Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Is that all there is?

Andrea Mrozek at PWPL:

Certainly, it was never a critical goal of feminism to teach girls to be bubble-brained sex objects. I get that. But it seems logical that in forcing all of us to consider sexuality as the main driver of who we are (and in part, that’s what “feminism” does) then a natural response is to let sexuality drive who you are. (Modern feminism included teaching girls they have sex drives, sex lives and sexual desires that are exactly the same as a man’s.) So really, is it so surprising our world is very sexual today? 

Similar thoughts cross my mind whenever I have to run the gauntlet of sex-obsessed "women's" magazines at my local Loblaws checkout. You would think women were good for (and solely interested in the 25 naughtiest ways to do) one thing only.

This is from the Maclean's article upon which Andrea comments, and to which she links in the above post:

Vonk recalls wearing satin hot pants when she was 15. “But it was a different time,” she says. “Back then there was at least equal premium put on intellect and what was in your head. It was the opposite of ‘Go out and please men.’ ” 

I haven't done all the research, but I think wearing satin hot pants may not fall into the "opposite of pleasing men" category. And I doubt that boys who were impressed by her satin hot pants were thinking, "She sure looks like an intellectual." Is it okay to become a sex object as long as your user knows you're smart, too? What level of self-degradation is acceptable for a young woman?

If you're going to extend to an entire generation the license to do whatever they want, don't wonder why they act with complete and selfish abandon.

No comments:

Post a Comment