POST THURSDAY DQS HERE!!!

user-pic
Vote 0 Votes

Thank you.

17 Comments

| Leave a comment

In "Girls Gone Anti-Feminist", on the second page, under the heading "Fantasies of power", Douglas states, "In 1999, one year before Sommers' book came out, the top five jobs for women did not include attorney, surgeon or CEO. They were, in order, secretaries, retail and personal sales workers (including cashiers), managers and administrators, elementary school teachers and registered nurses. Farther down among the top 20 were bookkeepers, receptionisists, cooks and waitresses. In 2007, when presumably some of the privileged, pampered girls whose advantages over boys Sommers had kvetched about had entered the workforce, the top five jobs for women were, still, secretaries in first place, followed by registered nurses, elementary and middle school teachers, cashiers and retail salespersons."
I know that even in 2007, the top jobs weren't switched to much at all, however, doesn't something that is so large and that has had such a large effect on the country take time to build? I feel as though people have grown to be so hasty. I mean yes, titles have not changed and there are still extremely traditional people out there who don't believe they should, but even though the titles aren't there for everyone, they are there aren't they? Aren't the numbers and titles getting larger as we speak as well? Sure, it may not be where certain people want it to be now, but imagine it in another couple of years. Maybe because progress is so slow, it will be there for good.

I found Douglas' ideas about enlightened sexism extremely interesting. Do you think enlightened sexism exists in real life or is it merely existent in reality tv shows like The Bachelor and Jersey Shore? Do you think men feel threatened by women who have bought into enlightened sexism or do they still feel superior to these women with illusions of power?

I admittedly know very little about feminism. With that said, I had no idea that some perceive the work of feminism as complete, especially because there are too many defendable reasons as to how it is not. That leads me to wonder however, how many women in our society behave in the ways douglas explains as if feminism's work is completed? And if that behavior is expressed by some women, how many of them would be able to tell you they behave in such a manner solely because they believe they are equal to men? Or is this behavior expressed because this is what they are surrounded by and its what's considered normal to them, and they have no idea that its behavior that can be perceived as if the "fight" is over?

Are Women truly,honestly defined by their bodies as Susan J. Douglas said in her "Girls Gone Anti-Feminist" article? If they are,what yardstick is used to reach that definition?

In the Susan J. Douglas article, "Girls Gone Anti-feminist," Douglas says now that women supposedly have it all, we "should focus...on being hot, pleasing men, competing with other women, and shopping." I completely agree with this statement. I am currently reading "The Feminine Mystique," and although many things have changed since then, society's view of women is very much the same as it was in the 1960's. It could even be argued that now it's even worse than before. If women dress, dance, or act in a skanky, sexual way, it's not degrading, it's empowering! If a woman doesn't do these things, she must be a prude or "uncomfortable with her body." Betty Friedan says in "The Feminine Mystique" that women are constantly urged by advertisements and the media to compete with other women in their desperate search for a man. Women today are bombarded with ads and articles on how to make yourself look more desirable to men, so really, how much has changed?

After reading Douglas' Girls Gone Anti-Feminist, I am just wondering about what battle has these feminists actually been fighting? Are they fighting for women's rights and equality between men and women? Or are they fighting for their ideas on how the world should operate? The women who appear on shows like the Bachelor and Flavor of Love most likely made their own decisions to be on the shows. I also believe they were fully aware that they would be portrayed in certain ways on the screen. If we think this type of show represents women not in a good way, who should we complain to? The producers who make the shows, the participants who willingly participate in them or the viewers (including women) who enjoy watching the shows?

The question I kept asking myself while reading Raunch Culture, was "what is the incentive of this? What is the goal for women?" Is it acceptance? Equality? Power? And if so, what sort of logic is it to think that by objectifying oneself, any of those things can be achieved?
And is it an accurate portrayal of the majority of women's desires?

In Douglas' "Girls Gone Anti-Feminist" I found some of her points agreeable and how we are clueless to many of the ways women are being put down. I do not consider myself a feminist, but as a mother with a daughter, I want her to be seen more than just a sex symbol and have more desires than to look sexy and not be envious of the women on the magazine covers. When Douglas says, "True power here has nothing to do with economic independence or professional achievement: it has to do with getting men to lust after you and other women envy you." (page 3) If woman were always successful and seen as powerful, why are these power woman in make up before commercials, and television outings? How are they not sex objects if they are always needing to have perfect hair, ass, and make-up?

In the article Girls Gone Anti-Feminist, It brings up a grew point that i have been fighting for a while but it is shown in a whole new light. In the last segment titled "Trapped in the media funhouse", It talks about how women are depicted as the "lead roles" on the show when that is not necessarily true to begin with. Women has detectives and lawyers when statistics show there are not many out there. It is also called out shows that make you seem cautious about yourself when you look great too. I agree with most of this but there are somethings i question. One thing that does not make sense to me is that i feel like she argues for the wrong reason. It may because its anti-feminist but it seems she is upset that women are depicted like this in the media. Why? I understand that women may not have it as good as men (Statistics talking not Matt lol) but why bad mouth shows that support women who have overcome the stereotype? I absolutely agree with shows that makes women (and men) look like complete idiots like real world, jersey shore, etc. but why on other shows that seem to try and help? Would you really like to have a TV show out there where it supports these statistics? It would promote the stereotypes possibly and make them more relevant then they already are. I am rambling but my question is.... why not promote a show that resembles women in power even though that may not be the case?

I find it interesting how Ariel Levy mentions hippies in her article and how they are having trouble relating to this fairly new culture of mainstream "sexiness," which might be odd considering they might have started it, as Levy points out. This makes sense to me if you consider the reasons why they started it. The whole free love concept was a response to what was going on at the time. For example, the war, conservatism in society at the time and maybe the availability of certain kinds of drugs. I think the free love thing was a result of a large group of people protesting various things. My question is, how did free love turn in to sex for sale in our society? Is the large and easily accessible amount of media our society consumes to blame? Could this have happened without the advancement of feminism?

Hey Christine, I lost you a bit towards the end of your question. Could you rephrase your thoughts about powerful women and having perfect hair, etc.? Thanks!

in the first article "Girls Gone Anti-Feminism" one of the statistics they gave was that after 10 years of working after collage a women makes 69% of what a man makes, i was wandering if there is a correlating reason of why that happens? also in the next page the author proceeds on to describe a cupel of empowered women from tv and i was a littel confused so i was wandering if her argument was for or agenst the shows she was describing?

In "Girls Gone Anti Feminist" it states that women get paid significantly less in the workforce. This fact alone makes it know that women are still not seen as equal to men, which makes me wonder how some women can feel that the feminist movement is over. I'm wondering what if anything can be done about this issue or how women are or can fight towards more equality. Also, what are other people's thoughts about the fact that women are still being paid less than a man for doing the same job.

On a different note, do you really think girls that are hyper-feminist act this way because they feel empowered? I personally think that these women are still acting, dressing, and doing what they feel is desirable from a mans point of view, relating to the male gaze we talked about last class.

After reading "Girls Gone Anti-Feminism" I am wondering whether enlightened sexism is a concept that women are aware of in today's society. Personally, I have realized that women's rise in society has been the result of feminism creating an environment in which females think that they have already achieved equal status as males and so now they do not have to work as hard professionally to prove this status. Do females now understand that enlightened sexism exists or are they unvoluntarily, subconsciously participating in this concept?

In the article "Girls Gone Anti-Feminism", Douglas mentions another force besides media fantasies about woman empowerment that has gained momentum- enlightened sexism. According to Douglas, enlightened sexism is a response to the threat of a new gender regime. This new gender regime is also mentioned by Christina Sommers in her book, The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men. Sommers claims that due to the hype on women and feminism, that boys are now being mistreated and destined to be fast food chefs because they are so beaten down. Enlightened sexism is correlated to that by making women feel as if they have conquered equality so now they can focus on what is important: getting men to lust over you and women to envy you. If you look at reality shows like The Bad Girls Club, Jersey Shore and even shows like America's Next Top Model and the Bachelor; woman are choosing to be sexy, wild and free. Looks matter, getting boys attention matters, envy from other girls matter and there is nothing about equality, professionalism or anything in that genre that is even portrayed. So I guess my question is this: We have strived for a long time on creating equality for woman, just because now a few more woman are successful and we had ONE woman candidate for President women can act wild, dress scantily clad and woo over boys and that is considered success? What happened to being Lawyers and Doctors? Is all professionalism lost or do you think this is a mere bump in the road for feminism?

In Levy's "Raunch Culture," she points out that a woman can still be successful, sexy and make a statement without having to pose for Playboy Magazine or exposing her physical features outside of her context. How do you think a woman could do so without falling towards this Raunch Culture? Is being professional and successful not sexy enough? Why do you think people would rather see these successful women posing for magazines than in their professional context?

Hey y’all
What did everybody think of “Raunch Culture”? I never really took the time to realize how much sexually related material is in our culture. When I was reading about the “Girls Gone Wild” crew and how they kind of coerce women to flash the camera, I shook my head. That is such a dirty thing the crew does and I think most of us would agree that its creepy. The women to are not “trashy” women either the ones were graduate students going for their P.H.D. in anthropology. Does anybody think that they go too far or do y’all think this is just a sort of “rite of passage”, as the article brought to light?

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Melody published on September 20, 2011 3:34 PM.

Who Run the World & Race & Sampling was the previous entry in this blog.

Feminist Shift is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories