28
   

Can we talk about feminism?

 
 
panzade
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Aug, 2013 04:59 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Ms. Cyrus' routine fits into a discussion of feminism about as well as Michael Jackson's crotch-grabbing dances would have fit into a discussion of men's rights.


This is rare, but I think you're missing something here.
Ms Cyrus celebration of her sexuality was very much in line with Mr Jackson's celebration of his masculinity.

Feminism can be about acting tawdry if one wants without men and women being shocked or her asking to be raped.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Aug, 2013 05:45 pm
@panzade,
feminism has no interest in personal freedom to crotch grab, twerk, or put on sexy outfits to rev men up....feminists have a utopia to build, a species to reform, personal freedom just slows down the work.
panzade
 
  3  
Reply Tue 27 Aug, 2013 06:08 pm
@hawkeye10,
I don't know; sometimes I think you've been grinding that axe so long it's about the size of an X-Acto knife.
A woman's personal freedom to be feminine AND comfortable in her sexuality has been a long time coming.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Aug, 2013 07:16 pm
@panzade,
truth/not truth, that is were the knife cuts. I'll stop condemning the feminists when they stop attacking my sovereignty.
0 Replies
 
medium-density
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Aug, 2013 01:47 am
I'm not familiar with the bikini baristas story, but I do think this discussion is missing a more general point that may apply.

In a society which places much prurient interest in women's bodies it is understandable that women would utilise this level of interest since there are few other ways in which they can express themselves. If the prevailing view is that women are primarily sexualised creatures of course women will have to work within this cultural framework. This is why I believe this can be seen as a feminist issue.

I can't say to what extent cultural coercion might be in play with the baristas story, but let's just say it feels suspicious.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Aug, 2013 02:09 am
@medium-density,
Quote:
In a society which places much prurient interest in women's bodies it is understandable that women would utilise this level of interest since there are few other ways in which they can express themselves

says who? do you have any proof that women are stifled?
medium-density
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Aug, 2013 02:21 am
@hawkeye10,
One of the difficult things about this discussion is it concerns, to a large extent, things like attitudes and perceptions, which are hard to measure scientifically. Nevertheless I think it's fairly clear that we live in a patriarchal society which has made some progress since the first wave of feminism, but still has a long way to go.

Someone made the point earlier that many more women now complete degrees in things like the hard sciences. It seems to be true that women are more present now in educational systems (both as teachers and as students), but their presence is far more marginal when you look at employment rates by gender in science, and particularly engineering. This is true I think at least for my own country (the UK), but I'm sure this or something similar would be true for other nations.

This is one concrete example that comes to mind. However if you don't accept that women are, in the main, over-sexualised by this culture then I don't expect we'll agree much here.

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Aug, 2013 02:21 am
@boomerang,
Those are cogent observations. I like the question of whether or not male models are being exploited because they are not paid as well. These questions are far more complex than they appear on the surface.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Aug, 2013 04:15 am
@medium-density,
considering how much trouble guys I know have getting blow-jobs the argument that women are over sexualized is a massive stretch.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Aug, 2013 06:10 am
@hawkeye10,
that may say more about the guys you know than anything else
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Aug, 2013 07:19 am
@ehBeth,
Yeah, and the fact they sit around talking about it.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Aug, 2013 08:02 am
@panzade,
Quote:
Ms Cyrus celebration of her sexuality was very much in line with Mr Jackson's celebration of his masculinity.

I think we see this differently, panzade.

I'm not even going to comment on Michael Jackson's crotch-grabbing as being "a celebration of his masculinity". Laughing

From what I saw of Cyrus' performance, which wasn't all that much, I wouldn't consider it a "celebration of her sexuality" and I don't think it necessarily expressed anything about her personal sexuality. It was a deliberately crafted performance that included lewd, vulgar, exaggerated, and somewhat tasteless gestures and movements, that was designed to push the envelope and shock--it was meant to get attention, and buzz, and propel Cyrus into the adult big leagues of female entertainers in that sphere of the music world, where that type of hyper-sexualized performance has become increasingly de rigeur.

An article I read referred to this as the "sexual hazing" of female pop stars--and it's not something that their male counterparts are expected to do.
Quote:
Miley Cyrus, twerking, and the 'sexual hazing' of American pop stars

The vision of Miley Cyrus twerking on stage at the MTV Video Music awards might have caused outrage, but such performances have become a rite of passage for young female artists.
By Harry Bruinius,
August 27, 2013

Miley Cyrus twerked her way into a cultural maelstrom Sunday, after her tongue-wagging sexual prancing at MTV’s Video Music Awards made her the talk of nearly everyone with an Internet connection.

Yet even as millions of viewers continue to watch and rewatch her VMA performance on YouTube – there have been more than 7 million hits since Sunday night – Ms. Cyrus may have uncovered more than her flesh-colored bikini costume, laying bare as much about contemporary culture as about the young artist herself.

It's a clash straight from the pages of Sigmund Freud: a deeply-rooted desire to gaze on sexual images – of women in particular – while at the same time cluck-clucking about the moral standards of the female performing. This moral ambivalence has become part of what some scholars call a well-rehearsed pop ritual: a female pop star comes of age by becoming an exaggerated sexual caricature, exploiting the moral controversy her performance generates for financial gain. In other words, sex always sells, in the end.

Cyrus’s performance was, in many ways, one of the most explicit and raunchy performances ever seen on MTV – and that is saying a great deal. Coming onstage first in a small, skin-tight leotard, Cyrus performed her summer hit “We Can’t Stop,” a song that celebrates “twerking,” the name for a hip-hop-inspired club dance in which a woman bounces her hips up and down to emphasize her derriere.

She was then joined by Robin Thicke, an R&B artist whose smash hit “Blurred Lines” has also generated controversy this summer, since its video includes nude models dancing around fully dressed men, who sing “I hate these blurred lines; I know you want it, but you’re a good girl.” Cyrus danced and twerked and used a foam “No. 1” finger prop to simulate a variety of lewd acts on Mr. Thicke.

Her performance has obviously tweaked a cultural nerve. The gape-inducing spectacle even made pop stars – no strangers to push-it-to-the-edge performances, to be sure – bulge their eyes and cover their mouths. And many of them joined groups like the Parents Television Council and other conservative leaders to condemn the former Disney superstar.

But Cyrus is certainly not the first pop singer to provoke controversy at the VMAs. In fact, the annual award show has become known as a kind of debutante’s ball marking the end of a female star’s age of innocence.

Madonna removed parts of her white wedding dress costume and writhed on the VMA stage singing “Like a Virgin” almost 30 years ago. Britney Spears invoked Madonna in her 2001 performance of “I’m a Slave 4 U,” dancing suggestively with a live albino Burmese python – and leaving her school girl outfits behind.

And both performers shocked VMA audiences in another allusion to Madonna’s 1984 performance, when the Material Girl herself dressed as a top-hatted groom and “married” Ms. Spears and Christina Aguilera at the 2003 show – the lasting image being an iconic and explicit kiss between Madonna and Spears.

“On one hand, it is a rite of passage for young women in the popular entertainment industry,” says Gordon Coonfield, professor of media studies at Villanova University in Philadelphia and an expert on pop culture. “Some big event gets co-opted by a salacious performance that pushes the bounds of propriety. This is followed by a reaction phase in which images and talk of the event go viral. More buzz is generated by a completely predictable backlash of moral outrage.”

But the ritual comes at a cost to society's view of femininity, Professor Coonfield says. “Cyrus comes of age under the public eye. And the only kind of womanhood that public seems to permit these young people is that of a grotesquely exaggerated femininity, one that is hyper-sexualized and one that demands and relishes their humiliation.”

It’s the kind of blurred lines that pop songs have long celebrated – think of Billy Joel’s 1977 hit “Only the Good Die Young,” in which the singer tries to coax a “good” Catholic girl to give up her virtue. But once she does, she becomes an object of scorn.

“Our cultural ambivalence towards women shows up every day in the form of the sexual double standard,” says Kathleen Bogle, professor of sociology at La Salle University in Philadelphia. “But periodically our cultural angst goes public when we react to Madonna, Christina Aguilera, Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus or whoever the flavor of the month is at that time. What all these women have in common is finding a formula that simultaneously outrages the public while filling their personal bank accounts.”

So the double standard is caught up in an economic matrix that bestows riches and fame on those pop stars who can cleverly play on these cultural ambivalences, creating another layer, often unseen, to the moral outrage on display now towards Cyrus.

“Miley Cyrus is exploited because she’s a young woman who’s only valued sexually, but at the same time she’s representative of an exploiting group, because she’s a white person who’s essentially using African-American cultural output to amplify her own money and power. And Madonna was similar in some ways,” says Aram Sinnreich, professor of media studies at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., and an expert on the intersection of music and social networking.

“But that’s part of what makes her so compelling and so interesting,” Professor Sinnreich adds. “You don’t know whether she’s the exploiter or the exploited.... She's straddling all those dichotomous positions at once, which maximizes the tension, which ultimately maximizes the marketing value."

Yet Cyrus went beyond the typical Madonna-Britney-Christina template for the coming-out pop ritual for young female artists. And this may also explain some of the vehemence of those now condemning her. With her cropped hair and her appropriation of twerking – commonly seen as an underground club dance by black women – Cyrus touched even more cultural ambivalences.

“Rather than donning the typical tropes of sexy femaleness – blond hair, tight dress – Miley was almost grotesque, with her teddy-bear leotard and ever-present tongue,” says Alice Marwick, professor of communications and media studies at Fordham University in New York. “While she was dressed skimpily and groped her co-star Robin Thicke and her backup dancers, this type of aggressive sexuality doesn't fit the mold.”

“In both her VMAs performance and the 'We Can't Stop' video, Miley appropriates urban black culture ... to try to distance herself from her former Disney roots – but also her roots in red-state country music,” says Professor Marwick.

In the end, however, this pop ritual is reserved for young women.

“Justin Timberlake didn't have to endure this kind of sexual hazing to become a serious adult male artist,” says Coonfield at Villanova. “And can you imagine Justin Bieber engaging in a humiliating, hyper-sexualized display like this in order to transition from boy pop to artist?”

“It is convenient to blame the tabloid press,” he says. “But ... we participate by taking pleasure in this ritual. So while it may be tempting to blame Cyrus, or her handlers, or MTV, this really goes much deeper.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2013/0827/Miley-Cyrus-twerking-and-the-sexual-hazing-of-American-pop-stars


Quote:
Feminism can be about acting tawdry if one wants without men and women being shocked or her asking to be raped.

Feminism is about female equality and equal rights and equal opportunity for women. That's really the essence of feminism.

Yes, women can act as tawdry as men--actually they could always do that if they wanted to. Feminism has nothing to do with dictating that people not be "shocked"--the prevailing cultural attitudes and sexual mores determine whether people are "shocked", feminists might simply argue that there is no reason that the same behaviors should be any more shocking when they exhibited by women rather than men--there shouldn't be a double standard in how we view the same behaviors.
Quote:
A woman's personal freedom to be feminine AND comfortable in her sexuality has been a long time coming.

I think that, for a woman, being comfortable in your sexuality primarily means the freedom to engage in sexual behaviors, and to enjoy the expression of one's sex drive, and the pleasures of sexual satisfaction, to the same degree as a man. And that freedom for women was greatly enhanced by the Women's Movement, the "sexual revolution" and the development of oral contraceptives. We still have a double standard though because we tend to see a sexually active female with many partners as being promiscuous or "slutty" while her male counterpart is considered a "stud" or a lady-killer.

I don't know how much physical displays of boobs or crotches have to do with being "comfortable in your sexuality" for women. How much one wants to display publicly is dependent on many factors other than that, and there are certainly times a very sexual woman might not want to encourage such unwanted attention, as a sexual object, from strangers. I also think that the need to "display your wares" is a reaction to what men want, what they want to see, and I'm not sure that actually reflects how women feel about their sexuality, or how they'd really like to express it.

The bikini baristas, for instance, may be comfortable with their bodies, and with having people look at them, but I'm not sure that means they are really comfortable with their sexuality, or that they really enjoy sex. They are just using their bodies, and being sexually provocative, to help them earn a living, and that's what Cyrus was doing too.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Aug, 2013 08:27 am
@medium-density,
Quote:
In a society which places much prurient interest in women's bodies it is understandable that women would utilise this level of interest since there are few other ways in which they can express themselves.

If the prevailing view is that women are primarily sexualised creatures of course women will have to work within this cultural framework.


I don't buy this argument at all. Do you want women to be desexualized?

Sexuality is not only a natural part of human existence, it is essential for our survival. We evolved as a species this way, that men and women are physically attracted to each other. You can call this "prurient"... but it is part of being human.

The societies that try to prevent sexual attraction tend to be the most repressive. There are societies that cover a woman up from head to toe to keep any sexual attraction from taking place. Personally, I wouldn't care to live in such a society.

In a free society, you are naturally going to have "prurient interest". When I see an attractive woman, there is a natural reaction... a good feeling. I don't worry about this, it something wired into my brain by ten thousand years of evolution.

In my opinion, trying to stop humans from being human always makes things worse.

ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Aug, 2013 08:27 am
@firefly,
Answering re a page three post of yours, firefly - I got that boomer found the local Portland outrage new, since Portland seems fine with lots of naked parades and whatever.

Not that outrage is some strikingly new phenomenon all over the place.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Aug, 2013 08:50 am
@medium-density,
Woman are over-sexualized in our culture--certainly by the media and the advertising world, and, I think, to a considerably greater extent than men--because we've become so comfortable with using sexually "objectified" images of females to sell consumer and media products.

I didn't know that in some Scandinavian countries they have prohibited sexist advertising for some time. I just came across this article today.
Quote:
Scandinavian split on sexist ads
By Stephanie Holmes
BBC News
25 April 2008

Sweden has decided not to ban sexist advertising, saying it would risk undermining the country's cherished right to freedom of speech.

But in Denmark, where similar guidelines have been in place since 1993, some firms are ready to exploit the additional free publicity they will get from being highlighted.

Denmark's advertising ombudsman recounts a recent example of a male underwear company which was forced to withdraw adverts portraying women in low-paid jobs, after outrage from several trade unions.

One ad in the series showed a nurse lying on a bed with the male underpants covering her face, implying that she had just had sex with a patient.

"People in these different occupations already have problems with sexual discrimination," says ombudsman Henrik Oe. "You cannot play on the male fantasy that a patient can have sex with a nurse just to sell a product."

"These areas of employment are already ones where women are already vulnerable to sexual harassment," he added.

Both Norway and Denmark are keen to emphasise that their advertising limits do not prevent freedom of speech, stifle creativity or mean that there is never a beautiful naked human form on display.

In Denmark, Mr Oe says, many advertisers are becoming increasingly creative, using humour to stretch the boundaries and appeal to Danish consumers.

He says he receives only around 10 complaints about sexist advertising each year and that firms normally remove the offending images quickly.

From Oslo, Ms Olving says: "We're not that puritan that you can't have naked bodies. But it has to be done in the right way, with charm and passion."

But the decision puts the country at odds with its Nordic neighbours. Norway and Denmark have strict limits on the use of such images for commercial gain.

In Norway, sexist advertising has been banned since 2003. The ban forms part of a much broader package of legal limits on advertising, protecting the depiction of religion, sexuality, race and gender.

"Basically, if something is offensive or it makes the viewer feel uncomfortable when they look at it, it shouldn't be done", explained Sol Olving, head of Norway's Kreativt Forum, an association of the country's top advertising agencies.

"Naked people are wonderful, of course, but they have to be relevant to the product. You could have a naked person advertising shower gel or a cream, but not a woman in a bikini draped across a car."

Norwegian firms that refuse to remove or alter offensive adverts after having a complaint upheld face a hefty fine of 500,000 Norwegian kroner (£49,000; 62,500 euros).

But Ms Olving says there were no complaints about the law from advertisers, who have learnt to come up with less obvious ways of persuading consumers to part with their cash.

Sweden, however, despite commissioning a special government rapporteur to look into the matter, is not following the legal professor's advice that freedom of speech does not extend to commercial messages and limits are needed.
"This law would be against freedom of speech, which is protected by the constitution," said Malin Engstedt, spokesperson for Equality Minister Nyamko Sabuni.

"The minister is not convinced that this law would improve things," she added.

Ms Engstedt said the Swedish government was confident that efforts made by the country's advertisers themselves - including the introduction of an ombudsman similar to Denmark's to oversee adverts - would be more effective.

"They are more than capable of finding other ways of advertising their products," she said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7365722.stm


I don't know whether I agree with the need to have laws to prohibit sexist advertising, or would want such laws here, but I certainly support the attitude they are trying to promote by discouraging sexist advertising.

Sexism and embracing sexuality are quite different, the latter can be promoted without resorting to the former.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  3  
Reply Wed 28 Aug, 2013 11:32 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
I don't buy this argument at all. Do you want women to be desexualized?


I think that you are missing the point, Max. As Setanta said, these issues are exceedingly complex.

Just as the Civil Rights movement hasn't really been able to effect changes in those deep fundamental notions of race, so too, the women's liberation movement hasn't been able to effect changes in those deep fundamental notions of women.

You're looking at this on a personal level and I'll suggest MD has described this on a societal level.
0 Replies
 
medium-density
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Aug, 2013 04:38 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
We evolved as a species this way, that men and women are physically attracted to each other. You can call this "prurient"... but it is part of being human.


I did not and do not call basic sexual attraction prurient, that would of course be anti-human.

Quote:
There are societies that cover a woman up from head to toe to keep any sexual attraction from taking place.


I hate to make a cheap point but can't we dare to dream of a society where the aesthetic ideal for women's dress exists somewhere between the bikini and the burqa? Or one in which no such ideal is pressed upon that gender?

Quote:
When I see an attractive woman, there is a natural reaction... a good feeling.


I'm not much concerned with your reactions to attractive women as an individual, more with how society exhibits an over-emphasis on attractiveness when it comes to women, and the effect this over-emphasis has on women and men.

Quote:
I don't worry about this, it something wired into my brain by ten thousand years of evolution.


This reads like advocacy for a social darwinist position. Surely that's unintentional?

Quote:
In my opinion, trying to stop humans from being human always makes things worse.


So our natures are insuperable and all social progress is a hopeless, even exacerbating endeavour ? What of the stigma that is attached to many forms of racist behaviour nowadays? Would you have been arguing the case for an unimproveably racist humanity in the 1960s at the time of the civil rights movement in the US?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Aug, 2013 05:10 pm
First of all, it's a mistake to assume that all or most women who exploit their sexuality are clever businesswomen who are taking advantage of natural resources and a huge market.

Those who are, are OK by me, but interview a hundred strippers and you will find a whole lot who have a history of sexual abuse. Interview a hundred prostitutes and you will find even more. There are very few women who become prostitutes because they can make money doing something that feels good.

As far Miley Cyrus, she is a sad case. If anyone thinks she is a smart young businesswoman charting a path to artistic success and great wealth, I have some swampland to sell you.

As far as I'm concerned she should be free to perform an act involving crude sexual pantomime, but why would she, and why would anyone think it entertaining, let alone an artistic expression?

Raw, vulgar sexuality can only be artistic in the most narrow of contexts. It isn't art because some pathetic girl and idiotic enablers say it is.

There wasn't anything erotic about her performance. It didn't offend my sense of propriety as much as it sadly seemed desperate. That anyone encouraged her to debase herself in this way is disgusting.

Can she do it? Obviously.

Did it diminish her? Perhaps not financially but in other ways.

She's a slow motion train wreck in progress. The next Brittany, Lindsay etc. introducing feminism into her equation diminishes feminism.

It's a dubious achievement for women celebrities to spectacularly crash and burn with the same frequency as their male counterparts.

It's all about the mind behind the action.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Aug, 2013 07:46 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Give the kid a break, Finn. Her dad is what's his face. Smile
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Aug, 2013 08:56 pm
@medium-density,
1. What is wrong with a society where women are free to dress as they choose. A woman should be allowed to choose whether she wants to wear a burkha or a bikini or something in between (ironically in the US there is much more prejudice against women who choose burkhas).

No one in the US is being forced to wear a bikini.

2. You are confusing biological evolution with social darwinism. Saying that something has been wired into my brain by a million years of evolution is a statement about biology. It has nothing to do with social darwinism.

3. You are confusing a social interaction between two consenting adults with a non-consensual abuse of privilege. A woman who chooses to flirt with a man is not equivalent to racism. A woman who flaunts her sexuality to a willing audience is a voluntary interaction between two consenting adults. Any woman or man has the right to enjoy flirty behavior with a willing partner.

 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 02:08:15