I mostly agree with Melinda Tankard Reist’s article and the last paragraph sums things up nicely . This habit in our culture of portraying complex and many-faceted human beings as one-dimensional objects is the prime cause of many problems in society. For instance: sexual predators only see one thing in a woman or child. They are too stupid to imagine the child as a child filled with hopes, dreams and a future. They can’t see the daughter, the sister, the student, the friend, the dreamer, the future rock star (feminist one like O’Connor), mother, wife, the blessed little innocent soul - these are dimensions sexual predators can’t imagine and/or rationalise away.

And pornography and some ideological/religious structures perpetrate a one-dimensional attitude to women. That women often under the “feminist”, girl -power banner are themselves participating in other women’s objectification, one-dimensionalising and perhaps harm must be acknowledged, as Riest does, and feminists are wise not to shy away from this.

I think the causes of the problem of young women being conned into thinking that liberation is just about sexual liberation can’t be blamed on any one thing.

Firstly, the pornography industry and the portrayal of women in certain media has strong influence on women’s lot. Women, for instance, aren’t as equal as men because they can’t walk, cycle or jog on the same streets, pathways as men because of sexual predators. And yet we are told that women are equal - liberated. If women choose to do the same thing that men take for granted, they are “putting themselves in danger”. Yet a person in a minority group who is subjected to the same intimidation and abuse would fill the news for weeks – and rightly so. The power of the media is scary. For instance: global warming has gone from green rubbish to a necessity for survival in weeks. The media has the power to assist making the world a safer and truly equal place for women. Feminists can show them how.

Second, family breakdown does leave some young girls without a positive male influence - Cont

Cont. –one that treats mum with respect and ensures respect for his daughters. There are family situations where the child would be better off if the parents split - where the child witnesses their parents laying into each other regularly, this situation often does contribute to low esteem which may see young girls developing behaviours like compensating personalities (on the unconscious or conscious level the girl tells herself - I’ll do this, even though it is horrid, so I’ll be liked –so I’ll fit in). This can still happen to any family. Moreover, kids reportedly recycle family violence.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/wireless/story/0,,3102-21400648,00.html

Third, the Federal and State governments are clueless men’s groups.

Fourth, the porn industry has a massive financial turnover - and well capitalism is not based on a system of morality, or even philosophy, just ideology couched in economic rationalism.

Fifth, given that mothers usually do the shopping I question what is nurturing about a pole-dancing kit or sexualised clothing for a child. Having said that, I find it ridiculous that anyone could see a child as sexual regardless of what she or he is wearing or coerced to wear – this, in itself , is more a sign that society has lost it’s commonsense (media again).

Sixth, feminism has made it very difficult for men to speak on women’s and family issues (we’re all bastards), no seriously, if we support feminists on women’s issues we must suffer from the “rescue me syndrome”; if we praise women we remind some feminists of a society that often put women on a pedestal (like the old troubadours did) so as to knock her off or that should she fall from grace then it is another example of female failure and weakness (another way men gain power); or it is assumed that we think women are too precious and dainty to voice their own concerns. I’m sure there’s more. This in turn sees male perspectives, even those who support some feminist positions, disregarded. I guess male feminists are one dimensional too.

Finally, education –teaching children to be resilient is paramount.

Hmm... so much to say and so little space to say it.

I agree with the article on the face of it, though I do have reservations about the solutions to this issue.

Say we accept the contents of Reist's article. There is little there that you can honestly argue with.

What is the solution? If anyone's actually suggesting the banning of pornography (runner I'm looking at you) then it's impractical. Pornography's always existed and always will. When you drive it underground, it is subject to even less scrutiny. Plus, there's the issue of what you have the right to censor. I don't believe it's up to the government to tell us we can't watch porn.
If this article is a 'trojan horse' of sorts to encourage what could just as easily become oppression of women, then I'd have cause for concern. It's all well and good to say feminism has taken the wrong road, and perhaps it has, but the right road isn't telling women they should be more chaste. That's just jumping right back to the 1950s.

I'd say that it's up to women to simply stop behaving this way - in a collective manner, women of all stripes need to start engendering a culture that regards such acts as what they are. You can't rely on the media to change. Everybody loves to blame the media, but the media simply portrays what people are interested in, which is sex. It's up to the people to switch it off if they find it offensive, not to dictate to others.
The media is a mirror - a mirror which reflects and exaggerates - but reflects nonetheless. If there's a problem there, you don't go smashing the mirror.

Intelligent, young women should to portray an image that isn't based on sexual attraction. They also need to do this without having their cause hijacked by christian or 'family' groups which have other associated agendas and have been known to oppress women.

That being said, I'm a guy. I guess what I'm saying is this ultimately needs to be handled by women.

I find myself agreeing with Ronnie Peters 6th point.

Recently I have re-read parts of Daphne Rose Kingham's book 'The Men we never knew.'

She writes;

"Ironically and unfortunately it is often the very demanding ways in which women have asked men to become sensitive and intuitive that makes it virtually impossible for men to respond to women's desires. All too often women's request include implied or stated insults of male inadequacy.."

Turnleftthenright,

the media is not a mirror!

The media only shows what it wants to show and only if it is sensational like Paris Hilton, if the media did not pay her any attention, she would be a nobody and very few people would even know that she existed.

The media pushes its own social agenda and as Myrna Blythe in 'Spin Sisters' points out, most of the journalist think that everyone should think and believe in the same things as they do.

ronnie peters, such statements as, "Third, the Federal and State governments are clueless men’s groups." Simply further sexist and bigoted commentary and does a disservice to the many men and women in government, at all levels of government, working to balance the social sexual relationship. Feminism has become what it originally set out to balance. Now it's just one more power hungry club of exclusivity.
It's time men and women dropped the membership drives and began to work together on the real important issues affecting our children, who in the near future will have to take over the reins as leaders, educators and providers. It's unfair and counter productive to burden them with yesterdays sexist war dead.

JamesH

Yes the media is a mirror. Though it is a mirror that exaggerates.

You say that it pushes Paris Hilton - this is no agenda, but profit pure and simple.
People are interested in her, though heaven knows why. It's the age old habit of voyeurism. It's why big brother is such a success, and why celebrity tabloids turn a buck.

People are interested and it makes money. If people weren't interested then they wouldn't run stories on Paris Hilton, because they wouldn't get readers/viewers, and they wouldn't make money.

The media, like any other business, is in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

Your second point: journalists think everyone should think as they do.

Welcome to the human race. This conceit isn't just localised on journalists.
The more succesful journalists are those that gain attention, whether it be breaking a hot story, or writing opinion pieces that stir emotions. This is why controversial commentators such as Andrew Bolt get so much attention.

The media is a mirror and while it can create warped perceptions, those warped perceptions are the product of seeking attention and the lowest common denominator - not the guiding hand of some omniscient figure.
Yes, the press barons sometimes exert a little sway, but it's not the major influence people think it is. And they certainly don't let it ever, ever, get in the way of profit.