Susan Douglas makes a very interesting point in her article "Girls Gone Anti-Feminist". Although she points out some good aspects of those who are "enlightened sexism", I couldn't help but be distracted by her constant use of interjections that implied the dialect of a valley girl. I think that the topic of her article is to prove that falling into the media trap of empowered sexiness isn't how girls should interpret these depictions. Douglas tended to refer to valley girl speech when she was referencing something that stereotypes females. I feel that Douglas is using this the wrong way. When she is telling us to beware of how the media wants us to feel about feminism and she plays off of the stereotypes it doesn't really reinforce her ideas.
The article in itself was an interesting read. I've always had the thought process that a girl can do whatever she wants with her body. If revealing it gives her confidence then so be it. This article didn't change my opinions but it did make me rethink things. I think no matter how women act, we will always be judged. It is historically referenced that we are the submissive gender and therefore we should follow the expectations others have for us. Any woman in power is rarely taken seriously unless they display masculine qualities. However, if a woman does this, she is called a bitch.
My discussion question works off of Douglas's "enlightened sexism" theory ("now that they "have it all," they should focus the bulk of their time and energy on being hot, pleasing men, competing with other women, and shopping"). Do you think that "enlightened sexism" is actually how the media purposely encodes their messages? Or do you think that it is solely how Douglas is decoding them? Can this be interpreted as a women feeling confident or displaying her success by spending her money on things? Are men exhibited in a similar way in the media but interpreted differently?