Feminism is about choice. Sometimes I think if I repeat that enough, people will get it. This time I’ll let another blogger repeat it for me, since I think she’s spot on:
Feminism (at least my brand) doesn’t oppose sexiness, but it opposes compulsory sexiness.
It’s the difference between putting on makeup to look like your slutty fantasy, and putting on makeup to leave the house. Between wearing heels because they make your ass tight and your legs long, and wearing heels because they’re in your dress code. Between smiling at a sexy stranger and having “hey honey, why aincha smiling” yelled at you. Between having sex because your pussy is wet and your muscles are quivering, and having sex because it’s time to put out.
And I’d go further and say it’s also the difference between being a sex worker because that’s a legitimate career option, and being a sex worker because it’s the only way you can eat. It’s the difference between sexified female bodies being used as porn, and them being used as decorations and advertisements. Maybe most importantly, it’s the difference between women being taken seriously when they talk about sexuality, and women not being taken seriously when they’re not sexy enough.
And I’d add that the opposite is also true. It’s the difference between dressing modestly because it’s comfortable or keeps you warm, and dressing modestly to avoid being jailed or raped because you were “asking for it.” Between liking football and Grand Theft Auto because they entertain you, and liking football and Grand Theft Auto because you don’t want to dare to have stereotypically “girly” hobbies. Between forgoing makeup because you’re too lazy in the morning and forgoing makeup because otherwise you won’t be taken seriously at work. Between choosing nerdy t-shirts because you think they’re funny, and choosing nerdy t-shirts because your friends will heckle you if you wear anything feminine.
Compulsory anti-sexiness is not the solution to compulsory sexiness. There’s not one right way to be a woman.
221 comments
Lindsay says:
Dec 1, 2010
Oh my world that’s mindboggling. I understand the FemSoc’s position on the bar crawl (as in, *why* they’d take the mindset, not why it’s actually a sensible one to hold) but vying for unisex toilets at the same time?! Talk about two agendas that are straight up polar opposites. If they’re that seriously devoted to putting an end to rape culture, then why would they want unisex bathrooms at all? (That’s one of the larger concerns about them, in fact.) That literally makes zero sense.To be fair, vying for unisex bathrooms isn’t making up an issue. It’s a very real issue for individuals who don’t identify as their biological sex, are intersex, are genderqueer, are trans, and pretty much anyone and everyone who isn’t cisgender. Getting away from the Stick Man/Stick Woman bathroom dichotomy would be a helpful step, actually. But that’s still some horrible inconsistency right there.
April says:
Dec 1, 2010
Right on.”Choice,” for all its theoretical simplicity, seems to hold about as much weight with anti-feminists, or those very new to, and skeptical of, feminism as a bucket of feathers. It seems like this is the most frequently ignored basic tenant of feminism– although, in reality, it is the single most important tenant. One thing I’d add is that in order to make a choice and have it be a good one, it needs to be informed. Dressing sexy because it feels compulsory is obviously not dressing sexy because a woman has made the choice to do so; providing women with the knowledge and critical thinking skills required to make such decisions is the best way to go.For example, I know a lot of women who feel empowered when they dress in sexually provocative ways. This is something I don’t quite understand, in terms of the reasons why some women feel this empowerment. For one thing, we’re constantly told we must, so how do we know how much of our decisions are based on a nagging, albeit minimal, sense of compulsion or socialization, and what is purely a choice that we make of our own volition?It seems to me that that’s up to the individual to decide. I only wish that more people digged a bit deeper before making these decisions to investigate exactly why they’re making them. They may not be as “free” of a choice as it initially feels like it is.
Elaine says:
Dec 1, 2010
Obvious troll is obvious.
Egoistpaul says:
Dec 1, 2010
Yeah. Safety net means punishing the achievers and rewarding the “less fortunate.” At the end, you’ll drive achievers outside the country.Unions are for people who want to collect money without working hard, i.e. lazy people. When a hard working person joins a unionized work force, they will become less and less willing to work hard. As time passes, their spirit will be killed and become a lazy person, just like what happens in a communist country.
Azkyroth says:
Dec 1, 2010
(Since comments won’t nest)Oh, christ, not THIS shit again.
jimmyboy99 says:
Dec 1, 2010
I’ll call you an arsehole if you behave like one. And you did – and carried on. Arsehole.Paul Lin, are you a libetarian?Where did I say that the treatment was free? If you are going to be offensive (and you are) at least read the fucking post.The British NHS delivers medical treatment as needed, free at the point of delivery. It’s not always fantastic but it is really not bad. For acute situations it is fantastic. So I didn’t say the treatment my son had was free: I said we didn’t pay for it. And fairly clearly I meant we didn’t pay for it directly.Are you a dick as well as an arsehole?Are you suggesting I am lying? My story is replicated every day in hospitals all over bad old Europe where we provide medicine free at the point of delivery. Which means it’s universally available.So fuck off with your ‘don’t believe the story’. When I tell a lie, you can call me on it, Troll, with evidence.And by the way: the cost to the nation is generally considered to be about 25% of what US medicine costs because it is evidence based, not insurance driven. And we provide medication on a needs basis to all – and we are deeply proud of it.And let’s look at that racism:”Whenever Americans do something, Canadians have to follow but change whatever it is in order to differentiate themselves from the Americans. If you live in Canada long enough, you’ll see this phenomenon every day. There is no such thing as a Canadian. There is no Canadian-ness. Canadians are just a bunch of people who are too similar to Americans but try really hard not to be Americans.”Offensive generalisations about a whole nation? Sounds about as good a definition of racist as you can get. What planet do you live on Paul? Is it the planet of Richandprivileged by any chance?Moving onto the stupidity of your generalisations about unions.Fuck it – why am I bothering? You are a troll. Go and educate yourself.
jimmyboy99 says:
Dec 1, 2010
And Paul Lin:”The purpose of my original comment is to point out that defining something in term of the opposite of another is a form of nihilism. “Who cares what the purpose of your comments are if you couch them in racist, bigoted terms?
EdenBunny says:
Dec 1, 2010
You obviously didn’t choose sex work as your vocation, and if you had, my guess is that your reason would not have been a preference for that kind of work over filing.If a person with a preference for sex work over filing were kidnapped and forced to file, she/he might well find it less pleasant than being kidnapped and raped. Not everyone shares your values, your fears, or your preferences.Your comparison is not a fair one anyway, as sex work need not include intercourse, nor be illegal to be chosen purely for economic reasons. If you were kidnapped and made to dance naked in front of men (filtered by bouncers for good health and respectable dress, etc.) who strongly appreciated it and respected you for it, would that really suck more than being kidnapped and made to do filing work for an abusive boss and a political cause that you disagreed with? If it would, are you really that certain that your opinion is even the majority opinion, much less one universally held by women? Even when sex work does include sexual intercourse, admittedly there are more risks involved than exist in a filing job, but as mentioned before by myself and others, there are many non-sex-related jobs that are as risky as prostitution or even more so, depending on a number of parameters. Certainly there are worst case scenarios where death or severe disability is practically 100% guaranteed, but that holds true for some “legitimate” jobs as well, when management is unconcerned about worker safety.And of course, the whole “to pay the bills and feed yourself” issue is irrelevant anyway, which is what started this whole thread. If your reasons for taking the job are purely economic, whether you like the job or not, you are not being coerced unless the law or societal pressure prohibits you from acquiring, e.g., a filing job and allows sex work, which is clearly not the case here in America (as you’ve proven) or any other place that I can think of. Even where the worst human rights violations against women exist, sex work is not societally endorsed over housework. In fact, the only places I can think of where it is societally endorsed at all are the places where women are least abused both socially and legally.Every job has its own set of risks, unpleasant tasks, and practical disadvantages. Filing is no more or less different from prostitution than it is from working in a chemical waste disposal facility, or pumping gas and breathing in the fumes all day, or working behind the counter of a 24-hour bodega in a high crime neighborhood. Filing is no more or less different from modeling nude for porn than it is from modeling nude for a class of art students, or acting fully clothed as a socially inept dad in an automobile commercial, or performing in a character costume or clown outfit at children’s parties. As for myself, I probably wouldn’t choose any form of sex work as a full-time job, but I would strongly prefer being kidnapped and forced to dance naked for appreciative women (even if they were unattractive) to being kidnapped and forced to perform my office skills for an abusive boss or a political cause I disagree with (even if the boss was an attractive female). -And if I were neutrally bisexual instead of heterosexual, the sex of the persons in the former scenario would not matter.
Sam Barnett-Cormack says:
Dec 1, 2010
See, I gave up feeding the troll once I was sure that’s what I was doing. But I can see why you felt moved to call him on it, given your story.
Sam Barnett-Cormack says:
Dec 1, 2010
One can be societally coerced into something that is socially not endorsed. This is what happens in a lot of western prostitution, in fact. Prostitution is, fundamentally, something most women are ‘qualified’ to do. Men as well, to be fair. So, where there is insufficient social safety net, or people slip through it, they have to do *something* to live, and they are unable to get a legitimate, socially endorsed job quickly enough, that’s what happens. It’s a remaining feature of our sexist society that women are generally more likely to end up in that position.
Sam Barnett-Cormack says:
Dec 1, 2010
And that’s exactly the kind of thing I was talking about with the people who ran some of the femsocs I’ve seen, particularly Lancaster FemSoc about 8-9 years ago… they still did some good stuff, ran annual V-day Vagina Monologues productions for some time, including the problematic period… but they also tilted at a lot of windmills.
Sam Barnett-Cormack says:
Dec 1, 2010
But how sure can anyone be as to how much anyone else has thought about it?Also, questioning how much your own feelings are due to socialisation and comfort of subtle compliance will eventually do your head in. Trust me.
EdenBunny says:
Dec 1, 2010
(Actually in response to Sam Barnett-Cormack…)“One can be societally coerced into something that is socially not endorsed.”Certainly, as long as you play fast and loose with the definition of the word “societally” and/or the word “socially” and/or the word “coerced” and/or the word “endorsed”.Yes, society can have conflicting values but that is not what this thread is talking about. This thread is talking about what whether an economic limitation simply by definition (i.e. not with any specific cause) constitutes a social restriction of freedom in and of itself.“This is what happens in a lot of western prostitution, in fact.“Western prostitution is usually, if not always, a choice. Almost always a bad one, often resulting from drug addiction, but a choice just the same. (Yes, I’m aware that “white slavery” –probably a misnomer today, as blacks are probably no less vulnerable to it- exists here, but again, that is not what this article or this thread is talking about.)“Prostitution is, fundamentally, something most women are ‘qualified’ to do. Men as well, to be fair.”Not most men. The reason has nothing to do with social endorsement or coercion, or at least not recently.The reason is purely supply and demand, for evolutionary reasons. (The same fact applies to most forms of sex work.) Technically, it might be accurate to say that it is, at least partially, due to sexual abuse of females by males throughout our very early history, before the concept of human rights even existed. In fact it might even still be happening in the patriarchal extremely religious communities. (The idea is that women need to be sexually attractive more than men do to pass on genes, and need less to desire men, both of these facts being due to the irrelevance of whether the woman wants sex and the strong relevance of whether the male wants sex.) But again, that is not what this thread is talking about either. “So, where there is insufficient social safety net, or people slip through it, they have to do *something* to live, and they are unable to get a legitimate, socially endorsed job quickly enough, that’s what happens.”That is what this thread is talking about, and it is not a sexist issue; if anything, the woman is favored by having the option of selling her body where the man of equal skills has, well, nothing. It is not a lack of freedom for women, but a freedom that men don’t have, and it is the precisely the same freedom that exists in the case where a woman chooses it because it is a legitimate career choice. It is one of nature’s penalties for sexism, a penalty which, incidentally, has probably been around since long before the beginning of civilization, earning it the title of the “world’s oldest profession”.(Actually inaccurate; the world’s oldest profession probably at some point involved the use of a heavy rock forcefully applied to the back of the head of another human who happened to have some desired property, which at that time might well have included one or more female mates…)“It’s a remaining feature of our sexist society that women are generally more likely to end up in that position.”No, it’s a remaining feature of our sexist society that women are likely to end up legally unprotected, and in fact, legally persecuted in that position. That is patriarchal society trying desperately to avoid one of nature’s penalties for sexism.
Sam Barnett-Cormack says:
Dec 1, 2010
(replying to EdenBunny’s reply to me…)Points considered in no particular order…Women are more likely to end up in that position than men because they are, statistically, less employable. As to why that is, it’s a very complex question, but it is generally accepted in most discussions I’ve seen. Unskilled labour jobs go to men more readily, for example. However, I will agree that it’s bad that women who end up in that position, by choice or not, without legal protection and with legal persecution. That’s just crazy on the part of society. If prostitution is going to exist (and let’s face it, it is), then it’s better for client, provider and society as a whole for there to be safe venues, safe practices, tailored healthcare, and so on.I do think that the view that all prostitution is by choice (is any sense but sophistry) in the west is as blinkered as the idea that none is. Yes, ultimately every prostitute who hasn’t been “enslaved” has, at some point, made a decision to do that. However, the alternative is usually things that people wouldn’t consider, such as death by starvation and/or exposure. Claiming that is a choice is just sophistry.I also didn’t mean that men could all find adequate work as prostitutes, I just meant that everyone (bar strange exceptions) has the essential qualifications. Your digression in response to this seems to imply that you assume that all punters would be the opposite gender to the prostitute.I think that covered the points that most got to me…
katalina says:
Dec 1, 2010
I’ve always taken a lot of pleasure in being able to “work the system” so to speak… in school taking tests, in playing along with my religious family, in knowing that how we present ourselves in public affects our opportunities, etc. While it’s maybe not overt, understanding the “system” and using it to my advantage has been something I’ve enjoyed since I was a child. It is its own form of power, in my opinion.
G.Syme says:
Dec 2, 2010
(In response to Sam, mostly)But the first point still hasn’t been addressed – the distinction between sex-work and literally every other profession hinges on some metaphysical belief that having sex is somehow worse than, say, gutting fish. It assumes, then, that this distinction is not the product of a patriarchal, obsessively sex-negative society but rather some supernatural force for which we have no evidence – simply the convenience of not having to face our own irrational distaste for those who make money off their body IN A SEXUAL WAY.
Lindsay says:
Dec 2, 2010
If you have the ability to use “the system” to your advantage, it’s good that you do it. Really. But not every person has that ability, and it’s usually the more marginalized ends of society that lack it, which is why “the system” is incredibly problematic. Since you mention school tests, I’ll use that as an example: standardized tests are incredibly biased pieces of crap that skew toward traditional white middle-to-upper class values, starting as early as the children’s IQ test that they administer in primary school and continuing as far as the LSAT. If nothing else, tests are done in standardized English, which puts dialect speakers AND ESL speakers at an immediate disadvantage.So yes, like I said above, if you can work “the system,” by all means do it, but that shouldn’t really put the brakes on trying to actually achieve the closest thing to equality, especially since you’re exercising that (very real) power of yours.
Lindsay says:
Dec 2, 2010
Well, one way to be sure is to actually engage with that person in an honest, open conversation. They’ll do wonders. But, of course, we shouldn’t automatically assume that choices don’t have thought behind them. That’s why the conversation is important.And I’m going to respectfully disagree with your second point. Yes, you can over-think *anything*, but analyzing your motives is not an instant headache or mindboggle in the making. For me, thinking about why I feel the way I do has been a rewarding process that helped me come to feminism *and* atheism, actually.
Sam Barnett-Cormack says:
Dec 2, 2010
I agree with your first point, and with your second… I was a little unclear. By “eventually” I meant “if you keep on doing it about one point hoping for a clear answer”. I my first- and second- hand experiences, you don’t generally every get clear answers when analysing your own motives. Even with therapy. You can get good insights, though.
Sam Barnett-Cormack says:
Dec 2, 2010
(In response to G.Syme)My argument, possibly stemming from my increasing identity as a social scientist, and a surprisingly qualitatively-oriented one at that, is that the source of the belief/feeling isn’t as important as the fact it exists. Just because people feel a certain way about something for reasons that might be considered “bad” doesn’t mean you should ignore them.For example, crazy Christians get upset when people write, say, plays in which Christ is homosexual. You’d be crazy not to try to do some PR to mitigate the problem. You’d be crazy to ignore the fact that Christians will be upset (even if you’re not somewhere like the US), particularly when it creates security concerns. You’d be crazy to, say, put the play on in the middle of a Christian festival in one of the more Christian-homogeneous areas of the midwest. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t put on the play. You can be sensitive without pandering.Thus, we should consider whether prostitution should be allowed on the basis of verifiable things, but one of the things that is verifiable is that it makes people uncomfortable. Thus, we should be cognisant of this in handling it. Don’t make it illegal because of it, because nothing should be illegal simply because of hard-to-define discomfort felt by some part of the community. I hold to the “no victim, no crime” idea, mostly, and where consensual prostitution goes on there is certainly no victim. The fact that people feel more bad about it, particularly applied as a hypothetical to themselves, means that we *should* make stronger steps to prevent and undo coercion into sex work.Bottom line: the fact people feel differently about it shouldn’t make things criminal that aren’t, but it should be seen as a worse form of existing crimes. Coercing people into anything is usually some sort of crime; coercing them into something that most people feel is degrading and dehumanising must be seen as worse, because the harm that a reasonable person would anticipate resulting from it is greater. That said, if a victim wants their own not-being-bothered-too-much to be taken into account, I figure it could be.However, this leaves aside the idea of social coercion – you can’t prosecute society (mores the pity). However, if we take the ideas above, meant for justice between individuals, and try to apply them to society, then we can see that social coercion into prostitution should be a bigger concern than other forms of social coercion (in the abstract) because the reasonable expectation is that it causes more harm in each individual case. The description of when this coercion occurs, and the justification of it occurring at the same time as societal disapproval of prostitution, was in earlier posts.
G.Syme says:
Dec 2, 2010
We’re not discussing whether prostitution should be legalised or banned outright – I find it abhorrent to even consider letting conditioned social opinion dictate legislation and people’s profession/lifestyle.I raised the question of whether there was any reason to oppose prostitution OTHER than conditioned social opinion. Since there hasn’t really been a compelling response to the contrary, I remain convinced that there is not. The delicate sensibilities of our family-values citizenry don’t enter into this – the issue is the social stigma against sexuality which marginalises those who make it their profession. To tolerate this stigma is to contribute to this marginalisation.If we’re so worried about people’s delicate feelings – enough to relegate those in a *legitimate profession* into danger, misery and shame – then maybe we should never draw Mohammed. Maybe we shouldn’t fight for gay marriage… maybe we should even build a time machine so we can ban interracial marriage and defeat those filthy liberal forces who seek to pervert our morally wholesome society.Or maybe we should harden the fuck up and make society work for the people who dwell within it, not their irrational and spiteful beliefs.
EdenBunny says:
Dec 2, 2010
(In response to Sam’s response to my response to Sam’s response…)(Points considered in the order in which they were given and addressed specifically so as to avoid ambiguity.)“Women are more likely to end up in that position than men because they are, statistically, less employable.” Granted. “As to why that is, it’s a very complex question…”Which is exactly why it cannot be automatically attributed to sexism. “Unskilled labour jobs go to men more readily, for example.”How many “unskilled” labor jobs include things that women are statistically less capable of for biological reasons. such as rapidly moving heavy boxes, or reaching high shelves without a stepladder? Other factors figure in as well, for both skilled and unskilled labor, such as a man’s inability to get pregnant or suffer PMS, the fact that women are statistically not as good at negotiating salary and work conditions (though this is changing; as to why this is relevant, salary of a previous job figures into employability), the fact that women are statistically far more likely to be single parents, and the fact that women are on average statistically slightly less educated than men (as of 2000 census). All of this is may be offset by the fact that women are statistically healthier than men, but if so, offset by how much? Sexism exists, but its economic role is probably dwarfed by natural conditions. As I pointed out previously, some of those natural conditions may have indeed have been caused by sexism throughout history, but that is not the subject of this thread.“However, I will agree that it’s bad that women who end up in that position, by choice or not, without legal protection and with legal persecution. That’s just crazy on the part of society.”No, it’s sexist as well. It is probably the sole clear-cut western civilization example of a situation in which an economic edict specifically directed at women still exists, with the exception of obsolete laws that are still on the books. I’m defining an obsolete law as one that is no longer enforced. They are numerous, and I’m sure plenty of them are sexist, but I’m preemptively pointing out that they are not relevant to this discussion.“…Yes, ultimately every prostitute who hasn’t been “enslaved” has, at some point, made a decision to do that. However, the alternative is usually things that people wouldn’t consider, such as death by starvation and/or exposure…”…or worse, working in some low level minimum wage job and having (ecch!) roommates, and accepting charity from soup kitchens, and applying for government help, and doing other things that are just not fun at all…or, in many cases, discontinuing the use expensive recreational drugs, which just isn’t an option when you’re addicted, and everyone knows that the usual sole cause of drug addiction in women is sexism.“I also didn’t mean that men could all find adequate work as prostitutes, I just meant that everyone (bar strange exceptions) has the essential qualifications.”The essential qualifications are a body that is a saleable commodity, and the justified confidence that there is a high demand for it. No, not everyone has that. Not even every woman.“Your digression…Digression? Well, okay, I guess, as long as you define digression as addressing an errant statement head on, explaining why it is incorrect, or as referring to evolution in that explanation when posting to this Jen’s blog…“…in response to this seems to imply that you assume that all punters would be the opposite gender to the prostitute.”Not at all. You said “men”, not “boys”, so I figured I didn’t have to pre-emptively answer this argument. I must admit here that I was wrong to think that, so here we go… Women can do, and often still do, sex work even after reaching forty. Fifty or sixty is pushing it perhaps, but twenty is pushing it for men. In addition, the customer base is much, much smaller, even when you include in that customer base the small percentage of the population that is male, non-straight, and inclined to be a “punter” as you put it. Far fewer men than women are likely to find themselves in this line of work.When they do find themselves in this line of work, they are similarly persecuted and unprotected, but the law that causes it is obviously aimed at women, not men.And yet again, the subject of this thread is not whether sexism causes economic inequalities (it does). The issue is the errant assumption that the choice of prostitution (or of sexually provocative modeling or acting) as a vocation for one purely economic consideration is less socially coerced than any other (with the obvious irrelevant exceptions that I discussed elsewhere in this thread). It is not, and at no point have you given any valid reason for claiming that it is.A thing can be unpleasant, unjust, and widespread in effect without being an example of societal injustice. Such a thing can target women only without being an example of societal sexism (e.g. uterine cancer). In fact, in the original post that Jen referenced, the author talks about how sex that is forced in any way is just not sexy, and she is correct, but that extends into private relations that have nothing to do with sexism. If I promise my girlfriend that I will go down on her tonight if she washes the dishes even though it’s my turn, and then when we go to bed, I’m too tired but I force myself to anyway, she is not being sexist, even if I objected at first and she insisted. If the roles are reversed, it doesn’t change the nature of the situation itself regardless of what social constructs may have made the latter more probable than the former.If such social constructs exist (and they do), they should be attacked directly, rather than referred to by statement of effects to which they have only partially contributed, even if such partial contribution is the major part of the effect’s cause.We can argue forever about whether sexism is usually the major cause of a woman’s desperate economic choice of sex work, and although it’s pretty obvious that this is not the case, it is irrelevant to this argument. Blame sexism instead on the things for which it is inarguably and entirely responsible, and you’ll have much stronger arguments that will include its secondary effects as well.
Sam Barnett-Cormack says:
Dec 6, 2010
As a late-coming aside, another bit of choice-in-feminism discussion from the blogosphere: http://icbb2010.wordpress.com/…
Thuja says:
Dec 14, 2010
I am a guy who once called myself a “feminist”, but have recently become much more wary of using that label, since I’ve become aware of the downsides of feminist influence on many people in my generation. I am still open-minded about the “feminist” label and am very interested in dialog with self-described feminists..Most of the “Compulsive” examples offered here do not strike me as compulsive at all – they are not based on force, but rather social pressure and expectation (Sexy women being used in advertisements, what sort of women are taken seriously, pressure to wear or not wear make-up, etc). The post seems to suggest that these sorts of pressures should not exist, that people should be free of gender-based *expectations* and judgements of any kind. But without social pressures and judgements and expectations, there is no such thing as culture! The liberal sensibility that “people should be able to do whatever they want without being judged for it”, taken to it’s ultimate conclusion, results in a world where symbols have no meaning. If your choice to wear or not wear make-up will have no bearing on how people respond to you, then make-up will be irrelevant. Right now, you have the choice to conform completely to the tastes and sensibilities of those around you, and enjoy a quiet acceptance, or to shock and offend them by defying their expectations – Or choose anywhere in the range in between – perhaps you will inspire your friends to be more daring, or perhaps you will be the target of playful teasing for defying social norms. If social norms did not exist, then none of these exciting options would be open to you. It is a good thing that people respond differently to a skirt or pants – this enables individuals to express themselves, because it allows symbols to have meaning. When somebody verbalizes an expectation to you – “Hey Doll, why aincha’ smilin?” – you can choose how you want to react to that – would you like to sneer derisively and discount his expectation, warm up to his teasing flirting, or insult him back? There are infinite possibilities open to you. There is nothing compulsive in this interaction – this man’s comment provides a canvas onto which you can paint anything you want. The trouble I have with feminism is it makes this a political issue and proceeds to teach young boys that they should not have any expectations or judgements of women. I would happily teach my daughter a school of feminism that encourages her to pursue her calling in life regardless of what other people think. But I would not teach my son a school of feminism that makes him feel guilty for forming opinions of people based on their choices.
Sam Barnett-Cormack says:
Dec 14, 2010
Hooh, yeah, gotta keep those social expectations and those loaded meanings; gotta keep that bigoted behaviour and heteronormative assumptions – otherwise we’d have less opportunity to express ourselves. I use the first person plural here, by the way, as assumptions constrain men’s expression as well as women’s.Firstly, there’s plenty of symbols that have meaning without heteronormative assumptions. Language is a pretty good set of symbols, for starters. However, there’s also plenty of things no-one is arguing should cease to be symbols. In the feminist agenda, all that is sought to be disposed of is gender-biased symbolism, and in modern feminism stuff relating to sexuality and trans issues is usually thrown in as well. Other sorts of identity or privilege issue don’t usually have such an amazing relationship to attire, or for purely voluntary symbolisms in clothing (looking back a while, we can see beatniks, mods, rockers, punks, goths, metalheads, emos, cyber…) they tend to be something that, as long as not taken too seriously, doesn’t tend to have too heavy implication. Where people dress like that all the time then they usually know what the message is that they are conveying and are choosing to convey it, and it’s possible to dress in a way that conveys none of those messages.Secondly, people (male or female) should be able to wear skirts, trousers, makeup, and so forth without it causing judgements and assumptions about their gender identity, sexuality, promiscuity, and so on. They should be able to express what they want to express. For comparison, consider cities that have gang territories in them, where gangs also identify with a colour, and have rivalries. I understand this happens. I also understand that a person who has nothing to do with the gangs, at all, can end up getting shot for wearing a shirt in the colour of a gang that is a rival to the gang whose territory they are in. The shirt conveyed meaning that they didn’t intend, and likely didn’t understand. While the understanding may be greater with gender/sexuality implications of clothing, they’re still very much imperfect, meanings being contextual and varied. In both cases, people should be able to choose their attire for the meanings they see, and they choose, not be forced into a situation where they have no control over the meanings, except to pick from a limited range of hideously poorly defined and separated meanings.
Thuja says:
Dec 14, 2010
Thanks for your reply, Sam, and for clarifying the point about gender-based symbolism.I would argue that even sexual symbols are valuable and should not be thrown out. Fashion is one of the most powerful languages we have, and sexuality is one of the most important aspects of our identity. So the two tend to come together. I believe this is a good thing.”people (male or female) should be able to wear skirts, trousers, makeup, and so forth without it causing judgements and assumptions about their gender identity, sexuality, promiscuity, and so on. They should be able to express what they want to express.”If the people were to stop making assumptions about identity, sexuality, and promiscuity based on clothing choices, then the wearer would no longer be able to express any of these things via clothing. Clothing would cease to be a language for these things, which I think would be unfortunate because these are things that we need to communicate to each other somehow, and clothing is a much more elegant way to communicate with strangers than verbal language.I think your point about gang colours is a great example of the fact that symbols can have multiple, confusing, overlapping meanings. I agree completely, but that’s a reality of cultural life that we all must navigate. If we as individuals want to express ourselves through symbols, then we are interested in communicating with other people. In which case, we need to have some understanding of how other people will interpret our symbols. This comes only from sharing the same culture. Because communication is a social phenomenon, we have to be willing to accept the meanings that exist in the culture and use them to our liking. Eg:”people should be able to choose their attire for the meanings they see, and they choose, not be forced into a situation where they have no control over the meanings”Consider the equivalent of this statement for verbal language:people should be able to choose the sounds that come out of their mouth for the meanings they see, and they choose, not be forced into a situation where they have no control over the meanings.Well, people are allowed to make up their own language if they want, but if nobody else can interpret the meanings, then it won’t be very useful for communication. Personally, I accept that society has attributed meanings to words – this is a wonderful thing because it allows me to have a social life and the opportunities for personaly expression are very rich because I can choose which words I used based on what thoughts/ emotions I want to invoke in others. The same is true of fashion. If society did not have built-in interpretations for styles of dress, then fashion would cease to be a language and would be boring. Sexuality is a very important part of our existence, so it should be part of that language.As a guy, if I am in a sexy mood and I want to communicate my eligibility to women, I can go out wear tight clothing that shows a bit of muscle and alluring cologne. It’s great that this will cause women to make assumptions about my sexuality and intentions, because this allows me to communicate with them on a deeper level without having to use awkward verbal language. Of course, if I choose to communicate with people, I will also be risking negative judgement – people may think “Pffft! What a loser, he’s trying to be a player.” or “That’s hardly the appropriate dress for this occasion”. So be it. If I choose to express myself, I cannot prevent people from having an opinion of my expression. I, in turn, can respond to it however I like. Some people may even misinterpret my dress to think that I’m out for whatever I can get, and think they can get a free ride. Or they may interpret my hetero/homosexuality. So be it. Such is the risk of symbols. When the time comes, I will simply inform them otherwise.
Sam Barnett-Cormack says:
Dec 14, 2010
As men in western society (can’t comment on other societies), we have options for clothing that convey no meaning whatsoever about gender identity (or at least they convey the default, although one can be subtle), sexuality, promiscuity, availability, etc. Women basically don’t. It’s not possible for women to dress in a way that society doesn’t judge in those terms. That’s what makes the real difference to me.It’s actually a privilege issue I’ve seen mentioned on a couple of different male privilege lists. The fact that it’s basically true but men aren’t aware of it is a further indication of privilege. Talk to women who care about these issues at all, even those with no experience of feminist discourse, and I believe you’ll generally get a response that recognises this. Some don’t care, but they see it all the same.
Thuja says:
Dec 14, 2010
Interesting.. As a man, I do have the option of advertising various forms of sexuality, or dressing more “generically” and revealing less about my self.I would love to hear female opinions on this. It appears to me that women have a similar range of options. They can advertise different forms of sexuality or they can reveal less about themselves. Most women at my office dress in a casual-office style that reveals little about their sexuality. I can’t tell who is straight or gay from their clothing, who is monogamous and who’s a swinger.As another example, looking at Jen’s picture at the top of this page, I would consider that she’s wearing a fun, intelligent style. But I can’t tell anything about her sexual orientation or tendencies. So perhaps she have achieved the impossible?
Thuja says:
Dec 14, 2010
The reason for my challenge is that I’m a Lefty Athiest who has become frustrated with progressives’ self-defeating behaviour. I think a lot of this comes down to our attitude. Most modern progressives seem to reflexively choose Victimhood over Empowerment. For example, we could be: 1. Teaching our daughters how to be who they want to be regardless of how people react to them. How to be assertive despite peoples’ negative opinions.Rather than:2. Telling society that it’s not allowed to form opinions about our daughters.I think (2) is based in Fear. How much more empowering is (1)! Modern feminism feels like a breeding ground for sexual shame. I think this is because it’s rooted in a victim model rather than empowerment
Rollingforest says:
Dec 15, 2010
I agree with you that clothing has more meaning for girls than for boys, but to say that women have no neutral clothing is an exaggeration. There are plenty of t-shirts and pants that don’t obviously suggest one way or the other.
Rollingforest says:
Dec 15, 2010
While I have disagreed with Jen on some of her posts on feminism, I did want to prove that I was a feminist in the classical sense (belief that men and women should have equal opportunity in the world). I will start to do that by saying that I agree with everything that Jen wrote here in this pro-feminist post.
Rollingforest says:
Dec 15, 2010
The last word of jimmyboy99’s post should read “anti-racist”. That’s what caused the confusion here.
Rollingforest says:
Dec 15, 2010
Loreleion might be right about the fact that people consider bodily autonomy to be of higher importance. The reason, I think, is that reproduction is the “meaning” of biology. All life strives to reproduce because otherwise it wouldn’t exist and thus wouldn’t be able o strive to do anything. Sexually reproducing beings desire the best genes in order to increase their likelyhood of winning the war of natural selection and sexual selection. So even though birth control keeps sex workers from getting pregnant, they still feel like they are risking impregnating themselves with inferior genes and this bothers people. It isn’t rational but it is instinctual and thus a very real emotion. Now, like many have said, i support sex workers having the right to choose to do it if they want, but I agree that we need to be careful about people feeling financial pressure to do it.
Suzannah Burton says:
Mar 26, 2011
Why does being an empowered woman have to be synonymous with conventionally sexy? That kind of crap is anti feminsit and serves only the sexual patriarchy, a woman (a person in general) should just wear what they feel comfortable with, not whether or not their “ass looks tight”
Ewan says:
Mar 26, 2011
The entire point of this post is that “There’s not one right way to be a woman” – people can be ‘conventionally sexy’ or not as they choose. Maybe you should give it another few months and see if it’s sunk in by then.
hirdt says:
Mar 28, 2011
Holy shit there are a lot of comments on this post. I did warp-speed down-scrolling and it still took a while.I really enjoyed reading this, nice work, I think that what you wrote building off of the other blog post is awesome.
sickofpeoplespeakinginmyname says:
Mar 30, 2011
As a sex worker, it’s offensive to read all this theorizing about the choices surrounding sex work. None of you are sex workers and don’t have any business spouting off in the name of sex workers.
El says:
Mar 31, 2011
American cheese might be based on cheddar cheese, but it’s nasty “polyester” version of cheese. I actually welcome the distinction. As an American and not really a fan of cheese to begin with, I know EXACTLY what to avoid when I feel like cheddar cheese.Seriously, American cheese sucks hard.
Maidhelp.net says:
Jul 18, 2014
… [Trackback]
[…] Informations on that Topic: thejenome.com/feminism/sexy-feminism/ […]
mollen verjagen order here says:
Jul 23, 2014
… [Trackback]
[…] Informations on that Topic: thejenome.com/feminism/sexy-feminism/ […]
lol boost says:
Jul 26, 2014
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Informations here: thejenome.com/feminism/sexy-feminism/ […]
Reddy Solutions says:
Jul 30, 2014
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Informations here: thejenome.com/feminism/sexy-feminism/ […]
top ways for anyone to start a business from home says:
Sep 2, 2014
… [Trackback]
[…] Informations on that Topic: thejenome.com/feminism/sexy-feminism/ […]
subway surf hack apk says:
Sep 9, 2014
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Infos here: thejenome.com/feminism/sexy-feminism/ […]
Smite gameplay league conquest says:
Sep 18, 2014
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 81040 more Infos: thejenome.com/feminism/sexy-feminism/ […]
easy dogs to train says:
Sep 27, 2014
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 34091 more Infos: thejenome.com/feminism/sexy-feminism/ […]
Tour says:
Nov 14, 2014
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 24901 more Infos: thejenome.com/feminism/sexy-feminism/ […]
www.kaskus.co.id says:
Dec 4, 2014
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here: thejenome.com/feminism/sexy-feminism/ […]
weight loss food medical says:
Dec 22, 2014
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 42680 more Infos: thejenome.com/feminism/sexy-feminism/ […]
cheap tobacco store says:
Dec 30, 2014
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Informations here: thejenome.com/feminism/sexy-feminism/ […]