My $0.02
Hm...
Ask me what I'm thinking.
I'm thinking that it's a little ridiculous that we're living in this society where raunch culture is placed at the pinnacle of achievement. Where strippers are glorified, Paris Hilton is sexy, and you can't turn on MTV without seeing a woman writhing in grease - whether it's her own video or that of some fat rap guy.
Since when does empowerment = writhing on the floor in grease?
I can't believe it was as late as the mid-80's before one ivy league school in the US let women in. We think we've made all this progress, but the truth is, there's only been a limited change in the last fifteen years. Legislature to prevent outright, blatant discrimination. But what about changing attitudes? What about the fact that it's still an insult to call a guy a girl? Or even to call a girl a girl?
Being called a "dick" doesn't have a negativity equal to that of being labelled a "pussy", and I'm not even going into the fact that the words mean two different things - I'm only talking about VALENCE (the meaning is another disturbing phenomenon altogether).
The rule is that women are inferior. They're stupid, they're ditzy, they're emotional, not rational, they can't handle math or science or engineering, they shouldn't be doctors, or astronauts, or politicians. When they get together, they gossip, they're catty, they're jealous of one another, undermining, and bitches. They're obsessed with their physical appearance, they spend too much time on trifles and details, they nag, they bitch, they whine.
But wait, you must be saying, there are female senators and judges and astronauts and engineers and scientists and mathematicians and executives and CEO's. And I have female friends who can carry on an intelligent conversation, and don't get jealous of other women, and are truly well-read and poised and have a sparkling wit and winning personality. I know women who may bitch, occasionally, yes, but hell, I know tons of men that whine and a billion guys that nag. Not all women fit the stereotype. Actually, most of the women I know don't fit the stereotype at all.
Well yeah... but *those* women aren't like *other, regular* women.
Those women are intelligent. Those women are rational. Those women don't think like women, don't talk like women, don't act like women.
They don't ask for a raise, they demand it. They don't sit with their legs bent underneath them in board meetings, they sit with their feet firmly on floors. They don't care about giving credit where credit is due: they take what they want. They earn it. They're cut-throat. They read while *other, regular* women are out getting manicures. They aren't jealous of *other, regular* women because they're confident and self-assured.
They act like men.
They act the way we perceive men should act.
But... wait... they're women too...
Something is off.
The stereotype of the woman is that she's this bubbly idiotic fool. And anyone who doesn't fit in that mold is an "exception" to the rule.
Forget that more then 90% of the women YOU know are "exceptions" to this "rule". Forget that the entire stereotype is fed by every "exception" and is therefore a circular argument.
Forget that there's no logic, reason, or rhyme to this heuristic.
Simply remember that we have it, deeply lodged in our collective as well as individual consciousness, and ask yourself why?
And ask yourself, isn't it time for a change?
The fact is, that in today's world, if you're a successful woman, you're STILL the exception to the rule.
And if you're the exception that PROVES the rule, as many of these successful women are - because they don't dress in skirts - they wear pant suits, and they don't use soft words - they use hard language - and they don't talk about babies - they discuss profit margins... well, anyway, if you're the exception that proves the rule, you still really haven't made any progress for womankind or for yourself.
When it comes down to it: you're still a woman. There is still a glass ceiling, and though you may sell your product in the meeting, you still won't get invited out for a cigar with the old boys later as long as you have a vagina.
And the rest of us, those that don't succeed in traditionally masculine roles? Well, we're just affirming what everyone's known all along, right? That we can't do it. Or that we don't want to. Or both.
I guess my problem isn't so much with the fact that there are different roles ascribed to women and men, but rather that one is valued at an intrinsically lower value then the other.
To call a woman a man, to say she's the big man on campus, for her to tell you to suck her balls - these are empowering, uplifting statements with a positive valence. Perhaps not true, but gleaned in a positive light.
For anyone to call anyone a whiny little girl, a woman, a sissy, is never good.
It is not good to be relational, or people-oriented, or emotional, or sensitive, or feminine in this society. And so we're seeing a trade-off happening in bright, intelligent young women, whereby they're casting off the shackles of their oppression - not by fighting their oppressor, but by morphing into something else that fits through the shackles, that makes it through the system.
Instead of being who we are and forcing the system to change to fit us (hell, we're half of us!), we're becoming who the system wants us to be: more aggressive, more chauvinistic. Putting "feminists" and "bra-burners" down with the rest of the minorities to raise ourselves up.
Have you noticed how it has now become an insult to be called a feminist? Immediately, you're confronted with questions of why you don't shave your legs or armpits, and whether or not you're a lesbian.
We've forgotten what our grandmothers fought for. Feminism isn't what it used to be. It's this fringe, frump girl movement now. For dykes and people who don't wash their hair. We've forgotten what the movement was about. We've forgotten about equal treatment, equal attitudes, equal respect. Worst of all, we're beginning to get comfortable - to think that we don't need to worry about these things anymore. "Because more then half of the undergraduate students in university are females, I'm set."
No, you're fucking not.
There's one female CEO for every 30 male CEO's out there - and the only way she got to the top was by trading in her femininity and assuming a more masculine identity. We've made NO headway in bringing femininity to equal terms with masculinity. If anything, we're starting to join the majority culture because we figure we can't beat it. And that's the most dangerous attitude to assume of all.
Racism and sexism and homophobia are easy to fight when they're obvious. When they're rampant and explicit.
Much harder to shake are our implicit understandings, our implicit attitudes, and the feminist movement won't have achieved it's goal - just as the Civil Rights movement won't have achieved it's, until those implicit attitudes are changed forever and we truly begin to value feminine as much as masculine, black as much as white, homosexual as much as heterosexual.
But in order to change anything, first we have to admit that there's a problem. We have to start getting offended and outraged about things that have become second nature to us. We're all so tired of political correctness, and yet, it's so necessary when you actually take a look around.
Strippers shouldn't be our daughter's idols. Rainbow parties shouldn't be happening in middle schools. Little girls shouldn't be going down on little boys while others watch in order to gain popularity. A guy shouldn't be thought "cool" or "funny" or "with it" when he smacks your ass. Paris Hilton shouldn't be a cultural icon - she shouldn't have gotten the hike in popularity that she did when those sex tapes were released, and she sure as hell shouldn't be thought of as the definition of sexy.
Things that women would have once been ostracised for, mainly, being a slut, are today being trumpeted as feminism and the sexual revolution at it's best. "Women can now be as sexually expressive as men have always been and not have to suffer the horrible consequences of an oppressive society."
It'd be nice if it were true.
But it's not.
Sure, a million people might have seen the tapes, but Paris Hilton is never going to be taken seriously. Ever, in her life, as a direct result.
The only male example I can come up with that comes close is Bill Clinton who lied to a nation about his sexual affairs, managed to avoid impeachment despite it, and continues to command the respect and even love of a nation.
There's almost a "Oh, silly Billy, boys will be boys" mentality about what Clinton did. With Paris it's, "Wow, what a slut, let's watch her bang the next guy".
And that's fine by me - she is a slut. But so is Clinton.
So why does he get to maintain his reputation while her's gets slandered?
Because what they're telling us isn't true. Raunch isn't about women and freedom of expression and sexuality. Raunch is about raunch. We've made no headway.
On with the show: It shouldn't be an insult to call someone a "pussy". I shouldn't be taken less seriously because I want to wear a dress. I shouldn't have to wear a pant suit to succeed. I shouldn't be talked down to by my calculus TA because I'm a girl. And I sure as hell shouldn't be told to get the stick out of my ass, and get with the times, or to stop being so politically correct, or so uptight, when someone calls me a "chick", or makes a comment about my breasts, or tells me to make out with another girl, and I get offended.
Because that act is just an expression of a deeper problem, and it's that deeper problem that offends me, and should, in my opinion, offend everyone else.
And well, that's just probably 2% of what's on my brain right now.
Ask me what I'm thinking.
I'm thinking that it's a little ridiculous that we're living in this society where raunch culture is placed at the pinnacle of achievement. Where strippers are glorified, Paris Hilton is sexy, and you can't turn on MTV without seeing a woman writhing in grease - whether it's her own video or that of some fat rap guy.
Since when does empowerment = writhing on the floor in grease?
I can't believe it was as late as the mid-80's before one ivy league school in the US let women in. We think we've made all this progress, but the truth is, there's only been a limited change in the last fifteen years. Legislature to prevent outright, blatant discrimination. But what about changing attitudes? What about the fact that it's still an insult to call a guy a girl? Or even to call a girl a girl?
Being called a "dick" doesn't have a negativity equal to that of being labelled a "pussy", and I'm not even going into the fact that the words mean two different things - I'm only talking about VALENCE (the meaning is another disturbing phenomenon altogether).
The rule is that women are inferior. They're stupid, they're ditzy, they're emotional, not rational, they can't handle math or science or engineering, they shouldn't be doctors, or astronauts, or politicians. When they get together, they gossip, they're catty, they're jealous of one another, undermining, and bitches. They're obsessed with their physical appearance, they spend too much time on trifles and details, they nag, they bitch, they whine.
But wait, you must be saying, there are female senators and judges and astronauts and engineers and scientists and mathematicians and executives and CEO's. And I have female friends who can carry on an intelligent conversation, and don't get jealous of other women, and are truly well-read and poised and have a sparkling wit and winning personality. I know women who may bitch, occasionally, yes, but hell, I know tons of men that whine and a billion guys that nag. Not all women fit the stereotype. Actually, most of the women I know don't fit the stereotype at all.
Well yeah... but *those* women aren't like *other, regular* women.
Those women are intelligent. Those women are rational. Those women don't think like women, don't talk like women, don't act like women.
They don't ask for a raise, they demand it. They don't sit with their legs bent underneath them in board meetings, they sit with their feet firmly on floors. They don't care about giving credit where credit is due: they take what they want. They earn it. They're cut-throat. They read while *other, regular* women are out getting manicures. They aren't jealous of *other, regular* women because they're confident and self-assured.
They act like men.
They act the way we perceive men should act.
But... wait... they're women too...
Something is off.
The stereotype of the woman is that she's this bubbly idiotic fool. And anyone who doesn't fit in that mold is an "exception" to the rule.
Forget that more then 90% of the women YOU know are "exceptions" to this "rule". Forget that the entire stereotype is fed by every "exception" and is therefore a circular argument.
Forget that there's no logic, reason, or rhyme to this heuristic.
Simply remember that we have it, deeply lodged in our collective as well as individual consciousness, and ask yourself why?
And ask yourself, isn't it time for a change?
The fact is, that in today's world, if you're a successful woman, you're STILL the exception to the rule.
And if you're the exception that PROVES the rule, as many of these successful women are - because they don't dress in skirts - they wear pant suits, and they don't use soft words - they use hard language - and they don't talk about babies - they discuss profit margins... well, anyway, if you're the exception that proves the rule, you still really haven't made any progress for womankind or for yourself.
When it comes down to it: you're still a woman. There is still a glass ceiling, and though you may sell your product in the meeting, you still won't get invited out for a cigar with the old boys later as long as you have a vagina.
And the rest of us, those that don't succeed in traditionally masculine roles? Well, we're just affirming what everyone's known all along, right? That we can't do it. Or that we don't want to. Or both.
I guess my problem isn't so much with the fact that there are different roles ascribed to women and men, but rather that one is valued at an intrinsically lower value then the other.
To call a woman a man, to say she's the big man on campus, for her to tell you to suck her balls - these are empowering, uplifting statements with a positive valence. Perhaps not true, but gleaned in a positive light.
For anyone to call anyone a whiny little girl, a woman, a sissy, is never good.
It is not good to be relational, or people-oriented, or emotional, or sensitive, or feminine in this society. And so we're seeing a trade-off happening in bright, intelligent young women, whereby they're casting off the shackles of their oppression - not by fighting their oppressor, but by morphing into something else that fits through the shackles, that makes it through the system.
Instead of being who we are and forcing the system to change to fit us (hell, we're half of us!), we're becoming who the system wants us to be: more aggressive, more chauvinistic. Putting "feminists" and "bra-burners" down with the rest of the minorities to raise ourselves up.
Have you noticed how it has now become an insult to be called a feminist? Immediately, you're confronted with questions of why you don't shave your legs or armpits, and whether or not you're a lesbian.
We've forgotten what our grandmothers fought for. Feminism isn't what it used to be. It's this fringe, frump girl movement now. For dykes and people who don't wash their hair. We've forgotten what the movement was about. We've forgotten about equal treatment, equal attitudes, equal respect. Worst of all, we're beginning to get comfortable - to think that we don't need to worry about these things anymore. "Because more then half of the undergraduate students in university are females, I'm set."
No, you're fucking not.
There's one female CEO for every 30 male CEO's out there - and the only way she got to the top was by trading in her femininity and assuming a more masculine identity. We've made NO headway in bringing femininity to equal terms with masculinity. If anything, we're starting to join the majority culture because we figure we can't beat it. And that's the most dangerous attitude to assume of all.
Racism and sexism and homophobia are easy to fight when they're obvious. When they're rampant and explicit.
Much harder to shake are our implicit understandings, our implicit attitudes, and the feminist movement won't have achieved it's goal - just as the Civil Rights movement won't have achieved it's, until those implicit attitudes are changed forever and we truly begin to value feminine as much as masculine, black as much as white, homosexual as much as heterosexual.
But in order to change anything, first we have to admit that there's a problem. We have to start getting offended and outraged about things that have become second nature to us. We're all so tired of political correctness, and yet, it's so necessary when you actually take a look around.
Strippers shouldn't be our daughter's idols. Rainbow parties shouldn't be happening in middle schools. Little girls shouldn't be going down on little boys while others watch in order to gain popularity. A guy shouldn't be thought "cool" or "funny" or "with it" when he smacks your ass. Paris Hilton shouldn't be a cultural icon - she shouldn't have gotten the hike in popularity that she did when those sex tapes were released, and she sure as hell shouldn't be thought of as the definition of sexy.
Things that women would have once been ostracised for, mainly, being a slut, are today being trumpeted as feminism and the sexual revolution at it's best. "Women can now be as sexually expressive as men have always been and not have to suffer the horrible consequences of an oppressive society."
It'd be nice if it were true.
But it's not.
Sure, a million people might have seen the tapes, but Paris Hilton is never going to be taken seriously. Ever, in her life, as a direct result.
The only male example I can come up with that comes close is Bill Clinton who lied to a nation about his sexual affairs, managed to avoid impeachment despite it, and continues to command the respect and even love of a nation.
There's almost a "Oh, silly Billy, boys will be boys" mentality about what Clinton did. With Paris it's, "Wow, what a slut, let's watch her bang the next guy".
And that's fine by me - she is a slut. But so is Clinton.
So why does he get to maintain his reputation while her's gets slandered?
Because what they're telling us isn't true. Raunch isn't about women and freedom of expression and sexuality. Raunch is about raunch. We've made no headway.
On with the show: It shouldn't be an insult to call someone a "pussy". I shouldn't be taken less seriously because I want to wear a dress. I shouldn't have to wear a pant suit to succeed. I shouldn't be talked down to by my calculus TA because I'm a girl. And I sure as hell shouldn't be told to get the stick out of my ass, and get with the times, or to stop being so politically correct, or so uptight, when someone calls me a "chick", or makes a comment about my breasts, or tells me to make out with another girl, and I get offended.
Because that act is just an expression of a deeper problem, and it's that deeper problem that offends me, and should, in my opinion, offend everyone else.
And well, that's just probably 2% of what's on my brain right now.
posted by captain obvious at 11:40 a.m.
7 Comments:
i have read the whole thing, and i am formulating a response...i promise i will post it. xo
SERIOUSLY, you just articulated perfectly what every single female has been trying to say for about.. well, ever.
It make sme sick to my sotmach that people idolize girls like paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, when all they do is, nothing. It's a shame that the western world has put such an emphasis on people like that. when really, it shouldbe dotors, scietists, engineers that we should be looking up to.
I read somewhere that a female CEO makes less money than a male CEO, even is they're doing the exact same job.. or even if the female is doing more. ack. i just dont get it.
it's also sickening to think that in a male-dominent environment, females never get taken seriously, "as lone we have a vagina" as you said.
anyways.
great post. i loved it.
hey dunj, great post...clearly it's been brewing for a while. well articulated and for the most part i agree with what you have to say.
here's where you hear the "but" coming in...
paris hilton and bill clinton are FAR from comparable...clinton was a great president, took his country out of debt and into a economic boom, he was a benevolent world leader, an engaging orator and valued role model. he had an extra-marital affair that was unfairly blown out of proportion because of who he was. stats show that a significant number of people (both males and females have affairs outside of the committed relationships they're in - yet none of them get skewered for it in the international limelight).
so no, paris hilton is not comparable. i'd compare paris hilton, whose sole claim to fame is that sex tap, to ron jeremy - a reknowned porn star...known not for his good looks but for his almost super human staying ability. he's made countless movies and even though he's the least atractive person known to humankind, he is desired by women and revered by men. why, when he came to mississauga a couple of years ago, eight of our own mutual acquaintances trekked off to see him. why then, does he not get the title of "slut"???
i find it interesting that the post talks about embracing women for ALL that they are, and yet doesn't embrace who parish hilton is - denouncing her as a "slut"...when in fact, she should (and does, whether rightly or not) receive the same adoration that ron jeremy receives.
personally, i am not a woman who is attracted to babies. i am uninterested in wedding and rings and shiny thing. i was reading a blog recently written by this girl who's our age and is smitten with the tiffany website...a comment left on her post is that this is normal for girls our age. i don't think this is true. for myself, i consider myself woman - wholly and uncompromisedly - with or without my lust for shiny things. it doesn't make HER any less or more of a woman, just a different woman. it doesn't make me any more or less masculine.
i think where the feminist movement got it wrong was in the wording...EQUALITY. woman and men AREN'T equal. we're ARE different. i think the would should be EQUITABLE...implying that yes, we may be different, but we deserve the same respect and dignity for what it IS we can bring to the table.
i love your use of the word "valence".
good job dunja...your two cents make me want to dance.
My post does talk about embracing women in general for all that they are - that doesn't mean we can't make specific references to specific individuals about what we perceive to be their questionable judgements.
I think Bill Clinton (and everyone else who has an extra-marital affair) is a slut.
I think Paris Hilton is a slut.
I agree with you that in terms of achievement they're not comparable - I was just trying to make the point that you later made for me with your male porn star example - that whilst one is villified, the other is not, simply on the basis of their gender.
I can't embrace who Paris Hilton is - not as a woman or as a person because I don't feel she has any qualities worth embracing. Furthermore, I feel she's a negative role model and like she's a DETRACTING force in our society, giving attractability and credence to a lifestyle and actions I don't agree with and consider to be immoral and ammoral.
But that's a side note anyway... Let me know if I've completely misread what you attempted to get across...
i agree with you dunja. don't get me wrong...i ain't no hilton fan. having said that though, i know who i am enough to know too that she'll never be a role model for...well maybe a standard of what NOT to be.
the truth is, we villify because it suits us to take the blame away from ourselves and place it on the other...it makes us feel more validated in our pretentions.
who paris hilton is and what she does is solely her responsibility and undertaking. if there are five year olds wanting to emulate her, it begs the question of where it is that the parents of this child are - providing her with more substantial role models...
we've become such a media-crazy society that it has also become the scape goat for all our vices. but i think that is a different post all together.
gender wise, i don't see the difference between jeremy and hilton. whether they are "sluts" or not is not for me to judge because that's not my job on this planet. they can choose to fuck whomever they want. when they start forcing ME to follow their lifestyle, that's when i have a problem with it. but as a strong (willed and headed) woman, i know who i am enough that neither a female, NOR a male, role model of that kind will affect who i am.
maybe then, we should be less concerned with the negative in our society and focus on the positive.
i didn't hear one mention of a strong woman role model...which i find sad.
as much as i loathe to say it, condoleeza rice anyone? ;)
As much as I want to agree whole-heartedly with you on the subject of Paris Hilton not influencing anyone with a mind of their own - I simply can't.
The fact that she's an ever-present force in our lives means she does influence the way we think and view the world, whether we want to admit that or not, and whether or not her influence is tertiary at best.
The fact is that my little sister is sixteen. She's extremely bright and thinks for herself most of the time. But, having taken the adolescence and emerging adulthood class this semester, I also recognize that she is very prone to and influenced by both the media and her peers (who are in turn influenced by the media).
To say that it's all the media's fault is scapegoating. To say that the media doesn't play a role is naive.
My parents have instilled strong values in both my sister and I, but I've also seen the influence of the outside infringing on who we are. Obviously, we don't live in a bubble.
I think it's unfair to say "yeah, we all want to villify the media, but where are the parents?"
Not all parents can be there for their children the way ours were for us (to filter, not obliterate the influence, mind you), and no children deserve shitty role models simply because their parents are deadbeats. What does that mean? That the little girl who's parents don't steer her in the right direction somehow deserves to look up to Paris Hilton as a role model, and only has that to aspire to?
The fact is that I hate Condoleeza Rice and what she stands for, for personal reasons, but even a surface analysis of our media will show anyone who's willing to look that for every second of air-time Rice gets, Paris Hilton gets 1,000. Even if we were to agree that Rice is a positive role model for girls, she's not getting nearly the exposure or being exhalted comparably to the way Hilton is to even begin to compete.
Alas, it seems that we have defaulted to negative female role models, and this will impact us and future generations.
For the record, "slut", according to dictonary.com means "an immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute", which is exactly what Paris Hilton is. She sold her body for money and fame. For me to call her a slut is not necessarily a value-judgment on my part (although I assure you I am making value-judgements about her, and don't deny it), but an accurate categorization and description of her behaviour.
Dunja, Im waiting 4 ur next post :)
Post a Comment
<< Home