Today's Pinup Fashion a Sly Wink to the Past - New York Times

[Drappa]

If I were to call what you are saying "silly" or "truly bizarre", would you find me rude? I think quite a lot of people would.



I disagree. To me, the problem is when others think of them as reduced because they take off their clothes, or simply for being women. That's what objectifying means to me.

Exactly.

It always boggles my mind that those who are offensive try to then determine at which point something becomes offensive. It's not about intent, either. If the offended party finds something rude it is up to them to decide which is acceptable, since the offender's sensibilities are clearly different. Therefore I'd rather err on the side of caution. Or respect and decency.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm pretty sure what I'm going to write next is going to come out wrong, but I'll try and phrase it the best that I can. I do think that many men have tried to stand up and motivate other men, but the mainstream media has no interest in showcasing their efforts, except to cast them in a light that makes them look crazy. For instance, Bill Cosby has long been an advocate for males becoming men, especially in the case of fatherhood; but he's often portrayed to be apologist for racist whites. He very well may be an apologist, and I honestly haven't followed his work closely enough to make a sound determination for myself, but he is trying to make a case for men standing up and being present regardless of his views on race.

Cosby is an excellent example -- he is, in the best sense of the word, a Real Man, and the fact that so many people think of his comments only in terms of race is a very sad example of the sort of tunnel vision that affects modern society. Because he's a black man, he's only allowed to comment on "black" issues -- or so the reasoning goes. But I think what he has to say applies just as strongly to all other men. He stands, more than anything else, for responsibility.

Interestingly, a lot of what he has to say about family issues and the need for men to step up and *be* Men, echoes what Malcolm X had to say about the same subjects -- and nobody accused Malcolm of ever being an apologist for racist whites.

And he's Bill Cosby- a man that had his own TV show for *years.* Grassroots men who are doing stuff in their communities will never get his press coverage. Whereas I think many women will read with deep interest a story about promoting young women from a grassroots level, an article on young men will never get the readership. I'm not sure if it's because society at large doesn't see a problem, doesn't want to admit there is one, or that they're afraid that admitting their is a problem with male culture and expending effort to solve it somehow negates or detracts from the struggles women and others face. That's if the article would ever be published.

Bingo. Our society *refuses to admit that male culture is diseased.* "Boys will be boys," in other words. It's we women who have the problem, and we just have to learn to deal with it, because that's what we always do. Well, I've been sick and tired of "just dealing with it" since the day my father walked out on us. If you're "man" enough to help create a life, you damn well better be man enough to support that life.

 

[Juliet]

I do apologise in advance, it seems to be prudent in this thread

While I don't necessarily agree with the tone of the remarks William Stratford made, I think his point - that strippers add to the objectification of women - is a valid one.
However, who's to blame for it? Certainly not the strippers. Pardon me, but there are male prostitutes and strippes (not only catering to men), and do we see men as just sexual objects? I think not.

On the role-model for boys topic - I've recently seen an ad for volunteer firefighter service - starting with showing the typical modern teenagers, drinking, doing drugs, clubbing etc., then showing young men pulling people out of burning houses, putting out fires, interacting with victims, and lastly stating "They're cooler."
I wish there'd be more such social campaigns. I do feel ads like this still have a chance to reach the mass media-saturated teenager brain.
There's also this pressure from Child Services these days, it's simply insane. You can't tell the child that this or that is wrong - because it means you're denying the child it's freedom and being emotionally cruel. Follow your kid every step of their way - if you don't, you're a neglectful parent!

Also, this thread and the "Is chivalry dead?" thread reminded me of a discussion I've read, where everyone basically bitched about little sisters and little brothers - how they're growing up dumb, uninsterested, submerged in the computer world. Then one person commented, asking what part in their sibling's life did these complaining people take? Did they spend time with their sisters/brothers? Did they try to teach them right from wrong? Help them with their problems?
Oh, how quick people shut up after that!

P.S. I hardly think feminists are the only ones to blame for the fact, that boys don't behave gentlemanly anymore. There are still fathers and non-feminist mothers, who are just a tiny lil bit responsible for their children's conduct, too.

 

[William Stratford]

I hardly think feminists are the only ones to blame for the fact, that boys don't behave gentlemanly anymore.

I do not believe that anyone has actually said that they are - the point I made was that feminism's chief failure (courtesy in no small part to that noisome rag Cosmo) is that it has 'empowered' ladies to become ladettes when it should have focused on men becoming gentlemen. The result being that many women have taken on the antisocial traits typically associated with men (or, more accurately, "lads") whist it has apparently become beyond the pale to say that stripping and prostitution remain debauched activities regardless of whether the women "chose" to be involved in them.

Adult males no longer act like men anymore, favouring instead the kiddult-until-I-die mentality, because:
* men are now systematically devalued in society (and the key role which served to make men out of boys, namely fatherhood, has been particularly devalued to the point where fatherless families are staggeringly common) to the point where we are treated as abusers-in-waiting (try helping a crying child in the street without being looked at as if a paedophile) and have the State seeking to make the role of father obsolete (as it instead takes up the role)
* the gentleman was systematically attacked by the Cosmo generation as being "chauvinistic" when being "chivalrous"
* they have been told for at least the last 50 years to "do your own thang" and "let it all hang out", ignoring the values of older generations as "old fashioned" and impeding their "individuality"
* living in a society swamped by entertainment, with an entire "profession" (PR/Marketing) built up around getting people to buy their latest toy
* all rooted in a social value set of consumerism, based on discard/procure/use/discard/procure cycles that has them treating everything in their life (jobs, relationships, houses, etc) as a consumer object to be discarded when the gum loses its flavour
* and women are starting to behave in exactly the same way

 

[Edward]

Yes, the epitome. Fatherhood (as I said) is the key means by which boys become men.

Well, there we must disagree. It may, in my opinion, be one means, but it is certainly not superior to any other. Unless by 'key' you mean 'most common', as it probably is still the case that the majority of humans will have children at some point, thus giving the self-re-evaluation that parenthood can stimulate wider social reach than, perhaps, other factors.

I've said it before and I will say it again; the chief failure of feminism is in 'empowering' ladies to behave like "ladettes" rather than encouraging "lads" to behave like gentlemen - slipping down to a lowest common denominator rather than raising standards to an new (old?) high.

Feminism can certainly said to be failed if it is to be reduced to yet again dictating women's worth by how they are treated by men, good or ill.

 

[sheeplady]

I do not believe that anyone has actually said that they are - the point I made was that feminism's chief failure (courtesy in no small part to that noisome rag Cosmo) is that it has 'empowered' ladies to become ladettes when it should have focused on men becoming gentlemen.

If you think that Cosmo is feminist or in any way advancing the cause of feminism, you have a strong misunderstanding as to what feminism is.

 

[William Stratford]

If you think that Cosmo is feminist or in any way advancing the cause of feminism, you have a strong misunderstanding as to what feminism is.

As I said, "feminism's chief failure (courtesy in no small part to that noisome rag Cosmo) is that it has 'empowered' ladies to become ladettes when it should have focused on men becoming gentlemen". Cosmo became the 'popular' face, most especially in the whole "women should be able to do what men have been getting away with" idea, and largely accepted as such by many people for a long time....thus embodying the failure of feminism that I have described (in that it became in practice about "empowering" women to behave as badly as men had been allowed to).

 

[Drappa]

If you think that Cosmo is feminist or in any way advancing the cause of feminism, you have a strong misunderstanding as to what feminism is.

Indeed. Cosmo is nothing but another status quo rag encoraging women to be skinny, pretty, expensively dressed and submissive to men. You only need to read the cover on any given month with at least three articles on how to better please your man or be seen as less demanding or needy.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Indeed. Cosmo is nothing but another status quo rag encoraging women to be skinny, pretty, expensively dressed and submissive to men. You only need to read the cover on any given month with at least three articles on how to better please your man or be seen as less demanding or needy.

There's a special place in hell waiting for Helen Gurley Brown.

 

[sheeplady]

As I said, "feminism's chief failure (courtesy in no small part to that noisome rag Cosmo) is that it has 'empowered' ladies to become ladettes when it should have focused on men becoming gentlemen". Cosmo became the 'popular' face, most especially in the whole "women should be able to do what men have been getting away with" idea, and largely accepted as such by many people for a long time....thus embodying the failure of feminism that I have described (in that it became in practice about "empowering" women to behave as badly as men had been allowed to).

You really have a misguided interpertation of what feminism is. The goal of feminism isn't "getting away with what men have been getting away with." Feminists care about creating an equal society, not a society that continues to oppress people and treat them badly because they are the "wrong" sex, race, etc. There are a 100 different flavors of feminism (and I don't have time to detail a movement that is at least 200 years old), but most people who self identify would agree with part of that statement at least.

You seem to think that society was made the way it is today because of the rise of feminism. Our society is still very, very, very far from the ideals of getting rid of all "isms" yet alone sexism. The fact that you're using Cosmo as the "example" of what feminism has done to our society is really stunning, because Cosmo is one of the most sexist magazines on the market. Cosmo exists because feminism hasn't taken a strong enough hold in our society. Part of the reason why feminism is deadlocked is because people want to continue to spread lies and half truths about what feminism is rather than actually learning what it really is about.

It's not the failure of feminism that Cosmo still exists. It's the failure of men and women who continue to hold to their "isms" and not care about changing our society. You don't blame those who are trying to change society for the evil in it; you blame the evil doers.

 

[Juliet]

I do not believe that anyone has actually said that they are - the point I made was that feminism's chief failure (courtesy in no small part to that noisome rag Cosmo) is that it has 'empowered' ladies to become ladettes when it should have focused on men becoming gentlemen. The result being that many women have taken on the antisocial traits typically associated with men (or, more accurately, "lads") whist it has apparently become beyond the pale to say that stripping and prostitution remain debauched activities regardless of whether the women "chose" to be involved in them.

But weren't men still gentlemanly when feminism reared it's poor, confused head? So maybe that's why it didn't focus on male behaviour, instead centering on female empowerment?

But I'll agree that female editors are doing dome substantial damage to pretty much every cause - except profit.
Cosmo? What about Vogue? Moral-wise it has gone down the drain completely: editorials range from offending to disturbing.

 

[Drappa]

So eloquently put!!! Thank you.

You really have a misguided interpertation of what feminism is. The goal of feminism isn't "getting away with what men have been getting away with." Feminists care about creating an equal society, not a society that continues to oppress people and treat them badly because they are the "wrong" sex, race, etc. There are a 100 different flavors of feminism (and I don't have time to detail a movement that is at least 200 years old), but most people who self identify would agree with part of that statement at least.

You seem to think that society was made the way it is today because of the rise of feminism. Our society is still very, very, very far from the ideals of getting rid of all "isms" yet alone sexism. The fact that you're using Cosmo as the "example" of what feminism has done to our society is really stunning, because Cosmo is one of the most sexist magazines on the market. Cosmo exists because feminism hasn't taken a strong enough hold in our society. Part of the reason why feminism is deadlocked is because people want to continue to spread lies and half truths about what feminism is rather than actually learning what it really is about.

It's not the failure of feminism that Cosmo still exists. It's the failure of men and women who continue to hold to their "isms" and not care about changing our society. You don't blame those who are trying to change society for the evil in it; you blame the evil doers.

 

[LizzieMaine]

But I'll agree that female editors are doing dome substantial damage to pretty much every cause - except profit.
Cosmo? What about Vogue? Moral-wise it has gone down the drain completely: editorials range from offending to disturbing.

There isn't a high-end "women's magazine" going that's fit to light the stove with, as far as I'm concerned. Modern women's editors are to the progress of women what Quisling was to Norway.

 

[William Stratford]

You really have a misguided interpertation of what feminism is. The goal of feminism isn't "getting away with what men have been getting away with." Feminists care about creating an equal society, not a society that continues to oppress people and treat them badly because they are the "wrong" sex, race, etc. There are a 100 different flavors of feminism (and I don't have time to detail a movement that is at least 200 years old), but most people who self identify would agree with part of that statement at least.

Can you please respond to what I put, not to what you think I have put. I did not say anything about "feminism's goal" but rather about what it has become in practice.

You seem to think that society was made the way it is today because of the rise of feminism.

Sorry, but did you even read my post where I set out several bullet points only one of which was about feminism?

The fact that you're using Cosmo as the "example" of what feminism has done to our society is really stunning, because Cosmo is one of the most sexist magazines on the market. Cosmo exists because feminism hasn't taken a strong enough hold in our society. Part of the reason why feminism is deadlocked is because people want to continue to spread lies and half truths about what feminism is rather than actually learning what it really is about.

Again, please respond to what I actually put. Cosmo is what feminism has become, practice, in most people's eyes - the idea of an "empowered" woman being one who sleeps around, drinks copiously and is defined by her access to the "sexual revolution".

 

[Drappa]

Again, please respond to what I actually put. Cosmo is what feminism has become, practice, in most people's eyes - the idea of an "empowered" woman being one who sleeps around, drinks copiously and is defined by her access to the "sexual revolution".

We could respond to what you said if you had a) actually ever read a Cosmo, b) understood the varied nuances of feminism in theory and practice and c) weren't so utterly confused about empowerment, feminism and ladettes (who are only a very small minority of women today anyway).

 

[William Stratford]

But weren't men still gentlemanly when feminism reared it's poor, confused head? So maybe that's why it didn't focus on male behaviour, instead centering on female empowerment?

If you are speaking of the suffragette era, yes they were. But speaking of feminism in the modern era, second and third wave if you want to be technical, men were by this point rapidly descending into "lad culture". During this period, feminism became very much about sexual "freedom" in 2nd wave (hence the Cosmo reference) and then the ludicrous idea of porn and prostitution being not always exploitative (in 3rd wave), sinking to the level of lad culture rather than addressing that men were becoming a parody of chauvinism - an "equality" of everyone sinking to the same level.

But I'll agree that female editors are doing dome substantial damage to pretty much every cause - except profit.
Cosmo? What about Vogue? Moral-wise it has gone down the drain completely: editorials range from offending to disturbing.

Indeed. In fact Vogue iirc has even strayed into child sexualisation.

 

[sheeplady]

Can you please respond to what I put, not to what you think I have put. I did not say anything about "feminism's goal" but rather about what it has become in practice...

Again, please respond to what I actually put. Cosmo is what feminism has become, practice, in most people's eyes - the idea of an "empowered" woman being one who sleeps around, drinks copiously and is defined by her access to the "sexual revolution".

I will repeat again... Cosmo is not feminism. Cosmo is not feminism in practice. It is the * opposite* for feminism in practice. You can't say that something is the face for feminism when it represents the exact opposite ideals of feminism. It does not stand for feminism in practice, theory, or on the moon. If any one thinks that Cosmo *is* feminism it it because they are either really uneducated, wish to remain willfully ignorant, or spread lies about what feminism is.

Only a tiny minuscule of women in general would see Cosmo as "encouraging" yet alone "empowering" women to do the things you mention. Cosmo doesn't encourage (yet alone empower) women to have sex, drink, etc. It does encourage women to feel really bad about their weight, their ability in bed, and about being a female in general.

We could respond to what you said if you had a) actually ever read a Cosmo, b) understood the varied nuances of feminism in theory and practice and c) weren't so utterly confused about empowerment, feminism and ladettes (who are only a very small minority of women today anyway).

Thank you for saying this. I think I'm done, unless I get angry again.

 

[William Stratford]

I will repeat again... Cosmo is not feminism. Cosmo is not feminism in practice. It is the * opposite* for feminism in practice. You can't say that something is the face for feminism when it represents the exact opposite ideals of feminism. It does not stand for feminism in practice, theory, or on the moon. If any one thinks that Cosmo *is* feminism it it because they are either really uneducated, wish to remain willfully ignorant, or spread lies about what feminism is.

Only a tiny minuscule of women in general would see Cosmo as "encouraging" yet alone "empowering" women to do the things you mention. Cosmo doesn't encourage (yet alone empower) women to have sex, drink, etc. It does encourage women to feel really bad about their weight, their ability in bed, and about being a female in general.

You are mistaken here, as "Cosmo" became precisely a central value of what modern feminism fights for - a woman who is free to sleep around with no consequences, just as men have been "allowed" to do, or strip, or work as a prostitute, with notion of that being wrong (as wrong as it should be for men). If you doubt that, I wonder if you have ever seen anything at all of Helen Gurley Brown bequeathed to this world, in which case you are in no position whatsoever to wave around allegations of "uneducated".

 

[LizzieMaine]

If ever there was a ready-made discussion group for Ariel Levy's book, this one would be it. I really encourage everyone participating in this discussion to take a close look at "Female Chauvinist Pigs," a book that really cuts deep to the heart of everything that's being discussed in this thread. You might not agree with everything she says or how she says it, but if she doesn't make you at least *think,* you weren't paying close enough attention.

 

[LolitaHaze]

(Cosmo) It does encourage women to feel really bad about their weight, their ability in bed, and about being a female in general.

Perhaps I may be in the minority of women's thinking here, but I never thought Cosmo or any women's magazine's for that matter make women feel bad or inadequate, at least I never have. I see nothing wrong with offering suggestions/articles on how to better one's self or life.

I think when it comes to the visual aspect of women's bodies, thin models are used as an ideal because people like pretty people. Also, I personaly, never saw models as a body I have to achieve, but rather an ideal of being the best and fittest I can be for my body. For me, I am terribly out of shape, but I don't blame "unrealistic" models, I blame my own laziness. In fact, I get so angry when women thank me for being a "real woman". Mind you, I am angry at the situation not the people paying the compliment. I get angry because they aren't thanking me for being a "real woman", but for being a lazy one! My body's extra pounds are not because I am built this way, but because I am lazy! Then it makes me wonder when I get back to my fighting weight, so to say, will people say that I am that size because society/media told me I have to be that size? Which will be completely ridiculous because it is this "real woman" size that makes me feel uncomfortable, sluggish, lazy, and swollen -- completely unattractive. And it isn't because models on the magazines are a 0, it's because this weight is heavy! Blaming models and media, in my mind, is an excuse for one's own laziness both to achieve their own best physical fitness (be it a size 0 or size 24) and fear to own themselves mentally! As I say to people whom I've taught Burlesque to, Burlesque isn't about saying, "I am a big/skinny girl, but I can be sexy too!" It's about saying, "I am freaking sexy! I just happen to be a big/skinny girl -- now watch me rock this show!"

As far as articles wanting to be better in bed or please or man or even how to get a man... Why is that so bad, I wonder? Do men not deserve to be seduced by an attractive woman? Are they not worth having a confident woman in bed? Which in turn makes it more enjoyable for the woman who knows her man is enjoying it just as much. What have men done so wrong to deserve this extra attention? It makes women feel good to be romanced, why can't men feel the same. If you think it is about domination and control, a confident woman will never be controlled. It will be about respect and understanding. I don't feel bad for women being "suppressed" by these articles, but rather for them men who no longer feel worth it to have a woman's effort for them or feel worthy enough to be allowed to glance at a beautiful woman!

All these articles are based on bettering one's self. Why is that so wrong? Why is it only the articles on beauty and sex that get all the hubbub? There are PLENTY of magazines on how to better one's faith, business, smarts, education, health, ect -- why can't beauty and sex be part of that? The reason why that gets so much attention is because people bring attention to it with their cries. The squeaky wheel gets the grease as they say. It is at this point it becomes a business, because no business is going to not take advantage of that -- that isn't very good business there. In the end it is about selling -- anything. Would you buy a magazine that had an article on how to make yourself uglier, dumber, less of a (spiritual) believer? I mean even the "celebs without makeup" magazines sell because they are selling a way for you to feel better about yourself. "Hey, look at Angelina without makeup, now I don't feel so bad," or "Ugh look at Beyonce's cellulite, even I don't have that much," or whatever it may be. You end up feeling better about yourself.