skeleton-countess wrote:If you wanted to know where you basically called me a radfem:
Women's movement have made it a point to say that men are just animals who cannot control themselves. But you cannot maintain that position, then turn right around and say, "They're going to have to control themselves while I bare my all here!" You can't have it both ways. Women's movements can't complain that men are such demons, and now demand they be such angels!
And you used the word "you", so you can't say that you weren't talking to me. There's also the fact that you brought up radical feminism when I said nothing even resembling it. Basically, you told me that you knew my opinions before I even said them.
Sorry about that. I see how this might be misconstrued. This was an idiomatic usage of the second pronoun "you," not a
literal usage. I was not saying "you" as a personal address, but "you" in a nondescript, hypothetical sense. For example, I might say, "While washing clothes,
you mustn't use too much detergent." "You" here is general, and is intended to refer to anyone. It's a common idiom we take for granted in English. A better idiomatic substitute, to avoid confusion, would be to use the word "one": "...
one mustn't use too much detergent." So perhaps I should have said, "But
one cannot maintain that position, then turn right around and say..." One of the dead giveaways in that instance was the quote itself: to wit, I obviously was not quoting anything you yourself had said. In any case, I apologize for the seeming ambiguity or relative vagueness of my statement. I was speaking in general; not in specifics.
It's a metaphorical way to slam the door in my face and invalidate my opinions, and my ability to have my own opinions. Accusing someone of radical feminism is basically only ever used to shut down an argument, and dismiss regular feminists as being bullies or hypocrites or whatever.
I can see that, but I was not trying to shut the argument down by dismissing you as some radical feminist.
There's also the fact that "women"s movements", which you referred to, are generally not radical, and don't actually say any of the things you attributed to them. Probably only less than 1% of feminists are actually radical feminists. They're just loud. And they shock people. And it's easy for men to use them as an excuse to dismiss feminists' points of view.
Basically:
Feminism&women's movements =/= radfem.
You're right, many men do, in fact, do that to sway the argument to their advantage. There are all kinds of motives for doing that. That
I was doing that, however, I do not see. Admittedly, I was basing some of my conclusions on things I've heard from women themselves. But there really does seem to be at least a segment of feminism that espouses the kinds of things I've mention. At the very least, there seems to be two kinds of feminism today, which are at loggerheads.
Also, wow, now I see why you're so confused.
I don't know if you realized this, but the "modesty campaigns" that blog refers to are all christian groups. They're clothing brands for christian women to wear because the bible says wearing revealing clothing is sinful. There's one campaign called "Modest is Hottest" which is a Mormon organization. Like all christian groups, it has more with controlling women and telling them they're sinners than it has to do with telling boys how to behave.
Yes, I am a little confused about that. I'm not sure if the original poster was some fundamentalist Christian lady, but a lot of the responses seem to come from evangelical women. Good point. But a lot of the debate along those lines seems somewhat secular. The female poster seems to be referring to school policies, which are largely secular. I have no religious affiliation myself, but American culture seems suffused with these kinds of puritanical confusions. That's one reason these kinds of posts have some relevance. But point taken.
Also, these "narcissistic women" you're talking about, just sound to me like people who want to get laid. People who want to get laid are equally represented among all genders. So are narcissists.
Did you know that these two points of view you're referencing...aren't even held by the same people? And neither of them are even lifestyles held by the majority of people? I wouldn't even call people who just want to get laid any kind of "group".
Fair enough. But I do see this conflict occurring within the culture itself, if not actually within feminism itself: the tendency to self-objectify and the
objection to the objectification of women. Do they really occur together as I maintain? I think so, as I have seen this. I don't believe it's just a religious theme, since I have seen it occur in "secular" settings. Since I'm gay, I consider myself an objective bystander. However, I am perfectly open to the distinct possibility that I am overstating the case, and inflating (or even conflating) the issue in my mind. I will search further on this matter.
which is what you said before, arguing that women specifically dress to get attention and then get mad when they get that attention. It almost makes it sound like some kind of entrapment scheme.
I was not really referring to that so much as the objectification of women. Yes, some men use that argument as an invitation to, or justification of, rape. But I usually see it as more complicated than that. The guy might have misinterpreted the woman's signals; or she was trying to attract someone else; or the woman might simply be impervious to what kind of "signals" her manner of dress is sending off, etc. But that never justifies rape. These men who seem to claim it does are the
real rape proponents, not some gay man, like myself, who makes some observation about how narcissism might play a part in that or in this whole female apparel issue.
"I don't believe that an admission to those facts is tantamount to an endorsement for rape."
I didn't say that either, I pointed out that you were victim blaming, but whatever, dude. It didn't need to be a whole argument about endorsing rape. If you find yourself victim blaming, check your privilege and then think about what the real root of the problem is (hint, it's probably the oppressive social structure that's existed for thousands of years). That's all I really wanted, before the radfem accusations got shoved in my face.
Except that I'm not blaming the victim. I can see how it might have come across that way without a qualifier, but many third party readers have been able to infer from my meaning that I was not doing that, as you can read from the comments. If it
must be said, I was not accusing you of radfem. You have made it abundantly clear that you do not stand on that issue. My intent was to address the inquirer's initial question, which was,
Why do girls dress in such revealing clothing? I don't think we can adequately treat that question without addressing motive on some level. Narcissism is not only part of that equation at some point, but a necessary consequence of a culture that conditions girls to think in those terms. I really wish you would not take all of this so personally. I find some of your responses rather enlightening and insightful.
News
Site map
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed