Bronywn, I'm largly in agreement with your last post but suspect that your comment "To me, her action compromises the rights of all women who want to distance themselves from the bimbo image and have their views taken seriously, which I'm sure is the vast majority of us" is a reflection of a fundamental difference of view about the individual too that which I hold.

In my world one individuals choices and actions do not reflect on others who happen to share some characteristic with that person (eg gender) unless they show support for those actions and choices. To use a popular example - female friends are not regarded as stupid or shallow because of the actions of Paris Hilton nor is Paris regarded as thoughtful, deep and intelligent because of my friends choices and character.

What a woman has to say is not lessened by how she is dressed, my ability to focus on the topic at hand may be weakened but not what the woman says.

R0ber

Bronwyn, you are right that when a woman makes a poor choice it could reflect poorly on women as a whole to some. But does that make that opinion right?

Of course no human lives in a vacuum. Personal choices do affect others. But is it true that actions made by some women reflect on all women? If yes, then how can we free ourselves of the notion that there must be one right way to behave as a modern liberated woman? How can you and I grow as human individuals with a burden like that? How can I fulfil my chosen life’s goals when some may be contrary to your beliefs as to what makes you a successful woman?

Authority and power over our self used to belong to the men in our lives. Are we now to swap this for other women or the feminist movement until we are ‘ready’ for self determination?

Feminism is losing stature and relevance amongst young women precisely because they perceive some choices to be someone’s personal choice and refuse to take on the responsibility or guilt for those choices just because it was made by someone of their gender.

Sexual behaviour, personal appearance, going to war are not seen as women’s behaviour or men’s behaviour anymore. My young adult and teenage children certainly don’t. In respect of sex eg., they see 2 (or more!) persons-who can be ANY gender.

They tend to focus on the behaviour of the participants, not the gender per se and discuss the morality of the behaviour in terms of that individual’s and society’s well being.

I’m from ’58 and to me feminism means women’s liberation. By liberating women, society benefits, that’s what makes it justifiable in the first place, not its purpose. A movement for the benefit of some individuals could only be condoned by a society if it is perceived to be better for that society to allow it than not.

I found this today http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/3053

"As the sociologist David Altheide has argued, ‘fear does not just happen; it is socially constructed and then manipulated by those who seek to benefit’ (26). While this description of socially constructed fear tends to inflate the role of self-interest – the extent to which fear entrepreneurs exploit fear in order to gain some direct benefit – its emphasis on the role of human agency in the making of fear is nonetheless a useful counterpoint to the idea that fear is something natural or purely psychological."

I think the telling phrases is 'fear does not just happen; it is socailly constructed and then manipulated'.

RObert

I agree, on a one-to-one basis, someone like Paris Hilton doesn’t in any way reflect on the way you might view other individual females that you have come to know and respect. But, on a collective basis, the influence of women like her is unfortunately very persuasive. We are constantly bombarded with images of young, thin and increasingly homogenous looking girls, all conforming to a very definite look, and this has a huge affect on young and impressionable women. Asian girls having their legs lengthened, girls developing eating disorders and the growth in the plastic surgery and botox industries are all spin-offs of this. The collective cost in terms of money down the drain, in time lost and in the wasted opportunities that more worthwhile pursuits could have brought is enormous. It is only a very self assured woman who can turn her back on all of this and truly do what she wants to regardless of how she conforms to society’s norms.

yvonne

I am not prescribing “one right way” at all. I agree with you that it is important for all people to have as many choices open to them as possible. My argument is that when a tipping point of women make the same individual choice, it adversely affects the choices open to other women. For example , if a majority of women try and conform to the image I described above, it makes the choice of women who wish to age naturally that much harder. Or when the majority of women choose to chase high-powered career paths, the women who want to stay at home and nurture a family find it more difficult to follow their personal choice. I'm not offering any answers here or prescribing any "right way". I just want to point out that there are always trade-offs. Women's liberation as you describe it will only ever be available to a certain group of women.

To both of you, we will probably soon have to agree to disagree on this but I have enjoyed the discussion.

Bronwyn,

For what it’s worth, I agree with you on both counts.

Furthermore, R0bert’s obsession with PC and sitting on fences, constrains him to always play it both ways – isolate Paris, her sizable fan base and growing cohort, while at the same time, promise to respect her (opinions) [in the morning] “What a woman has to say is not lessened by how she is dressed, my ability to focus on the topic at hand may be weakened but not what the woman says”.

There are fences that accommodate sitting on, and then there are those that just invite impalement. While R0bert may fancy himself as a shining light, he’s no more than a current-induced filament in a vacuum.

Bronywn, I agree that we are all impacted by the way some individuals are portrayed, not by their specific choices but by societies determination to make public figures of people who just don't seem to have anything worthwhile to say or do. I'd be more inclined to address that issue on a greater focus on lifting the profile of what is valued.

Seeker - OK so you don't like my attempts to look at both sides of the issue. Get over it.

R0bert