent when an adult man castigates a teenage girl for wearing a thong. The message is that the thong has more power than the girl does to get the man's attention.

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: vmichel ]

quote:

---

Nonesuch, I never said in my post, nor implied that the Patriarchy is blameless. Only that it isn't solely responsible.

---

As for the fat girl.
I don't particularly care how she dresses or why; being overweight and untrendy myself, i made an educated guess.
Fat girls are not all the same, any more than thin ones are, or stacked ones, or short ones or tall ones, or blondes or Orientals. Each body, each face, each personality is different. What 'everybody' wears looks good on only a very few; mediocre on most; terrible on some.
Which is why there should be no rule for any age-group. Yet teenagers are stuck with whatever this year's hot young designer wants to foist on them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pr0m37h3iu5:
It's sure as hell not for comfort from the women I've talked to. So who is it for.

---

I'm finding the assumptions and the jugdemental attitudes on this thread very interesting, however.

quote:

---

Plenty of possibilities to show off the best features and minimize the worst.

---

This is troublesome. Who is the arbiter or what is the best or worst feature? And telling young girls that they should cover up the “worst” features of their bodies makes my skin crawl. What kind of message about body image is that sending! That goes for women of all ages.

quote:

---

Bottom line: you don't have a clue as to her motivations for dressing. You think that her motivation ought to be pleasing you and others with her appearance. I think there's plenty of other motivations for dressing that are just as valid and none of your damn business. And that is exactly why I refrain from judging young girls on their outfits.

---

Exactly. Perfectly said.

quote:

---

Dag, S. that's just wrong. Whenever we grab encultured metaphors, we need to tread carefully, that's all BCG was saying IMHO. I don't think she was being rude. And what's with this "high horse" thing? Ok, slap me around a bit now I've had it coming to me.

---

I don't think I was treading without care. I am unimpressed with her flawed conclusions regarding my post and the manner in which she chose to instruct me on how I might be a better feminist and less unknowingly racist.

And a burka wasn’t being used as an “encultured metaphor”, I meant it the word literally, it’s a real item of clothing and it really is used to oppress women, not everyone who wears one feels oppressed or is oppressed but there are plenty that are. It’s something, given what I have read from Prom, that I thought he might be able to see and understand the parallel to how he was discussing his peers. I certainly wasn’t using it to show how good we have it in the West.

I used the word to explain to Prom, someone who seems to not be up on subtleties of Feminism and oppression why judging young girls clothing as “whorish” because it doesn’t cover enough skin might be seriously troublesome. I think many can see how women worldwide have been oppressed through clothing but can’t see that it happens here too everyday. Sure we can wear jeans now, but they still have to be acceptable jeans or they make you look “whorish”. Same yoke, different colour.

I also don’t think that as a feminist I have to accept that burkas are a “good thing” because they are cultural or religious and skip any of the realities under which they are often worn. Wearing one isn’t always a choice. I don’t think women should have had to wear corsets and gloves and bonnets all the time either all those years ago and women had to go through enough to wear pants without being considered fast and loose. Clothing has been used to confine women the world over, in many cultures for years. Not all us feminist agree on every aspect of what one needs to believe to be a real feminist, and burkhas are one of those thing we have never had a consensus on in this forum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:

How come nobody leaps in to liberate poor oppressed northern women who have to wear bulky sweaters, heavy boots, parkas...?

---

Mr. M, your wife wasn't born with a gene that predetermined what she considers good wearin'. Trust me on this one. Our culture has imbued thongs with uber-sexxxy connotative content and this has affected your wife's decision.

I have two friends who are very different but share this one anecdote in common. One is a man who insists he doesn't wear pink just because he doesn't like the color. He swears it has nothing to do with the gendered nature of the color or lingering sexism in his middle-aged man's mind, it's just that he simply doesn't like the color. The other is a 20-something woman who said she finds black stockings on women's legs sexy just because she does and not because for over 100 years black stockings have been fetishized as sexy for women. She swears it's just because she likes them and insists culture played no role in her drawing her conclusion. Both of them are lying to themselves, as is anyone who says they wear thongs mainly for practical considerations and not because the past few years have seen an unprecedented fetishizing of thongs.

In the 80's sales for push-up corsets like in Dangerous Liaisons went throught the roof, in the 90's exposed midriffs like Shania Twain's were all the sexy rage, and in the 00's so far sales for thongs and red La Perla bras like in Desperate Housewives have soared. These are not amazing coincidences and they're not reflecting the congenital fashion desires of millions of individual women who just sorta happen to come to the same conclusion about what's clothes items are considered sexy.

quote:

---

Mr. M, your wife wasn't born with a gene that predetermined what she considers good wearin'. Trust me on this one. Our culture has imbued thongs with uber-sexxxy connotative content and this has affected your wife's decision.

---

LOL! Mrs. M's comment: "Oh, trust you on this one. OK."

Why would you try to tell me about my own wife?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
I used the word to explain to Prom,

---

People who shout for women's rights while denying or fighting the responsibility that goes with it. Example: Clothing. You can wear whatever you want. That's your RIGHT. But, like me, like everyone else in the world, you WILL be judged for it. Is it right that it happens? No. Is there a reason for it? Yes. Remember, no matter how complex humans are, almost everything we do goes back to survival instinct. That includes snap judgements.

People who say they're feminists, but the only thing they do is blame the Patriarchy and namely MEN for the problems and oppression of women. Like Zoot(I believe it was) said far above in this thread, women are part of that patriarchy as well.

People who would rather attack the opposition than discuss the issue with them. You don't want to discuss it, your initial response to me shows that much, and more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
someone who seems to not be up on subtleties of Feminism and oppression why judging young girls clothing as “whorish” because it doesn’t cover enough skin might be seriously troublesome.

---

Do you think the gene for "finds fabric rubbing directly against asshole comfortable" is on the same DNA strand as "wears four-inch heeled shoes because they're comfortable", or is it more like the genetic mutation that causes thousands of women to have sacks of chemicals sewn inside their breasts solely for self-esteem, never male-esteem or social-esteem?

quote:

---

Things are changing slowly, but to deny the influence of a patriarchal system in the portrayal of women in our society , well it just doesn't make any sense.

---

quote:

---

Even you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoot:
We've had to veto certain movies, and I am becoming more careful about what I allow my girls watch. We also talk about the meaning of behaviours and decisions in the context of the girl characters in movies. I'd rather they watched Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon than Pocohontas, although CTHD is not a children's movie. I also did not like Disney's version of Mulan -- I found an Aussie animated movie about her which does the legend far better justice.

---

(I haven't seen that many movies with great girl characters, but Spirited Away was one I remember. )

I'm struggling with this, too, because with little boys, it's so easy to find story characters that are fun to relate to. Books, movies, cartoon series are full of them. I could start a list, but it would be very long: I wouldn't run out of fictional characters, real-life characters, legends, heroes - all of them boys. Boys facing the world, taking it on and overcoming through their own personal style and ingenuity. OK, I'm raising boys, so I think that's great, I can get interested and excited about it too. But I want to them to grow up being able to relate to girls in a real way. I don't want them to relegate girls to a sideshow where their function is to look pretty and be cheerleaders. Or to imagine that girls just exist in some parallel universe they don't want to know anything about.

We need more strong, adventuresome, smart, complex, humourous, fatally flawed *girls* in literature and kidculture - ones that aren't "marketed" to girls only. There are many completely charming, non-aggressive characters that are *supposed* to appeal to both boys and girls, the ones that have some kind of supposed 'gender neutrality' - but these characters are almost always male. Just a few examples: Jimmy Neutron (boy genius), Finding Nemo (boy fish), Fairy Godparents (the star is a boy), Danny Phantom, SpongeBOB, Harry Potter (would it have caught on if Harry was Mary?) - every time I turn around, there's a new cartoon, and it's about a really interesting, funny BOY. Great, I love boys, but where are the girls?

If we didn't have to spend so much energy asking the 'whys', getting angry and using up brain power analyzing and deconstructing, we could have fun, too, and that would show up in the stories that get told and the TV shows that get produced. Feminism needs to start early, or else the same battles are going to be fought all over again in the next generation, and that's a great way to stay behind.

quote:

---

(I haven't seen that many movies with great girl characters, but Spirited Away was one I remember. )

---

We have that one! In fact, Miyazaki's work has a lot of strong female leads. Try Castle in the Sky for one with a strong female and strong male character who work together to overcome the villains. Quite wonderful. I am going to buy Howl's Moving Castle as soon as it's out on DVD. (Don't get Princess Mononoke for the kids, though -- it's cell animation, but quite violent. Awesome, but not really for children.)

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
Well, if she consulted me ... she might be wearing ... a top that falls loosely from the shoulders to the hips, maybe with a slashed sleeve, or crossed under the bust and cinched, perhaps with a narrow sash - rust, i think, or navy or dark green. Plenty of possibilities to show off the best features and minimize the worst. Isn't that what we all hope to accomplish?

---

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]

We saw Howl's Moving Castle on the big screen. It was terrific. Not only is the main character a strong and resourceful girl, but the lead male character is also fascinating.

You're right, though, most films for kids out there have male leads, and female characters are more passive. I did like Lilo and Stitch, although a friend of mine made the point that the adult female characters would have likely been drawn more like Barbie-dolls if they'd been white. I don't know, she likely has a point.

"Only if these practices 'intrinsic' to Islam (and therefore Islam itself) were cast off could Muslim societies begin to move forward on the path of civilization.

"Veiling--to Western eyes, the most visible marker of the differentness and inferiority of Islamic societies--became the symbol now of both the oppression of women and the backwardness of Islam.

"The Victorian colonial paternalistic establishment appropriated the language of feminism in the service of its assault on the religions and cultures of Other men, and in particular on Islam."

quote:

---

Originally posted by brebis noire:
(I haven't seen that many movies with great girl characters, but Spirited Away was one I remember. )

---

There's tons. Aside from a lot of Myazaki's work, you've got:

-Meg Ryan(Courage Under Fire)
-Jade(Beyond Good and Evil((Videogame)))
-Nancy Callahan(Sure she's a stripper, but she's intelligent, strong willed, independent, etc.)
-Gail(Again Sin City, but she's also very strong willed and independent)
-Uma Thurman(Kill Bill. 'Nuff said.)
-Sophie Nevue(The Da Vinci Code)
-Vittoria Vetra(Angels and Demons)

just to name a few.

The only two that sex appeal comes into play largely with are Gail and Nancy. The rest are mainly seen for intelligence, resilience, courage, independence, and other things as well. OH, a few more from videogames:

-The Boss(Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater)
-Meryl(Metal Gear Solid)
-Generally any female character from Final Fantasy or another Squaresoft(SquareEnix) game.
-Alex Ross(Final Fantasy: Spirits Within(animated movie)

I find your judgment of thongs somewhat offensive. You're basically telling me that my choice to wear them is not actually my choice but is dictated on me by society... I never wore thongs until aproximately 5 years ago. Before that I held pretty much the same view about them as you do: who in their right mind would want to wear that?!? Well, I started wearing them after finding that a lot of my panties would roll up under my jeans and create very uncomfortable bumps... So yeah, for me, they are comfortable, with the added bonus that if you wear the right kind they will not show under your pants (and that I can get them in Europe for a buck a piece ). So please don't tell me that I wear thongs because I'm brainwashed.

On the original thread subject, I have an annecdote (I don't know how relevant it is, but this thread just reminded me of it). Last year while finishing university, I gave presentations in high schools to explain what engineering is all about, and to try and dispell some of the stereotype. As I started to talk about how people picture engineering girls (not feminine etc...) several kids stared at a girl and giggled. The girl was wearing jeans, a sweater and no makeup, which I guess contrasted with what the other girls were wearing... She looked really embarrassed.

I guess I don't really have a point here except that yeah, peer pressure forces teens to conform to some standards... That one girl looked smart, and after chatting with her and the other kids she also sounded smart, but yet she was made fun of because of her outfit.

I don't think this sexualization is a backlash of feminism though... Without feminism, the outfits today might be as "sexy", but there would still be peer pressure and girls would still have to conform. I guess the difference is that, thanks to feminism, the one that doesn't conform will not get arrested, fined, put in an asylum...

quote:

---

Seriously, look into videogames. It's been heavily male dominated, but there are some extremely well made games that break the stereotypes of women.

---

Actually, Prom, most video games do not break stereotypes. Women who fight, sure, but highly sexualized women -- the stereotype as woman sexually objectified is intact. I mean, ask yourself, how long have there been dominatrices?

The thing is that some of the movie characters (Meg Ryan's role, Uma Thurman's) that you've mentioned (I happen to watch a lot of movies, and critically -- I make films myself and have taught media studies at a university level) give the outward appearance of being "independent", but they're often seriously undercut in the shooting and the direction of the performance.

Now don't even get me started on Tarantino... The man does not like women. The Bride isn't even a character, she's just a wet dream. Kill Bill wasn't a movie, it was an extended wank on film. Gah.

edited to add:

quote:

---

Nancy Callahan(Sure she's a stripper, but she's intelligent, strong willed, independent, etc.)

---

Um. Thanks for the advice, but no, I don't think strippers are a good role model for my 8 yr old, regardless how intelligent she is.

[ 15 September 2005: Message edited by: Zoot ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoot:
[QB] Actually, Prom, most video games do not break stereotypes. Women who fight, sure, but highly sexualized women -- the stereotype as woman sexually objectified is intact. I mean, ask yourself, how long have there been dominatrices?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoot:
[QB]The thing is that some of the movie characters (Meg Ryan's role, Uma Thurman's) that you've mentioned (I happen to watch a lot of movies, and critically -- I make films myself and have taught media studies at a university level) give the outward appearance of being "independent", but they're often seriously undercut in the shooting and the direction of the performance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoot:
[QB]Now don't even get me started on Tarantino... The man does not like women. The Bride isn't even a character, she's just a wet dream. Kill Bill wasn't a movie, it was an extended wank on film. Gah.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoot:
[QB]Um. Thanks for the advice, but no, I don't think strippers are a good role model for my 8 yr old, regardless how intelligent she is.

---

quote:

---

Repeated attempts to convince me your wife has been wearing thongs for 14 years because they're comfortable and it has nothing at all to do with advertising in a consumerist culture will result in me laughing at your ignorance of humans as social creatures.

---

Why do you disbelieve someone who finds them comfortable? I just don't get that. I'm guessing you, personally, find them uncomfortable, so you assume everyone else must too, and if they wear them anyway then they're obviously using them as some kind of slut-flag.

If nobody sees my wife's underwear, why would you assume she's doing it for others? I'm not talking here about the visible thong poking up over low-rise jeans here. I'm talking underwear that's covered by pants, all day.

How, exactly, are men supposed to see this thong and thusly reward my wife with extra attention, or whatever?

quote:

---

Do you think the gene for "finds fabric rubbing directly against asshole comfortable" ...

---

Perhaps you just have an extra-sensitive anus or something. Maybe quit rubbing your head on it.

quote:

---

In the feminism forum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoot:

We have that one! In fact, Miyazaki's work has a lot of strong female leads. Try Castle in the Sky for one with a strong female and strong male character who work together to overcome the villains. Quite wonderful. I am going to buy Howl's Moving Castle as soon as it's out on DVD. (Don't get Princess Mononoke for the kids, though -- it's cell animation, but quite violent. Awesome, but not really for children.)

I'm often fascinated that Asian film will more often feature strong, independent women than North American film...[/QB]

---

quote:

---

If you want your time here to be extra difficult, keep insinuating that my wife is a lying slut.

---

Kiki's Delivery Service is probably the perfect movie for young girls, telling the tale of a young witch who moves to the city and starts a delivery business with her flying broom. There's a little danger but nothing really scary and no "bad guys". The lead is wonderfully silly, but resourceful and good-hearted.

quote:

---

Magoo I have gone over the threads and I have found the phrase 'whore-lure' and 'lying slut' used only by you when discussing your wife.

---

Correct. As I noted, she insinuated it. Don't expect that to show up with a CTRL-F. But take a look at Thalia's earlier posts that throw thongs and porn stars into the same lurid category of man-bait.

And the 'lying' part should be obvious. My wife tells me she finds thongs comfortable. Thalia insists this cannot be so. What is she suggesting about my wife's claim? How are you reading that one?

quote:

---

Your wife couldn't have known that thongs would be comfortable before she bought her first thong so what would make her change to thongs in the first place?

---

Uh, word of mouth?

Of course if you've already decided that thongs must be uncomfortable, then word of mouth wouldn't make any sense to you I guess. Many women find them comfortable. If someone you knew, a friend perhaps, told you they liked their new thong, is it such a stretch to imagine you might actually try one? And maybe — hold onto your head here, this could be a mental challenge — find that you agreed?

Is it similarly impossible to imagine that a woman might see a pair, say to herself "these look interesting", and maybe gamble $3 to see what they'e like? Or must she be doing it to advertise herself to the lads?

Good lord. So much trouble you and Thalia seem to be going to to deny the possibility that other grown women might find something comfortable that you do not. Is it really easier for you to suggest that they're all brainwashed by "the Man" than it is to just take other women's word for the fact that they might be comfortable for them?

I, personally, couldn't really see myself coming into this forum and telling women here that the choices they think they're making are really being made for them by men, and that even if they really and truly "believe" they find a thong comfortable, they don't. They're just imagining it, or worse yet, living in denial... so they can impress men.

As I mentioned, nobody sees my wife's underwear (except me, and I really don't care - I like her best in none). If she's at home all day, and nobody sees her in her thong — assuming they had the X-ray vision necessary to see through her pants — are you really suggesting that she's so brainwashed she wouldn't have the good sense to take them off and put on something (that you find) more comfortable? How does your logic explain Mrs. M. inflicting this "discomfort" on herself for no social reward whatsoever?

[ 15 September 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

quote:

---

I question the desire of many young women to display pink thong underwear at school as a statement to their unique personality because there's nothing unique about mimicking pornified celebrities like Paris Hilton, Pamela Anderson and Britney Spears

---

I put in the bolding in case you still don't see it.

And as I said, I think it was clearly insinuated, not said out loud, so I obviously can't provide another quote.

quote:

---

And I don't think Thalia's humour is offensive

---

And I don't see it as humour. Anyway, the offensive part is the insistance that adult women cannot possibly think for themselves, and cannot possibly know what they find comfortable and what they don't.

I'm not suggesting advertising has no influence on women. But does admitting that mean that I now have to disbelieve my wife's claim to me that she finds thongs comfortable? Does the fact that advertising exists mean I should believe she's simply a pawn of the fashion industry?

This started with a very simple claim: Mrs. M likes thongs. Mrs. M. is a scholar and a feminist, and she really doesn't care too much what men besides me think of her underwear. I'm very surprised that her experience would be so vehemently denied, for no reason whatsoever, by someone who's made a grand total of 3 posts here, and in the feminism forum to boot.

My wife is not a little girl. She doesn't need the fashion industry to tell her what's comfortable for her. And she certainly doesn't need someone who clearly has a very prudish little axe to grind with thongs suggesting that she's been brainwashed or is lying to me.

Ed'd to add: y'know what? Let's make this easier. I hereby formally and officially withdraw any accusations of insinuating my wife is anything less than a woman of good moral fibre. Let's just stick to the assertion that my wife cannot be wearing a thong because she finds it comfortable, and how it can be that my wife would tell me, her loving husband of 14 years, something that, apparently, cannot be true. That alone should keep you and Thalia busy.

[ 15 September 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]