One of the main topics in Levy's second chapter, "The Future that Never Happened," concerns a group that throws parties where women have the "freedom" to experiment with their sexuality in public, dancing on tables in little to no clothing as a display of "feminism in action." The ironic part of this organization is that it is not just for women to rip off their clothes and have a good time with one another, but it's also open to men, who watch this type of "feminism," play out their fantasies. Levy says, "many of the conflicts between the women's liberation movement and the sexual revolution and within the women's movement itself were left unresolved thirty years ago...what we are seeing today is the residue of that confusion" (Levy 74).
What Levy is referring to thirty years ago is what Alice Echols calls the "woman question." Around the 1960's, organizations such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) ran parallel to the fight for women's rights. Unfortunately, however, these organizations experienced sexism within the groups; men were often in charge and women were put on the backburner. As one women pointed out, "[w]omen were effective, but men were the stars." Conflicts also arose when white women became involved with black men. Their options became limited to being labelled either loose or racist, depending on whether or not they accepted a black man's advance.
These issues are still played out today. Even with more "freedom," women still feel the need to put on a show for men; men are still in charge of the movement. Similar to how women were once labelled either racist or loose, today we can choose between loose or the "innocent school girl." All the mistakes of the past are still present in some form, and it is up to women to take the reigns away from men, whether it be in their role in organizations for women's rights or simply in the way our minds work. Organizations like CAKE that claim to be "feminism in action," are only for one thing: attention. Women CRAVE male attention, and because of that, men continue to feel empowered and superior to their female counterparts. How can we change the way women think so that they are fulfilled simply because they like themselves? Because they feel good about who they are and what they do, and not because a man thinks they are attractive?
Betty Friedan discusses the "problem that has no name," the idea in the 50's and 60's that women were priviledged to be able to stay home and take care of their children, while their husbands brought home the bacon. Many women found themselves depressed and alone thinking "is this all?" and also feeling guilty for that thought. I feel as though many women still feel that way. We aren't necessarily stuck in homes with children at early ages, but we are still expected to act certain ways regardless of our career roles. Back to Katie Couric...despite the fact that she is a successful woman and well respected, she still felt the need to show some skin on TV to feel accepted as a women. To some extent, we are still stuck in that box.
It gets confusing to have all this material saying different things. We don't want to be stuck at home, but we're mad at our fellow females for going out and flaunting their goodies too. We don't want to stay home, but we make mothers feel bad for leaving their kids alone. It makes for a very narrow definition of what a feminist is, and that's never good. I think the real problem isn't in the actions but in the mindsets. If women want to dance on tables with mini skirts and bras then do it...do whatever you want to do. Become a CEO and don't take any shit from your employees. If you want to be a stay at home mom and spend your days making finger paintings, more power to you. Whatever you do, do it for yourself, not for the men.
One a smaller scale, women at Colgate are feeding into the nonsense. I'm not saying that it is all our fault, because the box exists here...but it is within our reach to change it. Freidan said the problem was also, "and finally, dismissed by shrugging that there are no solutions: this is what being a woman means, and what is wrong with American women that they can't accept their role gracefully?" We can't shrug it off. Dress for yourself, not for the men. Take a weekend and boycott a frat party for a girls night out. Go out with your girlfriends and go HOME with your girlfriends too. Don't settle for a hookup, hold out for a boyfriend. Easier said than done, but change happens on a small level before it can become a revolution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Colleen put it ever so perfectly when she said, “Whatever you do, do it for yourself, not for the men.” When I read Colleen’s words I immediately thought of something Ariel Levy had written in her book, Female Chauvinist Pigs. Levy really hit the nail on the head: “The women who buy the idea that flaunting your breasts in sequins is power—I mean, I’m for all that stuff—but let’s not get so into the tits and ass that we don’t notice how far we haven’t come. Let’s not confuse that with real power. I don’t like to see women fooled (Levy 76).” Yes, women should, without a doubt, be able to do what makes them happy. And yes, some may see this flaunting as a sense of power, but it also shows how we still have a long way to go in the feminist movement.
ReplyDeleteWomen must not be afraid to be themselves, to break the boundaries, to do what it is that they want to do with their life. If you don’t want to be a housewife, such as June Cleaver from "Leave It to Beaver," then don’t be one. It’s that simple -- be who you are. We NEED to be happy with ourselves and learn who we are before we can make someone else happy. Our life is just as important as a man’s, and women should have the opportunity to define themselves, to let people know who they truly are. There is so much more to a woman’s life than dishes, laundry, nice breasts, beautiful clothes, cooking, a large suburban house, carpooling, and sewing. There is something to look forward to, and that is equality. We don’t need to “always be the children’s mommy, or the minister’s wife (Schnier 63).” We need to stop being who other people want us to be and we need to have the courage to be ourselves—whoever that may be.
Schnier writes, “Their only dream was to be perfect wives, and mothers; their highest ambition to have five children and a beautiful house, their only fight to get and keep their husbands.” Many women asked themselves, is this all? The answer is NO; the answer is that we can do with our life whatever we choose. And who are these men who define feminine, how would they know what is and is not feminine? Women should be allowed to be whoever they want to be. They should not be molded to fit some close-minded man’s opinion of what makes a woman feminine. Whatever a woman decides to do with her life is her choice. Women should have the right to define themselves and not be made to feel bad about themselves if their definition is different from someone else’s. We need to stop seeking male approval and be who we want to be.
Some women here at Colgate -- smart, beautiful women -- throw themselves at boys. Take The Jug, for example. A lot of the time it is a place where people go to get drunk, hook-up, and then leave shortly after to spend the night with someone, most likely someone of the opposite sex. Don’t get me wrong, there are those few who go to the Jug simply to dance and have a good time, but many have other objectives. We should feel good about ourselves no matter what, and a man is not the answer to our insecurities; we need to conquer those on our own.
Happiness is achieved through ourselves, through what makes us happy. So women, go do what makes you happy and don’t for a second hold back. And don’t forget Ariel Levy’s wise advice, “Use your brains, not your bodies!”
“Why is this the “new feminism” and not what it looks like: the old objectification?” (Levy 81). Organizations like CAKE and new waves in feminism claim they are seeking to “redefine the current boundaries of female sexuality” (81). However, as Levy points out, what has changed? The image of what is sexy as portrayed by these groups is the same as it always was: blonde hair, big boobs, small waist, and the list goes on. So the question is: how can we redefine sexy? So far we have only adopted/ internalized the ideals that men have long endorsed and called that new feminism, but women are only fooling themselves if they think that joining men in objectifying themselves is a step towards equality. Alice Echols writes about the women’s revolt within the SDS, “some women in the Movement felt sexually exploited rather than liberated by the sexual revolution, which they claimed had created a new compulsory sex ethic (43).” Historically, no matter what the norm has been at the time, there has been no room for a female to have the power of choice- for her to determine what she is comfortable with, what makes her feel sexy. As Levy explains, “everyone was fighting for freedom, but when it came to sex, freedom meant different things to different people (63).” In our attempts to redefine stereotypical views of women, we need to be sure we do not replace them with new ones.
ReplyDeleteSo while we often deny it, we are still surrounded by double standards: men have certain freedoms, where women are boxed in by societal expectations. Why is it acceptable for a man to pursue multiple relationships, but not a woman? At high schools and colleges around the country (Colgate included), why are guys applauded for their ability to hook up with multiple girls, but girls labeled sluts if they do the same? The perfect case study of this phenomenon seems to be the infamous Hugh Hefner, who is heralded for relationships with his multiple “bunnies” (who, interestingly enough, are required to give him total fidelity). He claims he would not mind if his daughter appeared in Playboy, but clarifies that it would only be acceptable as a “show of sexiness” and not as an indication of her sexual practices. After all, it would be immoral for his daughter to enjoy the act of sex as he has been allowed to. His “logic” astounds me. He is quoted as saying, “I do not look for equality between man and woman. I like innocent affectionate, faithful girls. Socially, mentally, I enjoy more being with men. When I want to speak, to think, I stay with men” (Levy 59). Excuse me? I cannot imagine a woman who would be very pleased to hear that
What it comes down to for me though is a women’s ability to choose. She should be able to stay home with her children or go to work. She should be able to go and get her hair done, but still believe that she does not need to rely on her appearance to attract a man. She should not feel stifled by the “feminine mystique” that Betty Friedan describes, or any other social constructions about what is appropriate for women. As a general rule, a woman should be able to do whatever it is she wants and not feel that she will be judged or otherwise criticized for it. At the same time, I am wary of women who willing participate in this new raunch culture. Have they simply internalized the messages that males and the media have long been publicizing? Have they bought into the narrow definitions of what is feminine and sexy? Do they realize it could be different?
The cobbled-together nature of third-wave feminism is for me one of the most frustrating and interesting facets of modern feminism. As Levy notes, modern feminism has grown from the unconsolidated fragments of previous feminist movements, and as such, holds within its own set of contradictions. Most notably, the rift between pro-sex feminism and feminist movements that approached (heterosexual) sexuality more warily has manifested itself today as sense of confusion or frustration on the part of modern feminists. As Levy notes after attending a CAKE party, women want to prove their assurance in their sexuality, but are unsure of how to do so without relying on markers of sexiness that ultimately feed into the very sexual hierarchy they are trying to oppose.
ReplyDeleteWomen still struggle to create a brand of sexuality that is defined by its relationship to male sexuality, either in the ways it appeals to it (raunch culture) or the ways it actively avoids it (political lesbianism, anti-sex feminism). Levy points out that CAKE parties are exemplary of this struggle. They advertise themselves as being progressive and claim to explore female sexuality, but the case Levy investigated devolved into an alcohol-fueled exhibition of fake lesbianism, not that the guys minded of course. In fact, Levy’s description was strikingly reminiscent of the earlier Girls Gone Wild scenes. These sexual displays don’t focus on female pleasure; rather they are predominantly based on exhibition and display.
However, I feel that the feminist movement had (has?) such a hard time dealing with sexuality precisely because it is so quick to condemn certain kinds of sexuality and does not allow for the possibility that certain modes of sexuality that the party line condemns may be genuinely pleasurable to some women. Rebuking women who practice a certain kind of sexuality, not because they’re supposed to or because they’re being coerced but because they genuinely enjoy it, denies them pleasure just the same as patriarchal power hierarchies do. For example, Levy cites a quotation by Gloria Steinem in which she admits that earlier feminist movements that derided SM practices did not allow for the possibility that the women partaking in them genuinely enjoyed the acts. If a woman enjoys an act and is completely consensual in it, then how is it possible to say that the act was “degrading to women?”
Similarly, I think anti-porn movements were too strident in their condemnation of all pornography. I think it’s possible that some porn genuinely does depict female pleasure and that the women in those films are not inherently being because they are performing sexual acts as an erotic object. Some women may enjoy exhibitionism in a way that goes beyond a simple compulsion to be desired. While it’s true that many porn trademarks seem meant to be degrading (‘facials’ come to mind), I don’t think that the problem is the medium, but rather the trappings that have come to associated with it.
The difficult question to be raised is why some women enjoy porn (whether actively or as a viewer) or SM practices, and whether that why matters. Is it simply enough that a woman sincerely enjoys an act? I think a distinction can be made between a a pornography actress who works because she enjoys it and continues to work because she continues to enjoy it and a woman who drunkenly flashes a group of hollering men or makes out with her friend for the camera and then regrets it in the morning. Ultimately, women must be sure of their sexuality to navigate these tricky waters, and I don’t think making certain acts shameful helps encourage the exploration that would make that possible. I think it’s important that the feminist movement remembers that it is not just dealing with party politics but also with living, breathing humans who are seeking personal satisfaction.
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteWhat a wonderful bunch of posts! You've all hit upon some crucial ideas presented in these readings, and come up with thoughtful, detailed, insightful responses. Excellent work! The notion of "do it for yourself, not for men" is a striking one, and I think ultimately what is behind Levy's argument. It's less raunch culture that she's upset about than the fact that women are being "fooled" into believing that the desires of others, particularly men, are actually their own -- and in their best interest.
Fantastic work -- I look forward to your next set of posts!
Colleen makes a great point regarding the autonomy of women and the feminist movement, "Even with more "freedom," women still feel the need to put on a show for men; men are still in charge of the movement". I can't help but wonder if women would continue to shimmy and gyrate with the aid of stilettos and a stripper pole if there were no men to watch them. I think a woman's ability to feel comfortable in her body is so important. Whether jello pits and nipple tassels are a requirement for that, though, is another question.
ReplyDelete