No, not the Mark Phillipoussis reality catastrophe, but the question about the differences between women in their twenties and women in their forties regarding what feminism means to us. Is it just a question of Sexy, yes, but How Sexy?! Or is it about more? Why are so many women who benefited from the feminist movement of the 70's looking at the young women now and (sometimes) say WTF? So tell us... young chicks... what are we missing?
3 comments:
Ialso want to add something- cut n paste actually-- from a conversation that's happening down below with the paris-in-captivity artwork...
answering the question-- should Paris-- or people like Paris-- be part of this movement.
My feeling about Paris is that "hating" Paris, Lindsey et al-- might be a big part of womens' impetus of trying to save feminism, but as a detective-- a sociology detective--I look at the Paris aesthetic--
FULLY AWARE that she is a complete heroine to many young women... even those who wouldn't admit it...
And also aware that when I was 20 or 21, no one ever could have told me to stop using my attractiveness as a tool for more power. She just happens to be better at it-- perhaps more focussed on it-- than many other women. She actually gets paid- ALOT- makes a living-- just to be her. Just to be attractive. A lot of women have to be attractive and be in porno to make a living. She makes a living just STANDING THERE, going to a party, being herself.
As she is at the center of so many of these conversations, why SHOULDN'T we want her to be part of our events? She doesn't have to be a spokeswoman, but maybe an attendee. Isn't this division at the heart of what feminism's problem is?
Are we really missing something? As I see it, women from the 70's have far more in common with the women of today than we would like to admit. We are still taking a beating from patriarchy, and they still have us right where they want us.
I attended the NOW conference in Detroit recently, and I did notice some things from the feminism of the 70's that could use an update. I understand that women of the 70's came from a place of real hurt and pain where their voices were not heard. They found ways to get to the heart of their feelings through consciousness-raising and open discussions. Their individual voices were recognized and validated.
I study feminist rhetoric in terms of activism, and I realized in many of the workshops that I attended that the feminism of today is still focused on the individual. There were lots of discussions about the pain that women feel about their husbands, their eating disorders, and their personal struggles. There will always be a need for this, but the feminism of today needs to focus on activism. White, male Republicans have no problem thinking as a group and acting in the interests of what is best for the group. Division is a problem for the feminist movement, but is the answer the inclusion of everyone?
What we are missing, it seems, is clear definitions and specific goals. It seems that we lack the discipline to create boundaries and to unite as a specific group. Isn't this how every other group who has ever gained/maintained power has functioned? What is a feminist supposed to look like? How is a feminist supposed to act? How are we supposed to interact with each other? How are we supposed to respond to those who are not feminists? Are we wrong to define this and exclude those who do not fit that definition, or those who do not empower the movement? Anyone can buy a "This is what a feminist looks like" t-shirt. Not everyone can wear a "This is what a white, male Republican looks like" t-shirt. Is it possible that the exact thing that makes the feminist movement so great (the inclusion and acceptance of anyone who wants to join), is exactly what will prevent it from ever gaining power and control?
nice discussion in this corner.
Good question (above) on whether or not the feminist inclusion of all will weaken the movement due to loss of specificity.
I really do think that the "inclusion"-- unlike many elite, and secreted type groups, is where today's feminism will find it's power. Though we might not come off as specific in the beginning, our open environment will help those feel comfortable to honestly speak about and therefore break through to the core of our real problems. I think just trusting this and that we will fix it together too (which forces us to trust one another) is something huge in itself that will hold much power for change.
here are some more thoughts that I'm also dragging over from some long ass thing i put in the Paris thread, relevant here too:
Why feed more attention to Paris:
What I think is so great about this new group is that all of us women were most enthusiastic about the inclusion of ALL women regardless of their job status, choice of make-up, sexual preference, how much cleavage they let pop out, how many people they’ve had sex with, and if Sex in the City is a show they love or detest, etc. etc.
This is one of the many factors that will make our group so special and modern! It angers me to the rut of my gut in the hut of my womb, that “feminist”, which simply means: of or relating to or advocating equal rights for women, has developed so many nonsensical bad connotations that even women hesitate at titling themselves feminists. For me, this is most detrimental to feminism today and we need it removed in order to go forth, live well, and prosper.
When we brought up Paris in discussion, I think we may have tripped into a hole that we are desperately trying to climb out of in the first place. This belief that by highlighting her or women like her in any form, we are putting the lights out on us is yet another example of female division in our unfortunate dog-eat-dog, or the media painted: cat-eat-cat world.
Right away, an exploration of how she came to be, why the media is so gung-“HO” on her, and whether or not we can poke OUR big sticks into figuring it out, as one of our MANY topics for us to investigate, turned into a fear that she would then become our only symbol. That she would be the only woman representing us and that she would take attention away from what we are striving for.
If we are talking about inclusion of all women, then by crossing Paris out straight away aren’t we closing the door on women that need their eyes opened most and on the women who we want most to hear us?
Let’s not let our personal feelings get in the way of the greater good we are trying to do. While we all “hate” Paris, the issue is bigger than us, and whether we like it or not, someone like Paris Hilton is a huge pop-culture influence. If it’s possible to veer that influence towards our goals then maybe it’s worth at least a further glimpse.
She was fairly young when she was thrown into the media hands with a sex tape she claims she didn’t want exposed. By using the word, never, in “she’ll never change,” then I feel we are taking the backbone out of what makes any organization survive as we are then agreeing to give up.
I think we need to trust, fully trust...inclusion. That we can't draw out on a t-shirt what a feminist looks like is where our power actually is. Hey and so many more people can wear them that way :)... and so many more eyes to see them, therefore, so many more people to recognize that anyone can and everyone should be a feminist.
Post a Comment