Feminism and misogyny today

[mollymae]

Since I've joined this site I've noticed there are often interesting questions and conversations about discrimination against women in society.
The thing is, as a 17 year old female living in the 21st century, I can honestly say that I've never felt discriminated against because of my sex. Not once.

I recognize that it is because of the first and second wave feminists that I can say that today. But I feel no need to call myself a feminist now, because although the title "feminist" implies that you only want equal rights for women, I think it also implies that you are standing up for a cause, and I feel no need to stand up for that cause because I've never experienced sexism.
Wage differences is a valid argument, and certainly one worth examining, but when some people here speak of misogyny, is that the only instance of discrimination that they are talking about? I can't think of any other misogynistic practice that I've seen in America in my lifetime.

[Kléber]

Most leftists are more concerned with sexism in an economic or structural sense rather than in personal relations, although it's hard to draw a clear line between the personal and social spheres. According to federal labor statistics, women still earn less money on the dollar than men for doing the same work, according to some 10-year-old research I have buried somewhere. The rate is a lot better than it was in the 1970's for white women, but for immigrants and people of color little has changed. So basic economic discrimination is there in the form of a gender pay gap, even if the capitalists can afford to cover up the most obvious forms of oppression in the imperialist countries.

[whore]

what percentage of women are there in the us congress?
what percentage of women are there in management positions (particularly high level management) in the usa?
what percentage of women experience rape or sexual assault in the usa? what percentage of men?
what percentage of women are single parents? what percentage of men?
can women in the usa get pregnant, and have a child, and then expect to get their old job back?
what percentage of house work is done by women?
in heterosexual marriages, is the man or the woman more likely to stay at home to look after any children?
if there are two otherwise equally qualified candidates, a man and a woman, for a computer related, construction related, fire fighter, engineer, mathematical or physics related, etc. type job, who is more likely to get the position?
if two people, a man and a woman, are doing the same job, who is more likely to get paid more?

you, as a teenager, have been "protected" from much of the sexism in society. you are likely to have done well in school, and can probably expect to go to college or university. however, once you are in the work force, you will experience much more sexism.

as well, there are lots of little things that you might not notice. jokes that you have trained yourself to ignore. snide remarks from class mates. if you have sex with someone, you will get called a slut. if a man in your class does, his friends will say "way to go!".

yes, the feminists of previous times did a lot for the cause of gender equality. however, there is still a lot more work to be done. oh yeah, feminism is about equality, not putting women first. feminism is equally about men, mens attitudes, and similar.

[zimmerwald1915]

feminism is equally about men, mens attitudes, and similar.
What percentage of rapists are men? I'm not being snarky, but rather am genuinely curious.

[Audeamus]

What percentage of rapists are men? I'm not being snarky, but rather am genuinely curious.

For the U.S. at least, the Bureau of Justice statistics has 99% of (reported) rapists being male.

[Physicist]

I can't think of any other misogynistic practice that I've seen in America in my lifetime.

Misogyny isn't the same thing as sexism against women, but in regards to your question, the sexism being confronted is based more on societal pressures that are left over from rigid, law-enforced patriarchy and which continue to manifest in economic matters. I think a different user here summarized it best by saying that women used to be private property and now are public property, but they're still property.


For the U.S. at least, the Bureau of Justice statistics has 99% of (reported) rapists being male.

Reported being the key variable. I wonder how many men are convinced by the residual phantoms of patriarchy that they can't come out or didn't really mean no. After working with male victims I'm willing to wager it's a lot more equitable than some may assume, though.

[whore]

What percentage of rapists are men? I'm not being snarky, but rather am genuinely curious.

Reported being the key variable. I wonder how many men are convinced by the residual phantoms of patriarchy that they can't come out or didn't really mean no. After working with male victims I'm willing to wager it's a lot more equitable than some may assume, though.
i doubt very much if it is anything like 50% of all rape or sexual assault victims are male. it is very true that men get raped, by both men and by women. however, outside of particular cases (such as prisons) men getting raped is much rarer than women getting raped.

some stats and info:
http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html ("91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, with 99% of the offenders being male" - Bureau of Justice Statistics 1999)
http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender

[Invincible Summer]

Since I've joined this site I've noticed there are often interesting questions and conversations about discrimination against women in society.
The thing is, as a 17 year old female living in the 21st century, I can honestly say that I've never felt discriminated against because of my sex. Not once.

I recognize that it is because of the first and second wave feminists that I can say that today. But I feel no need to call myself a feminist now, because although the title "feminist" implies that you only want equal rights for women, I think it also implies that you are standing up for a cause, and I feel no need to stand up for that cause because I've never experienced sexism.
Wage differences is a valid argument, and certainly one worth examining, but when some people here speak of misogyny, is that the only instance of discrimination that they are talking about? I can't think of any other misogynistic practice that I've seen in America in my lifetime.

IMO it doesn't matter if you have not experienced sexism/discrimination yourself. Don't you want to uphold the values of feminism for other people who have and do experience discrimination? I myself have not experienced sexism, and I'm a male, but I would still consider myself a feminist, especially since feminist values are inherent to being a leftist.

That being said, I haven't personally worked under a really evil capitalist boss that blatantly exploited me, and I personally haven't experienced any situations when I thought "Shit, I need to overthrow my boss with my fellow employees!" but I do realize that in the bigger picture, the values and goals of socialism/communism are better for society. It's not just about me. It's about principles that need to be defended for every person.

And I don't want to sound condescending, but at 17 you haven't had a lot of time to experience blatant workplace discrimination and such. But I do think that young girls do face misogyny and anti-feminist values every day when they turn on the TV to watch shows like Gossip Girl or Bratz or a multitude of other shows that tell them "This is what a girl is supposed to be like - superficial, materialistic, dumb, and all about making boys chase her." At a younger and younger age, girls are told to flaunt their "girliness" (i.e. sexuality) as a way to gain and maintain power. In other words, girls are taught that their bodies are what get them far, not their minds. That is anti-feminist.


What's more, advertisement relies heavily on misogyny to sell products.

Examples:
http://www.usask.ca/art/a31701/site/britski/skyy.jpg

http://responsiblemen.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/dolce-gabbana-ad-sexist.jpg

http://www.didntyouhear.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/peta.jpg

These images justify sexual violence towards women and hypersexualization of women. It normalizes scantily-clad, buxom ladies, as well as male dominance over women.

Also, in the US constitution, women (as well as other social groups) are not guaranteed equal rights under the law. They only have the right to vote. Women are expected to give up their careers for a family life - they can't have both.


You experience misogyny and sexism every day.

[Dimentio]

Since I've joined this site I've noticed there are often interesting questions and conversations about discrimination against women in society.
The thing is, as a 17 year old female living in the 21st century, I can honestly say that I've never felt discriminated against because of my sex. Not once.

I recognize that it is because of the first and second wave feminists that I can say that today. But I feel no need to call myself a feminist now, because although the title "feminist" implies that you only want equal rights for women, I think it also implies that you are standing up for a cause, and I feel no need to stand up for that cause because I've never experienced sexism.
Wage differences is a valid argument, and certainly one worth examining, but when some people here speak of misogyny, is that the only instance of discrimination that they are talking about? I can't think of any other misogynistic practice that I've seen in America in my lifetime.

Discrimination is often subtle. I have encountered lots and lots of people who claim that no discrimination against females exist in Sweden, yet people often fall into the subconcious expected behaviour of their gender roles.

For example that if 3 boys and 10 girls are sitting in a university classroom and are supposed to discuss gender equality, it would most likely degenerate into a debate between the 3 boys while the 10 girls instead are sitting and listening quietly.

Moreover, females do 66% of the world-wide labour, but only control 1% of the share of the world's resources.

[whore]

For example that if 3 boys and 10 girls are sitting in a university classroom and are supposed to discuss gender equality, it would most likely degenerate into a debate between the 3 boys while the 10 girls instead are sitting and listening quietly.
really? i thought it was 2 (or even 3) of the males saying that the genders already are equal, and 1 female agreeing, 2 or 3 females saying that they are wrong, 2 or 3 trying to see both points of view, and the rest sitting quietly.

[mollymae]

As far as how women are sexualized/objectified, I've observed that, but I guess it's just never bothered me. When I see those ads I see a company presenting an image, and a woman consenting to be used to perpetuate that image. I don't see it as a symptom of a greater problem. I feel separated from it. I don't know. perhaps I'm naive, but that's never been something that I worry about. I am responsible for my own self-image, and I would never place a burden or blame on anyone else.

I think there will always be minor differences between males and females in the form of gender roles--as far as women being taught to be girly and submissive, I think it's the other way around for males, but perhaps even worse. I think it's much more socially acceptable for a woman to betray her gender roles than a man to betray his gender roles.

[danyboy27]

Women are not the only one used or mocked in publicity you know, Males too.

i think one of the fatal mistakes Many feminists do is to be one-sided toward their gender, ignoring completly how males could also be a victim of social stereotypes.


If society like to objectify women, men arnt spared in the process, the glorification of the workochoolic husband who have to provide, be strong and constantly workout to have a perfect chest also cause tremendous psychological scars, even suicide.

[mollymae]

Women are not the only one used or mocked in publicity you know, Males too.

i think one of the fatal mistakes Many feminists do is to be one-sided toward their gender, ignoring completly how males could also be a victim of social stereotypes.


If society like to objectify women, men arnt spared in the process, the glorification of the workochoolic husband who have to provide, be strong and constantly workout to have a perfect chest also cause tremendous psychological scars, even suicide.


I agree with this. I mean look at those first two ads. What is that, a gang bang? I'm sure many men would not be too happy knowing that they can be portrayed as aggressive and no one raises an objection. So why are we focusing on how the woman is portrayed and not the men? Is it somehow "better" to be portrayed as an attacker as opposed to a victim? Because if that is true, we have a much bigger problem on our hands...

[Dimentio]

As far as how women are sexualized/objectified, I've observed that, but I guess it's just never bothered me. When I see those ads I see a company presenting an image, and a woman consenting to be used to perpetuate that image. I don't see it as a symptom of a greater problem. I feel separated from it. I don't know. perhaps I'm naive, but that's never been something that I worry about. I am responsible for my own self-image, and I would never place a burden or blame on anyone else.

I think there will always be minor differences between males and females in the form of gender roles--as far as women being taught to be girly and submissive, I think it's the other way around for males, but perhaps even worse. I think it's much more socially acceptable for a woman to betray her gender roles than a man to betray his gender roles.

It is a problem that such images are selling. It is sadly telling a lot about our society that women in bikinis next to a car help to increase the sales of said car. Before the 1920's, commercials rather used to focus on what the product did than how cool you are for using it.

[Invincible Summer]

I think this should be moved to Discrimination/Women's Struggle.



As far as how women are sexualized/objectified, I've observed that, but I guess it's just never bothered me. When I see those ads I see a company presenting an image, and a woman consenting to be used to perpetuate that image. I don't see it as a symptom of a greater problem. I feel separated from it. I don't know. perhaps I'm naive, but that's never been something that I worry about. I am responsible for my own self-image, and I would never place a burden or blame on anyone else.
But do you think the image they present is positive? Even if the model has consented, do you think it's okay that she is presenting an image of women that is unrealistic and harmful to women?

Women are raped and sexually abused all the time, and having imagery and media that glamorizes/normalizes/glosses over this reality is not a good thing.


I think there will always be minor differences between males and females in the form of gender roles--as far as women being taught to be girly and submissive, I think it's the other way around for males, but perhaps even worse. I think it's much more socially acceptable for a woman to betray her gender roles than a man to betray his gender roles.
What do you mean by "minor differences?" Also, my point is that women are only given a set of roles they are "allowed" to fulfill in society. Their selection of role models and such are much more limited than those for men.



Women are not the only one used or mocked in publicity you know, Males too.

i think one of the fatal mistakes Many feminists do is to be one-sided toward their gender, ignoring completly how males could also be a victim of social stereotypes.


If society like to objectify women, men arnt spared in the process, the glorification of the workochoolic husband who have to provide, be strong and constantly workout to have a perfect chest also cause tremendous psychological scars, even suicide.

Yeah, men are objectified too. They also face pressures to face social norms. But because they are in a position of power within society and have more social roles available to them, the focus is on the group that is marginalized.



I agree with this. I mean look at those first two ads. What is that, a gang bang? I'm sure many men would not be too happy knowing that they can be portrayed as aggressive and no one raises an objection. So why are we focusing on how the woman is portrayed and not the men? Is it somehow "better" to be portrayed as an attacker as opposed to a victim? Because if that is true, we have a much bigger problem on our hands...

Read between the lines. It's not just about being an "attacker" or "victim," but who has power.

[mollymae]

I feel that it does not matter if I think it's positive or not. It doesn't matter what I think because it's never affected me.
Although you do have a point about sexual harassment being somewhat overlooked and not taken seriously by society. I'm not sure the same could be said about rape, though.

By minor differences, I mean exactly what you said: "women are only given a set of roles they are "allowed" to fulfill in society", and the same can be said for men to at least some extent.

[mollymae]

Also, just a question to those who believe that this sexual image hurts all women. What would your solution to this problem be? education? censorship?

[¿Que?]

Also, just a question to those who believe that this sexual image hurts all women. What would your solution to this problem be? education? censorship?
Duh! Revolution to bring about communism. Because in a communist society there is no such things as sexism and misogyny.:laugh:

I'm sorta half way sarcastic and halfway serious. But this seems to be a popular answer to a lot of problems here on revleft.

[the last donut of the night]

Duh! Revolution to bring about communism. Because in a communist society there is no such things as sexism and misogyny.:laugh:

I'm sorta half way sarcastic and halfway serious. But this seems to be a popular answer to a lot of problems here on revleft.

Well, in a sense, it is the right answer to these problems. Patriarchy has been a fundamental organ of oppression in every class-society. It cannot be abolished through legislation or working through the bourgeois state. Only the destruction of the class-apparatus can lead to the ultimate death of patriarchy.
:thumbup1:

[¿Que?]

Well, in a sense, it is the right answer to these problems. Patriarchy has been a fundamental organ of oppression in every class-society. It cannot be abolished through legislation or working through the bourgeois state. Only the destruction of the class-apparatus can lead to the ultimate death of patriarchy.
:thumbup1:
I guess part of it is semantics. Our defintion of communism could easily define away sexism, racism etc. I really don't know what the official Marxist line on this is.

I think the reason I was being somewhat sarcastic is because I feel that destroying the class-apparatus is a necessary cause, not necessarily a sufficient cause tho.

Of course I'm a little weak on theory, so maybe you could enlighten me on this?

[Physicist]

i doubt very much if it is anything like 50% of all rape or sexual assault victims are male. it is very true that men get raped, by both men and by women. however, outside of particular cases (such as prisons) men getting raped is much rarer than women getting raped.

some stats and info:


I'm not suggesting an even split, but I don't doubt for a moment it's much higher. Keep in mind the government compiles its numbers from mostly court action suits. Men rarely bring these issues to litigation. I would also caution against intuitive statements, as statistics also indicate that while men will resort to more serious types of violence in a relationship, because of gender stereotypes and cultural acceptance of females slapping/hitting/kicking men, females technically abuse their male spouses more often. Just men don't view being slapped in the face as abuse. ABC covered this story awhile ago with some interesting results. Unfortunately, I can't provide the link until I acquire 25 posts.

Discussing patriarchy's impact on men has unfortunately been hijacked by conservative pundits.

[Physicist]

Also, just a question to those who believe that this sexual image hurts all women. What would your solution to this problem be? education? censorship?

Well history isn't a planned event that runs adjacent to our desires; some event(s) must energize a change in gender habits. In other words, who knows?

No, not censorship. Education, certainly, but that's only half of it. Perhaps time will be our best remedy.

[Kléber]

Also, just a question to those who believe that this sexual image hurts all women. What would your solution to this problem be? education? censorship?
Well, in a socialist society, with the individual capitalists expropriated, their profit motive is removed from the economy and industries will be democratically reorganized to suit human needs, so no more money will be wasted on filming exploitative Dolce & Gabbana ads. If people are still posting sexist photos online, the state can subsidize movies that have a strong feminist message, to slay male chauvinism in the cultural arena.

[Invincible Summer]

I feel that it does not matter if I think it's positive or not. It doesn't matter what I think because it's never affected me.
Although you do have a point about sexual harassment being somewhat overlooked and not taken seriously by society. I'm not sure the same could be said about rape, though.


But surely you have an opinion even if it hasn't happened to you.

Do you have an opinion on war, even if you (I'm making an assumption) haven't experienced it first hand?

Also, the fact that people (mostly younger people) throw around the word "rape" is telling of how seriously it's taken... "Ohhhh I raped you in that game!" "I got so raped by that exam!" etc. Some people even have debates over whether the victim of rape "was asking for it." That shouldn't even be asked!


Also, just a question to those who believe that this sexual image hurts all women. What would your solution to this problem be? education? censorship?
A shift in societal values (through education and a change of socio-political-economic systems) would definitely make the most difference, although I do think censorship is a possibility. It has very negative connotations, but I personally think that it's similar to how racist advertisements, etc are not allowed. So should sexist imagery be disallowed.

And there would be no discussion as to whether something is "art" and "not sexist," as it should be painfully obvious (as in the SKY Vodka and D&G ads).

[danyboy27]

It is a problem that such images are selling. It is sadly telling a lot about our society that women in bikinis next to a car help to increase the sales of said car. Before the 1920's, commercials rather used to focus on what the product did than how cool you are for using it.
Well, this is manipulation, some psychologist figured out back then that Sigmund freud Theories could be used to make money out of our emotion.

We are emotional being driven by pulsions, we are really vulnerable to manipulation.

This is Normal for us, human to be aroused by the views of explicit sexual acts, this is normal for a human to be aroused by the sight of suggestive pictures of naked men and womens.

the same can be said about violence. its in us, we love it, we love to blowing off some steam, its a part of us. without it, we wouldnt be able to overcome all the difficulties we encountered has a species.

what is not normal, and perverse, is to use of our emotion to sell, this is immoral.

Again, i think this is a notion that a lot of feminist group dont understand, that what is an outrage is not having a beautiful sexy naked women on a public billboard with a suggestive stance, its the pack of cigarette next to her on the billboard.

[Invincible Summer]

Well, this is manipulation, some psychologist figured out back then that Sigmund freud Theories could be used to make money out of our emotion.

We are emotional being driven by pulsions, we are really vulnerable to manipulation.

This is Normal for us, human to be aroused by the views of explicit sexual acts, this is normal for a human to be aroused by the sight of suggestive pictures of naked men and womens.

the same can be said about violence. its in us, we love it, we love to blowing off some steam, its a part of us. without it, we wouldnt be able to overcome all the difficulties we encountered has a species.

what is not normal, and perverse, is to use of our emotion to sell, this is immoral.

Again, i think this is a notion that a lot of feminist group dont understand, that what is an outrage is not having a beautiful sexy naked women on a public billboard with a suggestive stance, its the pack of cigarette next to her on the billboard.


The problem is that having constant images of "beautiful sexy naked women" normalizes that image and creates unrealistic expectations for 90% of the women out there.
It also normalizes the implied sexual nature of the images - that women are sexual for men

[the last donut of the night]

I guess part of it is semantics. Our defintion of communism could easily define away sexism, racism etc. I really don't know what the official Marxist line on this is.

I think the reason I was being somewhat sarcastic is because I feel that destroying the class-apparatus is a necessary cause, not necessarily a sufficient cause tho.

Of course I'm a little weak on theory, so maybe you could enlighten me on this?

I presume you're asking how the destroying of the class-apparatus could drive away sexism, racism, and homophobia? We need to see that these prejudices are inherent to a stratified society because they aid in continuing ruling class power and not that they are natural to humankind, as some bourgeois 'scientists' have said in the past. (Of course, that does not mean racism, sexism, or homophobia may have some very small origin in the human genetic map, but to say we're inherently prejudiced is something ridiculous.) I can think of various examples on how racism has been used in capitalist society to keep people distracted from the actual evil -- capitalism itself. And while sexism isn't as widely used in such a way, as sexism is much older than capitalism itself and goes across class lines, it is often used in combination with racism or other reactionary ideas. An example is blaming mothers in working-class communities for kids dropping out of schools, etc.

Maybe other people should help me on this?

[9]

“Misogyny” and discrimination against women in general stems from the oppression of women, so it is easier to address this issue if we deal with the root (i.e. the oppression of women) rather than a symptom (i.e. misogyny). And I don’t think anyone in this thread has actually gotten to the issue here. Women are not oppressed because images of scantily clad female models are used to sell products. Obviously objectification tends to be demeaning, but it isn’t actually the issue.
The source of the oppression of women in modern capitalist society in the advanced industrialized nations is the working class family. The role of the woman as housewife and mother first and foremost has been modified, so as to extend “career opportunities” to middle class and bourgeois women - this is the product of the Feminist movement, which was and is equally middle class and bourgeois. So it is now possible for the daughters of the middle classes and the bourgeoisie to subordinate their role as wife and mother to an education and career; the social pressure to settle down and have children may still be present, but the economic impetus that drives working class women into the family is not present for the middle classes and the bourgeoisie to a comparable extent.

Women in the US still only make 75 cents for every dollar that their male counterparts make, and its close to 20 cents less for women of color. For middle class and bourgeois women, this is not such a problem. For working class women, it can make it difficult - and in some cases nearly impossible - to get by on one wage alone, hence the economic impetus for working class women to fulfill their role in bourgeois society as wife and mother (generally while being wage slaves simultaneously), and this ensures the bourgeoisie a steady supply of labor power to be exploited (in the form of the next generation of workers). The bourgeoisie has to consistently ensure that this supply of labor power is not threatened - that working class women aren’t free simply to choose not to produce the next generation of workers - and it does this in myriad ways. For example, by keeping the wages for working class women down, keeping access to sex education at a low level for schools in poor and working class areas, limiting and restricting access to abortion (even more so for teens) - or at least keeping the cost of the procedure up and prohibiting insurance policies from covering it, as well as demonizing those who do get abortions as “murderers of helpless, innocent babies“ so on and so forth. Sexual “morality” and “family values” are bourgeois ideological reflections of this which serve also to reinforce the trend.

Women are certainly still oppressed, and working class women are doubly oppressed. I don’t know whether the thread starter is from a working class family, although she is a “moderate Libertarian”, so I would assume not. In any case, even if she was - if she is still in school, living at home, and not working, it isn’t particularly hard to understand how she could fail to notice that women are oppressed, as she wouldn’t have had any of the life experiences in which this oppression is most patently manifest (employment, marriage, motherhood, etc.).
However, the oppression of women is a product of private property and it is bound up with class society, so it is not actually possible to achieve women’s liberation within the framework of capitalism. So, as much as some reformists might mock it, the communist solution to the oppression of women is the same as the communist solution to the exploitation of the working class (and indeed, these two issues are not separate): international socialist revolution.

[Robocommie]

Women in the US still only make 75 cents for every dollar that their male counterparts make, and its close to 20 cents less for women of color.

One thing I always wonder when I hear this, and I'm not trying to say I disbelieve, is how on Earth can this be legal? How is it that this comes out to be the case?

[Jimmie Higgins]

The source of the oppression of women in modern capitalist society in the advanced industrialized nations is the working class family.

However, the oppression of women is a product of private property and it is bound up with class society, so it is not actually possible to achieve women’s liberation within the framework of capitalism. So, as much as some reformists might mock it, the communist solution to the oppression of women is the same as the communist solution to the exploitation of the working class (and indeed, these two issues are not separate): international socialist revolution.

Right, while it may be possible to win some reforms such as equal pay and reproductive rights, ultimately there will not be true liberation until class society is gone.

What might this look like? Free and easily available childcare for everyone, the reduction of privatized housework (i.e. communal kitchens - basically free restaurants, communal laundry service) would make life easier for all men and women. Maternity and paternity leave, free healthcare, free and continuing education on an elective basis.

So while some of these reforms could be won temporarily, basically for full equality, we need a revolution and a different kind of society.

The modern type of woman's oppression (for working class women) developed during the victorian era. During the first stages of industrialization most mills were run off of women's labor (and child labor) so that men stayed to work on the farm while selling their wife and daughter's labor to capitalists (men owned their wives and children's wages). Women got paid less because it was unskilled labor, and since most of the wages were secondary incomes, the bosses felt like they could get away with it.

But as industry increased and the populations went from being mainly apprentices/craftspeople and farmers to unskilled laborers, all sorts of modern social problems began becoming apparent even to the capitalists. So in the Victorian era, there were movements against drinking (a bourgoise attempt to lessen the violence of life for workers/increase productivity) and for tea-time; movements against child labor and for the "softening" of labor for women. Ideas developed around what is manly or womanly behavior: women were soft, caring and nurturing according to bourgoise scientists/sociologists... how convenient to discover this at the same time as the capitalists wanted to take women out of the mills and stick them with taking care of children so that the future working class isn't running around on the streets stealing with Pip and the gang; men were tough and didn't mind a little hard work - perfect since the capitalists wanted to make people work hard and not get paid well for it... stiff upper lip there, don't complain about working conditions, unless you are some kind of "dandy".

So since sexism and all sorts of other oppressions developed because of the conditions of class society and the class interests of the ruling class, we won't full be able to get rid of them without changing society.

[danyboy27]

The problem is that having constant images of "beautiful sexy naked women" normalizes that image and creates unrealistic expectations for 90% of the women out there.
It also normalizes the implied sexual nature of the images - that women are sexual for men

the human body is a work of art, its beautiful, its attractive, and people should be free to show it.

who are you to tell us what we should and shouldnt see in public?

[Invincible Summer]

the human body is a work of art, its beautiful, its attractive, and people should be free to show it.

who are you to tell us what we should and shouldnt see in public?

I'm not denying that people should be free to show their bodies. But doctored, airbrushed people are different from what you are talking about.

The issue I am talking about is the normalization of hypersexualized, misogynistic images of women, not purtian values and Victorian frocks.

[Robocommie]

I'm not denying that people should be free to show their bodies. But doctored, airbrushed people are different from what you are talking about.

The issue I am talking about is the normalization of hypersexualized, misogynistic images of women, not purtian values and Victorian frocks.

Yeah, those doctored airbrushed photos on magazines are fucked up.

[danyboy27]

I'm not denying that people should be free to show their bodies. But doctored, airbrushed people are different from what you are talking about.

The issue I am talking about is the normalization of hypersexualized, misogynistic images of women, not purtian values and Victorian frocks.

but what do you consider Hypersexualisation?

[Physicist]

I'm not denying that people should be free to show their bodies. But doctored, airbrushed people are different from what you are talking about.

The issue I am talking about is the normalization of hypersexualized, misogynistic images of women, not purtian values and Victorian frocks.

At the same time I think we have to be clear in our goals. Emphasizing beauty to the point of absurdity has been around for thousands of years, and it has applied to both sexes. I'm specifically thinking about certain Greek and Roman depictions of famous statesmen. Women are still clearly objectified to an incomparable extent, but it seems to me that increasingly the solution for this has come in the shape of hypersexualizing men - commercials are selling washboard abs, skin products, makeup, dietary substances, and now penis enhancement. Granted I can flip on the television right now and probably have to use a calculator to keep track of all the "perfect women" on television whose husbands are less than fantastic, but this seems to be the current trend under capitalism - making us all strive to be "perfect humans." If you have one zit, it's a catastrophe.

So what direction are we actually moving in? Will airbrushing go away? I'm actually stumped on that question. The only favorable signs I've seen in the past decade have come out of some modeling companies refusing to stage ultra-thin models.

[CartCollector]

One thing I always wonder when I hear this, and I'm not trying to say I disbelieve, is how on Earth can this be legal? How is it that this comes out to be the case?
What's that? You hate economic freedom and want to discriminate against white men?
That's the argument that pundits and politicians use when they fight against affirmative action policies. As you can see, it works.


So what direction are we actually moving in? Will airbrushing go away?
Airbrushing will go away when airbrushed ads stop bringing in sales. Or when the revolution happens, whichever is first.

[mollymae]

... keeping access to sex education at a low level for schools in poor and working class areas, limiting and restricting access to abortion (even more so for teens) - or at least keeping the cost of the procedure up and prohibiting insurance policies from covering it, as well as demonizing those who do get abortions as “murderers of helpless, innocent babies“ so on and so forth. Sexual “morality” and “family values” are bourgeois ideological reflections of this which serve also to reinforce the trend.

There are people who genuinely hold these values, and I highly doubt that it is because they actively want to oppress working class women. It's because they truly believe that abortion is murder and the use of birth control is immoral. It's a twisted way of thinking if you ask me, and if they had things their way (making birth control/abortions/etc illegal) then it would certainly be oppressive to women. But I do not think that it all comes from discrimination, and I think it's kind of a stretch to say that it's all part of a large scheme to reinforce capitalism. There are people who hold these values--working class people, I might add--because of religious beliefs, for example. If you think I am ignorant then please direct me to some reading materials and I will read and consider them with an open mind.

[9]

^I did not at all mean to suggest that the majority of the people holding these views hold them because they consciously want to oppress women; that is not what I‘m saying. But the ruling ideas of every age are the ideas of the ruling class. The dominant strains of ideology, philosophy, and morality of a given era have - throughout the history of class society - always served to legitimize the existing order of things at the time - to justify the rule of the ruling class over the masses. To suggest that sexual “morality” and “family values” serve this function today is not to suggest that everyone who upholds these “values” is conscious of their function - indeed, most are not conscious of it at all; they are simply adopting the dominant ideas in the society in which they live, generally entirely unaware of the concrete role that these ideas play.

[mollymae]

Ah, okay. Sorry for the misinterpretation.

[Physicist]

There are people who genuinely hold these values, and I highly doubt that it is because they actively want to oppress working class women. It's because they truly believe that abortion is murder and the use of birth control is immoral. It's a twisted way of thinking if you ask me, and if they had things their way (making birth control/abortions/etc illegal) then it would certainly be oppressive to women. But I do not think that it all comes from discrimination, and I think it's kind of a stretch to say that it's all part of a large scheme to reinforce capitalism. There are people who hold these values--working class people, I might add--because of religious beliefs, for example. If you think I am ignorant then please direct me to some reading materials and I will read and consider them with an open mind.

While I won't attempt to refute the argument that one's opinion of abortion does not imply that person is sexist, as I believe you may be right in that regard when one is openly concerned about limited sub-categories to the debate like late term abortion, keep in mind that even in Christian Europe until the 19th century first trimester abortion (quickening) was genuinely deemed acceptable by men and churches alike. Since a political philosophy diverging from historical precedent requires some agent of change, I can only wonder if that agent may be related to capitalism. I know conservatives have argued that advances in medical technology created public awareness about the effects of abortion on even early fetuses, but it seems unlikely as the laws barring abortion came into effect prior to widescale hospital care. Plus, it's not as if no woman experienced a natural miscarriage prior to the 19th century.

[Jimmie Higgins]

the human body is a work of art, its beautiful, its attractive, and people should be free to show it.I agree, but unfortunately most women and many men will not really be "free" to expose their bodies without attracting unwanted attention until sexual liberation is achieved.

[Physicist]

I agree, but unfortunately most women and many men will not really be "free" to expose their bodies without attracting unwanted attention until sexual liberation is achieved.

There you have it: more nude beaches. ;)