The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Feminism and raunch culture > Comments

Feminism and raunch culture : Comments

By Darlene Taylor, published 23/5/2006

How should feminism respond to the sexing-up of femininity?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Also, see this excellent review of the book: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/21/012936.php
Posted by lauzy, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 1:34:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Darlene, I wonder if you could tell readers what is your source for the assertion that Sheila Jeffreys (or that other "dinosaur" Andrea Dworkin) claims that "all heterosexual sex is rape". If you cannot do so, I think you should withdraw the comment. Any book or article by Jeffreys or Dworkin, plus page number, would be sufficient. You might also like to provide evidence that women wear minis and stilettos as a reaction to listening to Jeffreys.
Posted by isabelberners, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 4:23:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is some controversy about this. Dworkin has never expressly written "all heterosexual sex is rape" but some argue that it is implicit in her works. Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercourse_%28book%29

In response to the article, in my opinion if you wear a short dress then it is okay for people to look at your legs. However, it is not an excuse for someone to touch your legs and definitely not to force you to have sex. The clothes you wear are nothing to do with your consent or otherwise to sex - except maybe a "yes - but not with you" T-shirt ;-)
Posted by Pedant, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 5:51:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I get the feeling this article might be missing it's last paragraph.

If the final quote is representative of most girls in that generation then it seems that feminism has a lot of work to do. Surely seeking validation through the opion of males is not a sign of empowerment.

Perhaps the next generation will go against raunch. While Nina Hagens Unbeschreiblich Weiblich and Pank carried the message home to us teenagers in Holland, modern equivalents such as Sarah Jones' Your Revolution don't seem to make the airwaves. Perhaps that is Australian conservatism, a friend got banned from radio after playing Robin Archers Menstruation Blues in the 80's.
Posted by gusi, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 6:20:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What it boils down to, I believe, is that women actually hate freedom of choice, but are only now coming to terms with it.

Feminism has given women the vote, equal-ish pay, and the right to dress as they wish - all of which were rightly welcomed as a simple recognition of natural justice - but it also came with the burden of self-determination. Beneath the facade of sexually empowered, career-ready alpha-grrls, women still want what they've always wanted: slavery.

When the power-suited CEO gets home, she doesn't want to be met by a partner who'll respect her and treat her like an equal. She wants a big strong man there to tell her the rules; to put her in a playpen where she can relax, knowing her mate will protect her from the scary, unpredictable world outside as long as she doesn't pull on the leash too much.

That's not inherent to women. It's an identity crisis which afflicts anyone who is suddenly freed from their shackles, only to find themselves without the clear-cut rules which had always defined their life.

What sticks in the craw of old-school feminists is that the girls they raised have given in to that sheepish impulse almost entirely.

Feminists of the seventies wound up playing a strange pea-and-thimble game with themselves and the opposite sex. The two rules were a) no woman could openly admit that "goods and chattels" suited her just fine, but b) deep down, every woman knows that respect, admiration, and honesty don't make a man attractive; they make him a wimp.

All we're seeing in "raunch culture" is an impulse that's far more feminine than feminist: be an object that boys want to own, and boys will give you structure and security.
Posted by Sancho, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 7:34:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women really want slavery hey Sancho? At least you are brave enough to say what you think, but you are way off the mark. Yes, women don't generally go for wimps, but real women with education and opportunities don't go for neanderthal losers either. And I think you will find that although women like strong men, they are pretty keen on their freedom too - the two are not incompatible.

I don't mean to be mean, but to me your post sounds like you have been on the receiving end of a "you're a nice guy but I just want to be friends" situation. Which can be pretty damn annoying, but just because a woman liked someone else (who was more of a caveman than you) doesn't mean all women want to be slaves.
Posted by pickledherring, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 9:02:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And that, pickledherring, is the microwave-ready psychoanalysis I usually receive when I put that argument! I think it's mostly a knee-jerk, ad hominem reaction to statements you find insulting.

No, my opinion is the result of gross disappointment in people who shrug off dignity like it's a burden.

I've known many capable, intelligent women - friends, sisters, work colleagues - and watched the majority of them become people who will tolerate violence, withdraw from friends and family, dive into crazy financial schemes...anything, just so long as someone will stick around to provide order and context in their lives (and not just blokes. Lesbians get the worst of both worlds).

This article backs my point up: feminism is now of value to only a fringe minority. Women have more opportunities and resources now than at any point in history, and what choices have they made? Paris Hilton as a rolemodel and the revival of good housekeeping guides.

It's tragic, and I can't respect it, but Western women are breathing a collective sigh of relief that they can finally get back to a role they're comfortable with. And surely feminism is about the right to choose.
Posted by Sancho, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 10:43:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So when was the last time men accurately assessed female sexuality?
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 11:30:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho,

I think unfortunatly you have a point, of course freedom is scary and some people may wish to find a way to escape it. But it just seems to me there is something missing from your argument: men.

For women to revert back to being "objects" there must be enough men ready to view them as such, and only as such, otherwise it would hardly be a winning tactic. So it's not just women who reveal vulnarebilities in these unequal relations, but also the men who choose these women.

They prove their lack of confidence and need for reasurance by prefering a relationship marred by a power relation of domination and submission to a relationship with an equal partner, which is obviously more challenging, more demanding.

So the question to me becomes how do we, as a society and as individuals, make sure that these dynamics get left in the past by both genders? how do we, men and women, finally find a way to grow and relate to one another as strong, free and equal? Let's stop this fnger pointing from one sex to the other and face our issues together.
Posted by Schmuck, Wednesday, 24 May 2006 5:58:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Beneath the facade of sexually empowered, career-ready alpha-grrls, women still want what they've always wanted: slavery"

Sancho, at first I thought you were joking. Then you repeated yourself. I have to say that as a young woman with an excellent education, high earning job and stable hetero relationship with a similarly qualified partner, I was utterly appalled by your statement.

I am sure that some women do wish to be nothing more than an old-style "little woman" at home (indeed, my cousin seems to be going down this road quite happily), but to assume that this is the way that most women wish to be?

The idea that the freedom feminism has given me and my friends to earn that education, work in an interesting job, vote, travel alone etc has made me wish for a return to my Grandmother's status as 'chatel' is utterly stupid.

I (and my friends) certainly do NOT want someone who will dominate us to be our partners. We want people who are our intellectual equals, who will SHARE our lives.

Indeed, Sancho, from all my discussions with young men around my age, they too do not wish for "little wifeys", they want young women who interest them, and who will be partners in life, not dependants.

The idea that women actually wish to be slaves is utterly appalling.
Posted by Laurie, Wednesday, 24 May 2006 11:11:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article starts with three teenage girls apparently being blamed, because they allegedly attracted the attention of some perhaps oafish young men by the way in which they were dressed. This sounds a bit like the oft quoted fallacy that women who get raped "ask for it" by their dress and/or behaviour.

In 1950, when I was 16, I learned to dance when my mother told me that was the best way to meet girls. I found that the girls who danced generally wanted to look pretty and maybe wanted to look a bit cheeky and a bit sexy as well. They also tended to look attractively healthy, a bit like skaters, swimmers and tennis players do. This suited me fine and my preference was certainly for girls who "looked good".

If people dance well, they know they will attract attention, whether their style is Ballroom, Latin or Rock-n-Roll. This of course applies to the men as well. I still dance 4 or 5 times a week and nothing has changed.

But suggesting that looking attractive, at any age, is somehow letting womanhood down is ridiculous. And how do people look attractive? For many it's being fashionably dressed, particularly for young girls who are still developing their personal confidence and individuality.

Tight pants and bare midriffs haven't just been invented. My first wife looked great in such an outfit in 1960. She also had a good job, sang in a choir, was the soprano with a quartet and represented the area at netball. I suppose that could be regarded as a good set of achievements in her own right.

I saw inequalities in my parents' marriage. But my mother had to be tough to counter my father's irresponsible traits. And I wanted a partner who would be intelligent, capable, interesting, honest and definitely equal. But I also wanted a woman who dressed like a woman and not in a copy of a man's business suit, or some other sexually neutral way, like so many of them do nowadays.
Posted by Rex, Wednesday, 24 May 2006 1:06:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Struth! Not another "raunch culture" article. When will women stop obsessing about themselves?

And when will Hell freeze over?

The answer to both is, never.

Look, good people, there's nothing very unusual or new about this so-called raunch culture. It's simply a case of ye old, "mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?"

Every young girl, outside of women's studies courses, wants to be the prettiest, most desirable princess of them all. But there's a lot of competition out there, so what's a poor girl to do?

Simple - go raunch.

It's all about a girl simply using her wares to get her way in the modern world where the liberals have removed the moral barriers. Vagina power is the name of the game and it's what it's all about. Young women are pitting their wares against those of their competition. Nothing new about that. They've been doing it for millions of generations. It's just natural. But now there's no rules.

If girls want to look and behave like trash, let them. If they want to get tramp-stamps, primitive tribal adornments and powerful aftermarket accessories like big breast enlargements, why shouldn't they?

I just don't understand why so many women have to write about it and I wish they'd stop. Haven't they got anything better to do?
Posted by Maximus, Thursday, 25 May 2006 4:24:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only thing this article highlights is the fact that there are some women out there who have absolutely no clue when in comes to their sexuality.

And if I read another 'raunch culture' article (I read the book when it was first released) I think I'm going to vomit.
Posted by strayan, Thursday, 25 May 2006 9:15:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I found Darlene Taylor's article really interesting, in upholding respect as essential to feminism.

Her criticism of 'raunch culture' is valuable because that culture is demeaning most of those who engage in it, particularly when they're only teenagers who haven't yet acquired an adult objectivity.

Respect seems a stronger basis for relating to others than even equality, because equality has to be imposed, rather than it occurring naturally.

Why else would millions of Australians sit around football and cricket fields every weekend, to watch 18 or 13 players strutting their stuff? It's a pleasure to admit that Einstein was smarter, Lance Armstrong is a better cyclist, and Something for Kate are better musicians than I am. The only interesting equality is among such experts, between themselves.

Equality seems necessary only because the strong have repeatedly abused their power over the weak. In itself equality seems boring, frankly, in that there's no pleasure of admiration there. Yet we need the Racial Discrimination Act, and Amnesty International's National Plan of Action to eliminate violence against women, because the strong so often abuse their strength, particularly when some men still think that women should be slaves, as in the good old days. Of course, it was also sometimes said back then that every man and woman could become so noble as to become a god or goddess.
Posted by Tomess, Monday, 29 May 2006 1:57:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
isabelberners: Helen, I thought you'd got better, but either your recent articles have been an aberration, or you've relapsed. Shame, either way. You're back to sounding like the humorless doctrinaire feminist who told her UNSW class JS Mill's dedication to Harriet Taylor read like "thanks to the typist". Couldn't see it then, can't see it now.

And I also can't see why you interpret "is excuse enough to" (put on a miniskirt and a pair of stilettos) as the article put it, as "puts on same" (as a reaction to Jeffreys and Dworkin). Unless you lack a sense of irony (plausible - I've been to your lectures); just want to nitpick; or have a very dim view of women's capacity to separate whim from action.

This particular woman finds she has an urge, when lectured by doctrinaire Greens (with whom I largely agree) to pick up an old CFC-propelled spray can and unload it straight at the ozone layer. It's a fairly standard human reaction to being harangued. It doesn't mean I'm going to do it. It doesn't mean women will dress like sluts because of Dworkin and Jeffreys. It DOES mean holier-than-thou preaching might be counter-productive.

As might your all-too-obvious failure to understand rhetoric in general, and hyperbole in particular. Possibly a minor disadvantage for a humanities scholar? (If you're interested in understanding more about rhetoric, by the way, "minor" is a litotes).
Posted by anomie, Monday, 29 May 2006 10:09:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I Dont think women are any more slaves than most working men .
men are more sloth like in their habits for the most part unless they are defending their patch, probably due to our biological roles ,whereas women seem to have a marvellous restless energy which fascinates me . i suspect it originally derives from at various times in ancient history [and also today ]having to be completely independent of men to survive AND maintain their family.
As for the raunch , it all in the end seems a bit pointless if they don't find a mate .
Posted by kartiya, Tuesday, 30 May 2006 12:06:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frankly I think the author is a sociosexually ineffective person - someone who is likely to misperceive the level of sexual intent in a social setting; becuase of what a persons wears or something else about their outward appearance for instance. What kind of person thinks a pair of shoes can communicate sexual intent or is a reflection of a persons sexual desire?

Displaying cleavage doesn't communicate anything to me Miss - actually not true - the fact that you thought it did tells me you have no idea about your sexuality and to steer clear.
Posted by strayan, Tuesday, 30 May 2006 7:02:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Overt sexualisation is a great way to get a mans attention, but a horrible way to keep it. Sex isnt the glue that binds men to women. The stuff that keeps us in your arms is emotional stability and dependability. Its ironic that females seem to have embraced, from latter revisions of feminist ideoligical dogma, that they are all rights and no responsibilities. Feminism is guilty of much the same as countless other ideologies premised on entitlement by existemce. No one deserves anything because they say so, irrespective of the millions of carefully constructed word festivals that they sponsor and attend. You get power because you fight for it. Freedom is not given it is taken. And getting it is not as hard as keeping it.

l think that a lot of females realise how difficult it is to play this game of equality with men on an equal footing. Its much easier to push the biological buttons. Emotion and instinct are much more effective and efficient tools than reason and intellect. Why waste time appealing to reason when you can just flash some flesh and get that bag of male hormones to dance on the end of your string?

Problem with raunch culture is two fold. Firstly, its self deprecating and biologically reductionist. It flies in the face of the claims to equality when one falls back on the old ploys. Undermines credibility and fosters disrespect. Speaks to a deeper malaise. Hence the swathe of dissillusioned men who wont commit, cohab, marry, father or even have relationships with females. This sort of overt appeal to sex also reflects a condascendingly base view of males, which in turn further undermines your own credibility. It may be easy to love females due to biology, but when they project such a derogatory view of males, they make themselves very difficult to like and respect. You get what you give.

(cont)
Posted by trade215, Saturday, 3 June 2006 4:12:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont)

Second problem is one of familiarity and what it breeds. If l eat caviar and drink Moet three times a day it looses its alure and becomes passe. After a few days on a Grecian island topless beach, the site of mammaries become very ho-hum indeed. Still pleasurable but progressively desensitising.

lt is encumbant upon women to get this togther. Its your agenda and your push, you need to own it. Blaming women's magazine (editorial and writing staff almost entirely female) and falling back on projected latent hostilities by way of lame name calling like meesoggeenust just doesnt cut it anymore. People just grow a thick skin in the face of that nonsense and the females get nowhere trying to advance after having shot themselves in the feet so often.

Equality is a two way street. When are women going to start looking at men as equals and treating us as such? Rather than looking down on us from their lofty pedestals of self procalimed higher morality, where they are sugar, spice and everything nice and we are snails and puppy dog tails.

The basic lessons... cause and effect, accountability, responsibility, respect for yourselves and us lowly simpleton sex crazed perverted meesogeenuts. Females dont listen to males. That would be oppression. Its the repsonsibility of women to impart the lesson.

Its your reality, you command it. Blaming us and turning to us to make all the changes is very old school and contradicts basic notions of personal power to affect meaningful change in your own life. Its just not equal.

When are you gonna step up?
Posted by trade215, Saturday, 3 June 2006 4:17:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dear anomie,
I know enough about rhetoric to know that your use of "minor" in this sentence is meiosis, not litotes. I also know enough about courtesy to use my own name on this wonderful website.
"Possibly a minor disadvantage for a humanities scholar? (If you're interested in understanding more about rhetoric, by the way, "minor" is a litotes)."
Posted by isabelberners, Monday, 5 June 2006 5:34:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bring on the Raunch.

As for the "feminists",

Who cares!

Individuals will do what individuals want to do. It is only when a bunch of extremists, be they feminists or queens, want to dictate what individuals must do that there is a problem.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 6 June 2006 1:52:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy