#In These Times Magazine In these times. With liberty and justice for all... * SUBSCRIBE * GIVE A GIFT * GET FREE NEWSLETTERS * DONATE * CURRENT ISSUE * HOME * POLITICS * THE MOVEMENT * LABOR * CULTURE * COLUMNISTS * BLOGS * DONATE snooki Features » February 22, 2010 Girls Gone Anti-Feminist Is ’70s feminism an impediment to female happiness and fulfillment? BY Susan J. Douglas Because women are now ‘equal’ and the battle is over and won, we are now free to embrace things we used to see as sexist, including hypergirlyness. Spring 1997. This was the Spice Girls moment, and debate: Were these frosted cupcakes really a vehicle for feminism? And how much reversion back to the glory days of prefeminism should girls and women accept–even celebrate–given that we now allegedly had it all? Despite their Wonderbras and bare thighs, the Spice Girls advocated “girl power.” They demanded, in their colossal, intercontinental hit “Wannabe,” that boys treat them with respect or take a hike. Their boldfaced liner notes claimed that “The Future Is Female” and suggested that they and their fans were “Freedom Fighters.” They made Margaret Thatcher an honorary Spice Girl. “We’re freshening up feminism for the nineties,” they told the Guardian. “Feminism has become a dirty word. Girl Power is just a ’90s way of saying it.” Fast-forward to 2008. Talk about girl power! One woman ran for president and another for vice president. Millions of women and men voted for each of them. The one who ran for vice president had five children, one of them an infant, yet it was verboten to even ask whether she could handle the job while tending to a baby. At the same time we had a female secretary of state, and the woman who had run for president became her high-profile successor. And we have Lady Gaga, power girl of the new millennium. Feminism? Who needs feminism anymore? Aren’t we, like, so done here? Okay, so some women moaned about the sexist coverage of Hillary Clinton, but picky, picky, picky. Indeed, eight years earlier, career antifeminist Christina Hoff Sommers huffed in her book, The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, that girls were getting way too much attention and, as a result, were going to college in greater numbers and much more likely to succeed while boys were getting sent to detention, dropping out of high school, destined for careers behind fast-food counters, and so beaten down they were about to become the nation’s new “second sex.” Other books like The Myth of Male Power and The Decline of Males followed suit, with annual panics about the new “crisis” for boys. Girl power? Gone way too far. Fantasies of power In 1999, one year before Sommers’ book came out, the top five jobs for women did not include attorney, surgeon or CEO. They were, in order, secretaries, retail and personal sales workers (including cashiers), managers and administrators, elementary school teachers and registered nurses. Farther down among the top 20 were bookkeepers, receptionists, cooks and waitresses. In 2007, when presumably some of the privileged, pampered girls whose advantages over boys Sommers had kvetched about had entered the workforce, the top five jobs for women were, still, secretaries in first place, followed by registered nurses, elementary and middle school teachers, cashiers and retail salespersons. Farther down the line? Maids, child care workers, office clerks and hairdressers. Not a CEO or hedge fund manager in sight. And, in the end, no president or vice president in 2008. But what about all those career-driven girls going to college and leaving the guys in the dust? A year out of college, they earn 80 percent of what men make. And 10 years out? A staggering 69 percent. Since the early 1990s, much of the media have come to overrepresent women as having made it– completely–in the professions, as having gained sexual equality with men, and having achieved a level of financial success and comfort enjoyed primarily by the Tiffany’s-encrusted doyennes of Laguna Beach. At the same time, there has been a resurgence of dreck clogging our cultural arteries–The Man Show, Maxim, Girls Gone Wild. But even this fare was presented as empowering, because while the scantily clad or bare-breasted women may have seemed to be objectified, they were really on top, because now they had chosen to be sex objects and men were supposedly nothing more than their helpless, ogling, crotch-driven slaves. What the media have been giving us, then, are little more than fantasies of power. They assure girls and women, repeatedly, that women’s liberation is a fait accompli and that we are stronger, more successful, more sexually in control, more fearless and more held in awe than we actually are. We can believe that any woman can become a CEO (or president), that women have achieved economic, professional and political parity with men, and we can expunge any suggestion that there might be anyone living on the national median income, which for women in 2008 was $36,000 a year, 23 percent less than their male counterparts. Yet the images we see on television, in the movies, and in advertising also insist that purchasing power and sexual power are much more gratifying than political or economic power. Buying stuff–the right stuff, a lot of stuff–emerged as the dominant way to empower ourselves. Women in fictional settings can be in the highest positions of authority, but in real life maybe not such a good idea. Instead, the wheedling, seductive message to young women is that being decorative is the highest form of power–when, of course, if it were, Dick Cheney would have gone to work every day in a sequined tutu. Enter enlightened sexism Not that some of these fantasies haven’t been delectable. I mean, Xena single-handedly trashing, on a regular basis, battalions of stubblefaced, leather-clad, murdering-and-raping barbarian hordes? Or Buffy the Vampire Slayer letting us pretend, if just for an hour, that only a teenage girl can save the world from fang-toothed evil? What about an underdog law student, dismissed by her fellow classmates as an airheaded bimbo, winning a high-profile murder case because she understood how permanents work, as Elle did in Legally Blonde? Or let’s say you’ve had an especially stupid day at work and as you collapse on the sofa desperately clutching a martini (hold the vermouth), you see a man on TV tell his female boss that the way she does things is “just not the way we play ball,” and she responds drolly, “Well, if you don’t like the way I’m doing things, you’re free to take your balls and go straight home”? (Yes, The Closer.) Oooo-weeee. So what’s the matter with fantasies of female power? Haven’t the media always provided escapist fantasies; isn’t that, like, their job? And aren’t many in the media, belatedly, simply addressing women’s demands for more representations of female achievement and control? Well, yes. But here’s the odd, somewhat unintended consequence: These demanded-and-delivered, delicious media-created fantasies have been driven by marketing, and they use that heady mix of flattery and denigration to sell us everything from skin cream to glutes-toning shoes. So it’s time to take these fantasies to the interrogation room and shine a little light on them. One force at work is embedded feminism: the way in which women’s achievements, or their desire for achievement, are simply part of today’s cultural landscape. But the media’s fantasies of power are also the product of another force that has gained considerable momentum since the early and mid-1990s: enlightened sexism. Enlightened sexism is a response, deliberate or not, to the perceived threat of a new gender regime. It insists that women have made plenty of progress because of feminism–indeed, full equality, has allegedly been achieved. So now it’s okay, even amusing, to resurrect sexist stereotypes of girls and women. Enlightened sexism sells the line that it is precisely through women’s calculated deployment of their faces, bodies, attire, and sexuality that they gain and enjoy true power– power that is fun, that men will not resent, and indeed will embrace. True power here has nothing to do with economic independence or professional achievement: it has to do with getting men to lust after you and other women to envy you. Enlightened sexism is especially targeted to girls and young women and emphasizes that now that they “have it all,” they should focus the bulk of their time and energy on being hot, pleasing men, competing with other women, and shopping. Enlightened sexism is a manufacturing process that is constantly produced by the media. Its components–anxiety about female achievement; renewed and amplified objectification of young women’s bodies and faces; dual exploitation and punishment of female sexuality; dividing of women against each other by age, race and class; and rampant branding and consumerism–began to swirl around in the early 1990s, consolidating as the dark star it has become in the early 21st century. The seed of feminism’s demise Some, myself included, have referred to this state of affairs and this kind of media mix as “postfeminist.” But I am rejecting this term. It has gotten gummed up by many conflicting definitions. And besides, this term suggests that somehow feminism is at the root of this when it isn’t– it’s good, old-fashioned, grade-A sexism that reinforces good, old-fashioned, grade-A patriarchy. It’s just much better disguised, in seductive Manolo Blahniks and a million-dollar bra. Enlightened sexism is feminist in its outward appearance (of course you can be or do anything you want) but sexist in its intent (hold on, girls, only up to a certain point, and not in any way that discomfits men). While enlightened sexism seems to support women’s equality, it is dedicated to the undoing of feminism. In fact, because this equality might lead to “sameness”–way too scary–girls and women need to be reminded that they are still fundamentally female, and so must be emphatically feminine. Thus, enlightened sexism takes the gains of the women’s movement as a given, and then uses them as permission to resurrect retrograde images of girls and women as sex objects, still defined by their appearance and their biological destiny. Consequently, in the age of enlightened sexism there has been an explosion in makeover, matchmaking and modeling shows, a renewed emphasis on breasts (and a massive surge in the promotion of breast augmentation), an obsession with babies and motherhood in celebrity journalism (the rise of the creepy “bump patrol”), and a celebration of “opting out” of the workforce. Feminism thus must remain a dirty word, with feminists (particularly older ones) stereotyped as man-hating, child-loathing, hairy, shrill, humorless and deliberately unattractive lesbians. More to the point, feminism must be emphatically rejected because it supposedly prohibits women from having any fun, listening to Lil’ Wayne or Muse, or dancing to Lady Gaga, or wearing leggings. As this logic goes, feminism is so 1970s–grim, dowdy, aggrieved and passé–that it is now an impediment to female happiness and fulfillment. Thus, an amnesia about the women’s movement, and the rampant, now illegal, discrimination that produced it, is essential, so we’ll forget that politics matters. Because women are now “equal” and the battle is over and won, we are now free to embrace things we used to see as sexist, including hypergirliness. In fact, this is supposed to be a relief. Thank God girls and women can turn their backs on stick-in-the-mud, curdled feminism and now we can jiggle our way into that awesome party. Now that women allegedly have the same sexual freedom as men, they actually prefer to be sex objects because it’s liberating. According to enlightened sexism, women today have a choice between feminism and antifeminism, and they just naturally and happily choose the latter because, well, antifeminism has become cool, even hip. The irony of it all Enlightened sexism has cranked out media fare geared to girls and young women in which they compete over men, many of them knuckleheads (The Bachelor, Flavor of Love); compete with each other (America’s Next Top Model); obsess about relationships and status (The Hills) or about pleasing men sexually (most music videos); and are fixated by conspicuous consumption (Rich Girls, My Super Sweet 16, Laguna Beach, and that wonderful little serpent of a show Gossip Girl). Yet I can assure you that my female students at the University of Michigan–academically accomplished, smart and ambitious– have flocked to these shows. Why? This is the final key component to enlightened sexism: irony, the cultivation of the ironic, knowing viewer and the deployment of ironic sexism. Irony offers the following fantasy of power: the people on the screen may be rich, spoiled, or beautiful, but you, oh superior viewer, get to judge and mock them, and thus are above them. With a show like MTV’s My Super Sweet 16, in which a spoiled brat has her parents buy her everything from a new Mercedes to a Vegas-style show to make sure her Sweet 16 party is, like, the most totally awesome ever, viewers are not merely (or primarily) meant to envy the girl. Animated stars superimposed on the scenes accompanied by a tinkling sound effect signal that we are also meant to see the whole exercise as over-the-top, ridiculous, exaggerated, the girl way too shallow and narcissistic. The show–indeed many ‘reality’ shows–elbow the viewer in the ribs, saying, “We know that you know that we know that you know that you’re too smart to read this straight and not laugh at it.” For media-savvy youth, bombarded their entire lives by almost every marketing ploy in the book, irony means that you can look as if you are absolutely not seduced by the mass media, while then being seduced by the media, wearing a knowing smirk. Viewers are flattered that they are sophisticated, can see through the craven self-absorption, wouldn’t be so vacuous and featherbrained as to get so completely caught up in something so trivial. The media offers this irony as a shield. What so much of this media emphasizes is that women are defined by our bodies. This is nothing new, of course, but it was something millions of women hoped to deep-six back in the 1970s. Indeed, it is precisely because women no longer have to exhibit traditionally “feminine” personality traits–like being passive, helpless, docile, overly emotional, dumb and deferential to men–that they must exhibit hyperfeminine physical traits–cleavage, short skirts, pouty lips–and the proper logos linking this femininity to social acceptance. The war between embedded feminism and enlightened sexism gives with one hand and takes away with the other. It’s a powerful choke leash, letting women venture out, offering us fantasies of power, control and love and then pulling us back in. This, then, is the mission at hand: to pull back the curtain and to note how these fantasies distract us from our ongoing status–still, despite everything–as second-class citizens. Trapped in the media’s funhouse Many producers insist that mass media are simply mirrors, reflecting reality, whatever that is, back to the public. Whenever you hear this mirror metaphor, I urge you to smash it. Because if the media are mirrors, they are funhouse mirrors. You know, the wavy kind, where your body becomes completely distorted and certain parts–typically your butt and thighs–become huge while other parts, like your knees, nearly disappear. This is the mass media–exaggerating certain kinds of stories, certain kinds of people, certain kinds of values and attitudes, while minimizing others or rendering them invisible. This is even more true today than it was thirty years ago because specific media outlets targeted to specific audiences traffic in an ever-narrower range of representations. These media also set the agenda for what we are to think about, what kinds of people deserve our admiration, respect and envy, and what kinds don’t. Thus, despite my own love of escaping into worlds in which women solve crimes, can buy whatever they want, perform lifesaving surgeries and find love, I am here to argue, forcefully, for the importance of wariness, with a capital W. The media have played an important role in enabling us to have female cabinet members, in raising awareness about and condemning domestic violence, in helping Americans accept very different family formations than the one on Leave It to Beaver, and even in imagining a woman president. But let’s not forget that in the United States, we have the flimsiest support network for mothers and children of any industrialized country, nearly 2 million women are assaulted each year by a husband or boyfriend, and 18 percent of women have reported being the victim of a completed or attempted rape. White women still make 75 cents to a man’s dollar, and it’s 62 cents for Black women and only 53 cents for Latinas. The majority of families with children in poverty are headed by single women. It is only through tracing the origins of these images of female power that we can begin to untangle how they have offered empowerment at the cost of eroding our self-esteem, and keeping millions in their place. Because still, despite everything, what courses through our culture is the belief–and fear–that once women have power, they turn into Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada–evil, tyrannical, hated. And the great irony is that if some media fare is actually ahead of where most women are in society, it may be thwarting the very advances for women that it seeks to achieve. This essay was adapted from Susan J. Douglas’ new book, Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s Work is Done (Times Books, March). ABOUT THIS AUTHOR Susan J. Douglas is a professor of communications at the University of Michigan and an In These Times columnist. Her latest book is Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message That Feminism's Work is Done (2010). More information about Susan J. Douglas SHARE THIS ARTICLE | Print these people are the most stupid closed-minded sexist, and probably racist and homophobic people. im a feminist for life, will have children, and respect men. fuck you anti-feminists. there is nothing wrong staying at home and taking care of children. there is nothing wrong with not having children and working all day. its all about CHOICE! my god. you sexist fucks. Posted by fuck you guys on 2013-01-06 04:32:01 Hmm...the anger expressed in comments below as well as by the author is understandable on some level, seeing as how we're witnessing very young girls getting caught up in all this television drama nonsense. HOWEVER, I'm left scratching my head where women's agency has gone to all of a sudden. The television does broadcast lots of stupid programs, I agree, hence why I refuse to pay for cable. Why pay money for a service that brings into your home influences you don't want around yourself or your children? You have the power to cancel the subscription and cease funding networks bent on airing ridiculous crap like Jersey Shore and whatever else is on these days. The power is in our hands. If kids were exposed to less television, perhaps they wouldn't be as inclined to grow into consumption-driven teens and adults filled with air-headed ideas about their roles in society. Parents have a great deal of power, and they're not asserting it, and that baffles me. Grown women choose where they spend their money, and apparently trivial forms of entertainment and sexing up their wardrobes has become a top priority. Either way, stupid shows wouldn't exist without an audience to provide ratings. Same goes for junk beauty magazines. Clothing that sells is what will continue being offered. So, I guess I wonder why the blame is laid entirely on the market while female consumers are viewed as victims of it. No, you're the consumer. The dollars in your pocket are your votes for the society you're helping to co-create, which includes how you portray yourself. Want to be taken seriously? Then turn off the idiotic sitcoms and invest time, energy, and funds into more rewarding endeavors. If we have become slaves to pop culture and marketing gimmicks, it is through our own complicity. By a certain age one undoubtedly has the wherewithal to stop and question these things for herself, then to choose to alter or stay the course. That's not to say that our culture doesn't affect us or that marketing isn't awfully slick, but why aren't we explaining this to one another rather than complaining and expecting the business world to cease pandering to profits? Our media will over time mold itself to become whatever people are willing to watch and pay for. We ultimately control the purse strings, not them. Posted by wakemenow on 2012-11-03 09:02:16 I don't want to be the kind of secure you're describing. Not everyone is the same! Maybe that's how you feel, but it certainly isn't how I feel, and don't you dare try to convince me I'm kidding myself because I'm not. Personally, If I have to conform to what society dictates as "acceptable" female behaviour to gain their "respect", If I have to give up what I want to do, give up all that my life can accomplish to gain that approval, I don't want it. I will hate myself for it - I will loathe myself. I completely reject the idea that women cannot be happy without a male counterpart - my mother is living proof of this. Even if this might be the case, I'd much much rather a bit of loneliness over self-loathing. Posted by LHR on 2012-11-03 06:01:24 Thank you! Finally someone who is educated! Posted by Sexism is real! assholes! on 2012-11-01 22:15:30 Is this a joke? Please tell me you're joking. Posted by No, Ignorant Ol' Man on 2012-11-01 22:11:14 are you kidding me! how many are actual victims??? Do you realize that the statistic is likely to be higher because many rapes go unreported. Posted by lostfaithinhumanity on 2012-11-01 22:04:13 Wow. It is extremely hard--despite the manosphere, MRAs, and the evidence of self-subjugating women all around me (sorry, women who have internalized misogyny and sexism, or women who simply like playing the role of wife and mother--and wife and mother only--and believe this should extend to everyone else)--it is extremely hard to believe how many naysayers there are in denial about modern sexism. Wow, just fucking wow. Most of these comments are so offensive that they leave me nearly speechless. They have, however, been written by narrow-minded people who don't do much thinking about gender roles, or by the pitifully stupid (I am sorry for all you pitifully stupid! Luckily for you, I don't believe in eugenics. Just go on being your bad selves). Yes, I am being offensive too. Good for me. The one person who made a reasonable response on here got jumped on and personally attacked. Men in science believing they are God's chosen--what a laugh. Try reading some of the vast research out there about how women are treated in science, and how women are discouraged against going into science in their younger years. Those who don't believe rigid gender roles play a huge part in who they are must be kidding themselves. Those who don't see the backlash against gains made in feminism are kidding themselves too. Come on, let's be logical, a backlash occurs after strides are made in any civil rights struggle; those knocked even an inch or two down the totem pole don't like it. Commence backlash. The blindness of these people is exhausting...the fact, too, that absolutely no one questions the necessity or usefulness of the marriage institution. These people don't have a philosophical bone in their bodies. Continue to worship at the altar of the traditional, that's fine. Enjoy Mad Men without a trace of irony. But do not push it on the rest of us who, like pro-choice people, are simply trying to advocate for choice--true choice--which is something we have all been denied at a fundamental level in this society due to our socialization (and I don't just mean in terms of gender roles, but also beliefs about human rights, morality, consumption, and politics). If you don't want to do serious thinking, fine. But just acknowledge to yourself that you are not, and don't try to force your beliefs on those who are simply advocating for real choice (which is the true definition of "freedom"). Come back when you have done some serious reading on these issues and considered various points of view and the mass of historical evidence--and allowed it to sink in. (Humans. This is why I believe we are utterly doomed). Posted by calabasa on 2012-11-01 09:01:43 Who REALLY wears the pants in the house, Ladies? Hmmm, this is quite a sensitive subject for most women; however, I thought Iâd share with you my experience on being a dominant one, instead of being a Lady. Life for me was difficult as a child, as my step-father was an alcoholic, and I hardly saw my real father so I had lacked proper discipline. My mom was either always working or cleaning the house [my 2 other siblings and I did help her], but she was understandably tired and irritated most of the time, so there was no time for her to teach us Love. Both my husband and I were raised in a world that taught that men and women are both equal. However, my mother; with 2 miserable marriage experiences; taught me from both her words and actions that men were stupid and worthless. I met my husband and we got married. Sadly, I carried the âcurseâ of âall men are worthlessâ into my marriage, by continuously criticizing the credibility of every decision that my husband made. At the time, I couldnât see through my own arrogance, that what I was doing was wrong, and was the reason of why my husband didnât want to be at home with me and our children. In my mind, I thought, âCould my mom be rightâ? I didnât want to believe this, as my mom and I didnât see eye to eye on many things in life, as her constant degrading of my father, step-father and comparisons of us [my younger sister and me] to them, lead us into many arguments. Things gradually went downhill in my marriage for obvious reasons, and my husband sought an âescapeâ from the degradation at home, caused by me. His âescapeâ route was an expensive and very traumatic experience for all concerned. Although drugs/alcohol is âthe cowardâs way outâ for escaping reality; it did its work by removing the pain that I had caused by âcastratingâ him [metaphorically speaking]. On the other hand, I was not coping either. I had my own âescapeâ route. Something was not right with my marriage. The ONLY marital guidance that my family could offer me was to get divorced, which I didnât want. I prayed one night asking God for His help as we were clearly headed for disaster. God gave me a video to watch called âThe Taming of the Shrewâ starring Elizabeth Taylor. Although I had read the Biblical Teachings on the role of a woman, my understanding of HOW to be obedient was not there, until I âvisualizedâ it in this movie; which was my âahaâ [enlightening] moment. One day, a heated argument arose via e-mail between my husband and me. I expected a fight when he got home, so I asked God how I should handle it. He reminded me of what Elizabeth Taylor did in the movie in what was almost the same situation; which was to stop arguing with everything my husband said; and submit to him. My husband came home and entered the room that I was in. He said; âOkay, you want to fight, Iâm listeningâ. My response was âNo, you are right.â The look on his face was that of SHOCK [who are you, and what did you do with my wife? â that type of look]. He then responded âI know you want to fight, Iâm waitingâ My response was again âNo, youâre rightâ. Again the same look of shock followed by a moment of silence; followed by words from his mouth that I had SO LONGED to hear; with a look in his eyes and tone of voice of an unconditional love and compassion; â âI love youâ. It was such an enlightening moment for us both, that only once youâve experienced it; could you understand. It was an experience [I thought] could only happen in movies. RECEIVING, SEEING and FEELING that Love that is so real and fulfilling; it completely erased all the bitter, painful, unnecessary memories of heated arguments and failures of the past; when all that my husband wanted from me was to STOP arguing with him, and start SUPPORTING him. I still find myself trying to take the lead again here and there; but my husband now FIRMLY and LOVINGLY guides my footsteps in the right direction. Thank-You, Father in heaven. As woman, we are designed by our Creator to be more physically; spiritually and emotionally [due to hormones] weaker than men. We long to feel Loved and protected by our husbands, but this can only be achieved if we submit ourselves, and ALLOW THEM to Guide us; Love us; Protect us; Provide for us; of which they are more than capable of doing as they are designed with MORE Spiritual & physical strength [not emotional] than what we have. Iâll end off with some words of Wisdom quoted from a book called âTHIS IS A GREAT MYSTERY MARRIAGE GUIDANCEâ http://jahtruth.net/marguide.h... âc) "a help meet" At the time of creation of woman, the suitable companion for Adam, it should be noted that woman is to be man's helper. The one is the complement of the other, therefore they are a perfect unity, under Divine direction. But after their act of disobedience, that unity is lost; the harmony between them becomes discord, and they no longer have confidence in each other. The man blames the woman for his state, and she blames the power that tempted her. But, it could well be that in time; rather than acknowledge her crime and accept her own responsibility for it; she would blame the man for not preventing her action, so that a growing tension between them is inevitable. Divine intervention with Law for this new condition of the sinning creatures, places authority in the man, and the woman hears the pronouncement, "thy desire [shall be subject] to thy husband, and HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE". (Gen. 3:16) A supreme authority there must be to maintain order. When the unity of man and woman was obedient to the "I AM", there was peace on Earth, the ultimate authority resting on the One Source. But in discord between man and woman and between that unit in separation from the "I AM", restoration of law and order must be movement from the Godhead to the creatures. So the demonstration of this is set up by the "I AM" proclaiming that in the first being (man) remains Authority, whether in Divine Presence or degraded, sinful humanity. Obedience then to Divine Law is the means whereby the man and woman recover their contact with the "I AM", and is also the means of bringing peace between themselves. Thus unity, harmony and peace are again shown to be in obedience to Divine Authority.â A few more helpful books to read are here: The incalculable damage being caused by sexist and misleading advertising http://jahtruth.net/men.htm The Way home or face the fire http://thewayhomeorfacethefire... Why people REALLY take drugs http://jahtruth.net/drugs.htm Posted by Vanessa on 2012-10-29 06:58:31 Reading this article was like a fresh breath of air, reading the comments however made me realize âFeminism â is definitely alive â¦.what ever it is called, we have a long way to go Posted by Fay on 2012-10-26 11:47:24 As a scientist, you've probably heard about Christian views on evolution. There's more evidence that evolution exists than there is that gravity exists, and you can see how stupid Christians look when they discount evolution. Well, if you think the world is male-dominated, that's how stupid you look. Maybe in hold-out states like Afghanistan; but in the USA, women have more rights than men, are very well treated, and practically worshiped as gods. Posted by Mean Ol' Man on 2012-10-14 12:33:29 i'm sorry, hon, but you sound like a self-appointed victim Posted by katrina on 2012-10-12 09:08:19 A discredited and dead ideology, and all that remains is self-appointed 'kommissars' babbling among themselves... do they ever listen to themselves? Really, i mean, who reads this stuff. Not even amusing... just irrelevant Posted by katrina on 2012-10-12 09:05:07 @valerie - well said. I too am a stay at home mom and love the role that I play in the home. It took me to climb a rocky mountain to gain the understanding of the difference in sexes as I was brought up by a man-hating mom. I came across a book called "The Way home or face the fire" that explains the spiritual difference between men and woman, and I also found this site about the damage that is being caused by sexist and misleading advertising http://jahtruth.net/men.htm. It is clearly our own arrogance and ignorance that clouds our judgement for the ability to see the negative effect we have on soceity by supporting feminism. Posted by Passer-by on 2012-09-28 16:43:29 feminism was a social experiement, a movement like socialism. it had its merits and made some great achievements; without socialism we would have no paid holidays or pensions. but like socialism, feminism lost its way, became splintered into endless divisions and redefinitions, and in a society that has for better or worse provided women and girls with the 'equality' they wanted, it is now utterly redundant as a political movement. Posted by Dra on 2012-09-21 21:53:15 "18 percent of women have reported being the victim of a completed or attempted rape. White women still make 75 cents to a manâs dollar" - How many of those 18 percent are actual victims, a lot of women nowadays like to call out rape whenever they see the situation fits them. It's messed up because they are ruining the life of a perfectly innocent guy and insulting those amount of women that have actually been raped. Same thing vice versa, how many guys have been sexually assaulted but refused to report the crime, or how many guys have reported the crime but have either been laughed at or just simply not believed. As for the 75 cents... that number seems to change every time I see it. Although, that number is somewhat true, it's not true because of discrimination. It's true because of the choices men and women make. As stated in the beginning of this article, more full time working men are more likely to be in higher position jobs making more money. Even jobs in the trade make more simply because of how dangerous it is. More danger means less likely a person will do it for little money, so they are forced to pay more money since their is a demand for employees but not a lot of supply (people wanting to do the job) Taking the exact same way they factor how much money a woman makes to a man full time (it's 88% if counting 40 hours full time but 75 or whatever for 35 hours being counted as full time) a woman makes $1.09 for every $1.00 a man makes part time. Once again this is not based off of discrimination, but choices. Women make up more part time jobs and take higher paying part time jobs, while most men that are in part time jobs are usually working at a fast food place or something of that nature, and only are there for several years; while women on the other hand tend to stay in part time jobs for a longer period of time creating a greater chance of getting a raise. Speaking of getting a raise, that is one of the choices that men make as a full time worker that women tend to not do as much... Men are far more likely to ask for a raise than women are, which along with working longer hours, choosing more dangerous jobs, willing to travel longer distance to get to work and many other factors that are decided by choice make up for that mythical wage gap. When everything is controlled for, (read why men earn more by warren farrell) and you will come to find out that when we control for all these factors. Taking a man and a woman working the same hours same distance, same overtime, same danger, same work, same production (meaning doing the same job AND contributing to the company the same amount example: both man and woman help make the company $100,000 a year) etc. we find that that wage gap disappears. Nonetheless, this was a pretty well written article. Posted by onceuponatime on 2012-08-11 12:57:52 I'm a wife to a wonderful man, a mother to a beautiful baby, and I'm an anti-feminist. My husband and I are a younger couple (married at 19, still together 7 years later) and we have an amazing marriage. We fight just like the next couple but i respect him and he respects me. I think we do so well because we have old fasioned views on marriage. I'm a stay at home mom and he works outside the home. When he comes home from a very stressful day at work im happy to serve him because not only does he deserve it but he treats me like a gentlemen. Everytime i say this to people they go oh my god how could you do that, you're like a mindless zombie who only lives to serve your dominating husband. Thats what really pisses me off about feminist. I respect and take care of my husband because he does the same. Now if he was beating me or digrading me you're damn right I wouldnt do this. But if you have a man who takes care of you, you should do the same! I love that my husband opens doors for me and takes my hand down steps. So many men now a days wont even do that for strangers let alone their own wives because they get treated like just a paycheck. When i was pregnant i never had one man offer their chair for me except my husband, It really makes me sad. It's like we're now in a generation where men are acting like girls. I'm sorry but fathers you shouldnt stay home with children, you may be a great father but you will never be a mom. And women stay home and take care of your men, dont work just because you think you need to prove something to someone. Now if you're a single mom that is a different story, but maybe we wouldnt have so many single parents if we went back to old fasioned family values. Thats just my 2 cents. Posted by valerie on 2012-08-09 12:06:14 Science is dominated by men because...wait for it... SCIENTIFICALLY speaking, on average, men are better and more interested in science-related fields and how things in general work. If you look at every aspect in life based on the number of men and women are doing something, you will always perceive some kind of imaginary sexism when really it's just nature or people's choices that affect it. - As a man in science Posted by Ok on 2012-07-30 23:18:32 Men like sluts for sex. And todays society makes women feel equal when they whore around. Don't get me wrong us guys love this shit. I wonder though with a steady supply of loose women why would a man settle down or want to get married to a self respecting women who spent her fertile twenties in some liberal university, lets face it that old hags not putting out (anything men want). Don't worry men will pay a price, all of them good or bad, will lose their standings economically physically and mentally and our women will watch from the sidelines powerless to do anything about it. Well you'll still have (power) your degrees and female dominated tv shows but power over what? To stay afloat and wait for better days... You know who really owns the world whos really changed it not men but a fallen angel and he will enjoy a world without men who see the truth and steal his women away. God saved man or is surely in the process no one is blind forever not one. We had a good run, nice shot man. Posted by Truth Lies on 2012-07-30 16:10:51 Wow, this is a really amazing article! As a woman in science, I see firsthand how industry, especially in my field of science is completely male dominated. I think its important to be aware that we still live in a patriarchal society, and that "enlightened sexism" is just means to suppress female influence in a male-dominated world. Posted by Kat Hag on 2012-07-29 03:24:35 Feminism and "Girl Power" is an illusion. The reality of this is that women secretly don't want and don't like power. They are told by society at a young age about "girl power" so they believe the lies and push guys down. the few women that do get ahead in their career eventually turn about 35 years old and wonder why there are no eligible men for them to settle down with and why they have to get help from fertility doctors for children and then pretend they only want children, but no husband. They only say this because they cannot find a husband. Women who get married and respect their husband like they should be respected are happier. Single career women realize their unhappiness not in their 20's when they are still young, but in the 30's when fear of spending the rest of their life alone becomes a reality. Feminism has lied and made women undesirable, unhappy and lonely and has degraded the entire woman (her needs, her biology and everything she is). Women are not like men -- end of story! I hope young women will start being honest with themselves. Turning into a "slut" is not the answer either. Women who "bare all" and "screw all" are very lonely people in desperate need for attention. We need to take some lessons from the 1950's. Women today, are NOT getting respect from society and they are NOT happy. They are getting disrespect even though those that disrespect them do it in silence, not verbally in most cases. A virtuous woman who dresses modestly and loves her husband and decides to stay home with her child gets more respect from society than and career women. A women who dresses provacatively when in social situations and has multiple sex partners is not respected. They do not get respect from employers, men or other women or even themselves, but they lie to themselves and say they do. If they respected themselves they would not be so desperate for attention and feel the need to behave like this. Secure women don't need this type of attention. Posted by Daisy100 on 2012-06-25 10:18:05 It's great that you could find information for belajar forex Posted by uaip4g on 2010-07-29 06:13:30 Never believe it when getting jawatan kosong kerajaan Posted by uaip4g on 2010-07-03 12:01:20 Sigh...i knew it was too good to be true. It's never too late to follow the trend. It's this and then later. Just like everyone is crazy over unlock iPhone 4G for now. later it will be something else Posted by uaip4g on 2010-07-03 12:00:30 PMuriello, Normative is an adjective not a noun. Just so you know. Posted by cabdriverinchicago on 2010-06-18 10:20:20 Thomas Geza Miko, 40 years ago it was 1970 and all the old farts back then were screaming about the "KIDS THESE DAYS!!!" too, and the generation before that, and the generation before that, etc. Back then success wasn't defined as all those white-normative cultural phenomena you listed, it was defined as having lots of money, which is the same definition we use today. The only difference between then and now is that some non-white-normatives have figured out how to get rich, even though the vast majority of rich people are still white-normative. And considering how high the odds are stacked against non-white-normatives getting rich, I'd say the ones that do are pretty heroic. Also are you saying tattoos and piercings are somehow immoral? If so, haha Posted by PMuriello on 2010-06-17 18:42:35 nice artical Posted by johnsmith182 on 2010-06-16 00:10:45 I really enjoyed this article, and have forwarded its URL to my wife, and several other people. That said, I have a different angle from which I would like to approach this topic: class vs gender. Yes, there is a great deal of marketing and mass media pressure for women to work out, wear expensive designer high heel shoes, and drape Coach purses from their shoulders. There is something else going on in American society that needs to be considered, though: 40 years ago the movies, television, and literature held up the well-educated and/or wealthy elite as the standard of who to emulate. Success was defined by dressing well, speaking proper English, clear annunciation, and good grooming habits. Now, our cultural "heroes' wear pants that are 3 sizes too big, that are hanging halfway down their rear-ends, while they "sing" about slapping their ho and re-loading their 9. (This is not meant in any way as an attack against African American men; just look at M&M et al). How many people under 30 do you know who DON'T have a tattoo and/or body piercings??? In previous decades, only enlisted sailors or fisherman had tattoos, which were rough affairs. In case you think this is written by an 80 year old retired minister with trembling hands: no: I am a 43 year old atheist. I just have good taste. It took forever before I met a woman who I wanted to marry, and have kids with. Currently, I am employed at a university, and part of my job is to field phone calls from the campus police, who call me to discuss drunken 18 year olds who have fallen down, drunk, and injured themselves. These kids flip through the cable TV channels, and see ads for "Girls Gone Wild" DVDs in which other drunk girls who just escaped high school (and their parents) flash their upper bodies at men. Culture in the U.S. has been in an ever-accelerating downward rush towards the lowest common denominator for a long time, and this is now what we sell to other countries. Posted by Thomas Geza Miko on 2010-06-14 15:50:56 This article is almost my exact mind-set for feminism. However, a few things that I think different of. I didn't really expect to see something like this out here, though! This is great! It's so true! Posted by Melina on 2010-05-18 21:34:34 wforward, Why does the burden to substantiate the author's sources lie with the reader? If I were to say that 10% of single women make 50% more than married women, you would want to know my source, right? In fact, I would expect you to ask so I'd include it with my original statement. If you just want something to get angry about then I'm done talking to you. cabdriverinchicago, Thanks for that article. I'm reading it now. Posted by theskunk on 2010-05-18 09:07:12 SKUNK - This is an online journal, not a college course. You dislike what is being said, so you nitpick inappropriately. If you can't be bothered to look for the sources of the author's statistics, cite some that counter it. Otherwise you are coming across as a whinger. Also, cabdriverinchicago was kind enough to provide you with sources, but you would apparently rather moan and obfuscate than engage with the argument. Posted by wforward on 2010-05-18 06:30:34 Wforward, I should buy a book to verify the statistics in an article that could have just cited its sources like any college freshman is required to... Spend my money to help someone else strengthen their argument. Absurd. Posted by theskunk on 2010-05-16 15:32:05 to "theskunk"; Clearly you did not read the article or were having some trouble doing so. The article is an excerpt from a book, which you should buy and look up the references you insist upon. Posted by wforward on 2010-05-16 13:39:06 Susan Douglas's article contained very few statistics but their accuracy seems to be confirmed by other sources which use government figures from the US Bureau of the Census. Here is a ready source you can easily consult. It is an article by Gwendolyn Mink in the Winter 2010 edition of New Politics. http://newpolitics.mayfirst.org/fromthearchives?nid=164 Posted by cabdriverinchicago on 2010-05-11 17:20:33 If your argument is going to rely so heavily on statistics, it would be prudent to at least cite some of your sources. It's almost not worth reading the article given how malleable unattributed numbers can be. Posted by theskunk on 2010-05-11 16:15:37 Really very nice post and whatever said here are mostly true. iphone unlock iphone 3g unlock unlock iphone 4g Posted by James Bond on 2010-05-08 09:09:21 It's easy for someone who already has full rights in this world to dismiss another group's push for those same rights with an "oh well, you're equal in God's eyes"--Maybe some of us want to live *before* we die, whether or not we live after. Because you can't guarantee, Sean, that your religion is true. You can't guarantee we will live after death. You can't guarantee it's worth the wait. So who are you to tell us it's OK since God loves us anyway? That's easy for you to say. You're already on top. They said the same thing to the African slaves. Good thing they didn't listen, huh? They might still be slaves now, over a century later. cabdriver: Yes, women ARE taught to value relationships above all else. That's been one of the tools used to keep us down in a culture which doesn't even value life (here I mean life in general, I'm pro-choice and am not making a statement about abortion), much less relationships or anything else positive. The solution is to teach men to value relationships also, not to teach women to be heartless. Re: the teen pregnancy thing... I'm tired of seeing people obsess about this. I don't care what the media says, I don't care what Christians say. I have exactly two concerns about teen pregnancy. Number one, if we would stop trying to keep folks who are effectively full-grown adults out of the labor pool just because they haven't hit the magical age of 18 yet, teens would be better equipped to support any children they might have, and we wouldn't have to wring our hands about this. Number two, we need to put a stop to pregnant teens being used as brood mares for the adoption industry. Aside from that, I don't care how old you are when you have your first baby. My mother was a teen mother. She was nineteen when she had me. But she was also seventeen when she married my dad. (Her birthday's in December, by the way--you do the math with regards to her high school graduation age and such.) Big deal. And overall, I appreciated this article. But let me just say that it isn't just the anti-feminists who expect unrealistic things of women. I'm a feminist, will be til the day I die but can we please stop buying in to the consumerist industrial culture (CIC)? Please? I want a world in which I can support myself AND raise my kids. That is not compatible with the CIC, period. And I perceive the mainstream feminist movement (yes, there is one) as pushing women in the direction of having the same privileges as men who benefit from the CIC. I don't want us buying into the CIC in the first place. This whole division of home from work and career from family is a product of the Industrial Age. Before then, people could put food on the table and still raise their kids. The only way I'm gonna be able to make enough to support me and my daughter if something happens to her dad is if I pay a daycare worker or a school. I did not have my child so someone else could raise her. I want equal rights, I am ENTITLED to equal rights--But I don't want a world in which families are broken up and kids are raised by strangers and the ecosystem is destroyed because everyone wants fancy cars and iPods and vacations to Bermuda. God, people, get some standards. And yet when someone presents an ecofeminist argument, they are put down by mainstream feminism for their "essentialism." That's stupid, destructive, and pointless. Posted by Dana Seilhan on 2010-04-04 11:23:51 One other thought also after I read another persons post ( April H ) . April , can I say on most of your points you may be right . How do you feel even after typing it though - a sense of self accomplishment that you stood against the ways of this world ? It is a good tool to be able to do that but instead of fighting for a stance in this world job wise by selection , the greatest satisfaction a person could ever experience would be to guard our tongues and have a wonderful joy given to us that we as people dont have to feel threatened by this worlds push to immorality ( since we know that each day that push will always be there until the end when He comes ) but that we can joy in the fact that not only do we take a stance against a certain issue like this , but that we can say Lord take this world from me , I dont need it anymore - I want you . try it , I promise you that it wont breed bitterness like these topics do so often . Everything is a seed - only God's word that is a seed brings forth life - all else is death including worldly stance . Posted by Sean McCrory on 2010-03-28 17:29:03 I have watched and listened to the points you have made in regards to the worlds ways in the issue of sexism . I agree with most everything you have talked about that I have heard as far as factual and true in terms to what goes on with woman and the issues in relation to self degredation as well as what is inflicted by the opposite sex too . I am not sure if you are a believer in Christ but if you are , let me suggest some thoughts here .....although your thoughts are a passion toward being equal , let me reassure you that we all are even if the world doesnt want it to be that way - we are in God's eyes . We live in a world where slavery existed and still exists , where sexism occurs , where pride in all areas of life seep through the cracks in our own hearts as we stand against the worlds ways which is good , however - if it is in your passion to fight for something then you may want to reconsider that if your home is here in the world where your life is sooo very temporary , or you can have great satisfaction in knowing that Christ isnt the world , isnt men here and isnt the females either . Where we are told to take up our cross and follow Him , we stand and fight to make our world fair ......consider this - what if God did that every day ? Anyone who doesnt feel like it is worth carrying the weight of te world , instead of teaching your daughter how to not be like this author describes as not to be , how about going a lot deeper , meaningful and more eternal and teaching our children to fear the Lord and that is the beginning of all understanding as He has compassion on us and guides us not only in ways as a woman or man should act but also to surround ourselves with men and woman that do act the way the Lord would want us to act . Remember this ....it is not our duty to stand in the way of a sinner as the world chooses , it is in our duty to be set apart from that so that us and our children are not even subjected to it . I believe this kind of teaching breeds a wordly unsettling when if we just pray , read and get rid of the world in our hearts , then we wont even be in the fight with the world because we realize that the battle truly lies in spiritual influences ...not in people's flesh or ways . The world is lost - we dont have to be and I think that makes much more sense than fighting a lost cause in relationship to our own intelligence . Lets worship God and not even have to be in this muck . Peace , love and FREEDOM in Christ to all !!!!! Posted by Sean McCrory on 2010-03-28 17:12:39 April H. I agree with much of what you say. Sexism still exists in America. But women weren't taught to value their relationships above all else; they simply do. I don't know if this is because society inculcates this or not. There is a difference between a woman feeling "incomplete" without a man in her life and simply valuing relationships in general as the most important thing in life. Men and women just seem to have different attitudes regarding relationships. I agree the proverbial "glass ceiling" needs to be removed. I believe it is happening gradually. In 1980, women earned about 59% of what men earned ( as a college student I remember women wearing buttons that read "59 cents" in protest) but that ratio has risen to about 80% with 90% for women with college educations. There are many more women CEOs and professionals than there were thirty years ago. The gender gap has been bridged far more thorougly than the racial gap in relative income growth and occupational advancement. Many women ignore pressure to quit the workforce and stay home and have babies and no one can blame them. In today's world, female participation in the workforce is absolutely essential to most household incomes.. Posted by cabdriverinchicago on 2010-03-15 09:14:24 This comment is for Mortimor Valentine. First of all, I don't think any feminist would argue that there is anything wrong with wanting a healthy mate. Everyone should want a healthy mate. I have often run into this argument when discussing mens' preoccupation with the exceptionally slender body type in women. This is the problem with your argument; men don't want someone who is healthy. I'm sure many of them do, but there are also a number of them who don't. I think that men have been conditioned to believe they need to be able to control a woman. And I think men choose women(not in all cases) by how easily they can maintain control of a relationship with a particular woman. And it has nothing to do with body type. There is no evidence that one particular body type is healthier or more fertile than another. It is true that obesity is unhealthy. But there is no connection between obesity and infertility. There have been psychological studies that have proven that men find full figured women more attractive than skinny women. The skinny standard, as I like to call it, is a reaction to the women's movement. It's a way for men to enforce control over women by keeping them worried about whether or not someone will want to reproduce with them. Because they know that relationships are important to women and that women have a limited window in which to reproduce. Women have long been defined by their ability to be successful in personal relationships. So it's no difficult task for men to just take advantage of this insecurity in women. Furthermore, what you seem to miss regarding the issue of women in the workplace is that women don't choose the professions they choose because they just love being nurses and teachers and sales clerks. They choose these professions because they are bullied into them. Also, whoever holds the top positions in the top companies, drives the companies, which in turn drives the economy, resulting in a turn in the zeitgeist. Wanting women to climb to the top professionally is about giving women a voice. I think plenty of women would choose to be mechanics and engineers and CEOs if they didn't feel like it was such a boys club and they could do their jobs without being expected to have sex with their superiors and/or take on masculine traits in order to ward off sexual advances by their superiors. As for the issue of women taking time off to raise babies, they should. And so should men. Posted by April H. on 2010-03-05 11:44:42 What you consider conspiracy is just human nature. The basic function of all life forms is to survive and reproduce, it is not to achieve some status that you deem respectable. Men want to reproduce with women that are healthy and fertile, which they base on physical appearance. Women are seeking good providers, as well as, good health in a mate. If men thought they could attract more women by hitting themselves in the head with a hammer they would. You're opinion that a doctor or a CEO is better than a construction worker or a nurse, is cultural bias. It is based on consumerist notions that you need to earn as much money as possible to buy things which will fulfill you, instead of finding what makes you the most happy. As someone who has worked with many women and have had many women supervisors, I have never seen any sign of anyone doubting that the women were in any way deficient. I have noticed that women will take years off from their careers to raise babies, though. Posted by Mortimor Valentine on 2010-02-28 14:56:57 As a father of three daughters, I thought this article hit a lot of my concerns right on the head. The only thing I might have wanted emphasized more is the trend I see in media towards presenting favorable views of teenagers having babies. (Or "balanced" views, which by presenting "pros" to offset the obvious cons, effectively help promote unwise behavior.) This and the slavish acceptance in most popular media of the idea that "Abstinence Only" is at least a justifiable moral choice when it comes to birth control, if not the most moral choice. Since my youngest is not quite 15, and is obsessed with these shows, this particular point has really excercised me. I recently argued in my own blog (http://persistentwondering.blogspot.com/2010/02/my-teenage-daughter-an d-her-peers.html) that "Abstinence Only" should be viewed as an IMMORAL policy, and not a morally acceptable option, at all. Posted by David Knuttunen on 2010-02-26 06:47:05 This is great! Thanks Susan J. Douglas & In These Times - I can't wait to read the book! Posted by Lyn X on 2010-02-24 13:31:10 View archived comments » ____________________ SEARCH [WEB_Subscribe3.gif] Also by Susan J. Douglas * A Farewell to Arms The framers' intent for "a well-regulated militia" may have meant...well, regulation. MORE » * Hangovers, Electoral and Otherwise So what are we to make of this election? MORE » * Big Money Can’t Buy You Memes Can a grainy, amateur video, zooming through social media, trump slickly produced TV ads? MORE » MOST READ + Programmed for Primetime + Disaster Capitalism Hits New York + Time to Move Beyond the Board + Christopher Hitchens Stands Trial + New Orleans’ SuperFail + Prison Prep School + Sports Authority + Guns? Don’t Wait for Congress—or Godot + The Second Amendment vs. the First + Right-Wingers, Failed Leaders and Media Stars Jockey for Israeli Votes [WEB_Donate3.gif] Read this next Programmed for Primetime [Splash_ITT3.jpg] IFRAME: https://app.e2ma.net/app/view:Join/signupId:1427294/acctId:1408314 In these times. With liberty and justice for all... * ABOUT US * NEWSLETTERS * CONTACT US * LOG IN * REPRINTS * ARCHIVES * SUBMISSIONS * DONATE * LEAVE A LEGACY * SPONSORSHIPS * ADVERTISE * PRESS * PRIVACY POLICY * SUBSCRIBE * GIVE A GIFT * INTERNSHIPS/JOBS COPYRIGHT ©2012 IN THESE TIMES AND THE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Sites of Interest: Online Casino Roulette • Download Youtube • Convert Youtube Mp3 • Casinos • online roulette • Quantcast