My Morning Jacket

So one of my employees sent me the pics of little miss "Hit Me Baby One More Time" out on the town without pants or underwear.
Let's just say the guy with the camera must have had a MIGHTY telephoto lens--any stronger and it would have made you feel like an embryo.
But I digress--what the fuck is wrong with this chick?  Not enough discipline?  Too much too quick?  
Then I sees all these college girls running around the Fenway last night w/ boobs popping out of shirts and see through pants so maybe this is the new norm and I'm just stuck in another time(?).
Anyhoo her parents must be very proud--if you want copies of the photos PM and I'll be glad to e-mail them to you (for informational purposes only, of course)

britney spears aside -
...let's be honest...
teenage girls are stupid...

sympathize with me.
this is why i'm friends with maybe four or five girls.  i don't know what i'm trying to prove exactly... but were just really fucking stupid. "we're" as in the female "race".  I don't think i fall into this category, not that I'm not female, just that I don't think i fit into this new "norm"... which is being stupid of me anyways.  i don't put myself up on a pedistol. i don't even know how to spell that word.  but i do think i'm better than those fucking idiot teenage girls. actually, i know i am.  i don't want to argue anymore about it because i don't think i'm arguing against anybody.
i don't know what it is. but it's escalading so quickly. i'd be interested in what the generation after me is gonig to look like. it's sort of frightning. if we're at this stage already... what comes next?

ugh.

meh.

it must be very confusing to be a girl today--on one side society expects a certain behavior pattern and on the other you slutty idiots who think it great to tease the media with bizarre behavior.  and let's not forget that guy whose made millions on "Girls Gone Wild" videos--more like "Girls Gone Demented" ::).

Anyway much sympathy for the fair sex here... 8)

actually, it's not the teenagers, it's the adults. Young people (who wish to fit in) mimmick what they see in society. They see women who feel their value to society is to be eye candy, so they try it too.

If women stopped lowering themselves to solely sexual objects for 30 days, they'd be running the country within 27 days. I think men know this subconsciously. Sexual gratification has a more rooted physicality for men, than emotional. I think women could overcome the emotionality, but men are not as complicated. ie  eat, sleep, shit, fuck, eat, sleep, shit, fuck, eat, sleep, shit, fuck, etc...

It's a trap. Women's sexual freedom depends on a man's need to be visually stimulated.

(DISCLAIMER:  I am generalizing, and not speaking of every woman, just the ones who were mentioned at the start of this thread)

gee Tracy, you are really gun-shy huh?   ;)
I agree with your second point about stopping the objectification.  Really it is not all about flashing and teasing.  It is about being good to each other and making each other's life better for the connection.  I find myself getting annoyed with this type of behavior--ala Paris Hilton and the like it just seems so ignorant.  

Sorry guess I needed to vent

The whole Britney photo thing is slightly shocking, but you can't take the trailer out of the pop tart no matter how many different ways you try.

theres nothign that cna really be done/
it's society. we've portrayed women as this.  it's now the new essecnce of woman.
i am, however, by no means a feminist in the sense that i'm unruly and think men are stupid blah blah blah. i do thionk that we should be treated equally, and by all means, that initself is  the definiation fo a  feminist. it's a complciated topic and it's not an easy issue to discuss...
To my understanding, feminism is about the idea that femininity isn't just modesty, it can be whatever a woman wants it to be. A woman should be able to be however she wants, while still being very much a woman. Feminism is NOT about superiority. it's about equality. and I don't see how anyoen could argue against that.  

but theres all this bullshit, women against feminism which makes me feel weird.  they think it's like their natural right to work in the kitchen and portray this sexual image. i'm goign off on a long tangent, but i have a lot to say so bear with me.


It just  seems that by doing this, the indivudals prove the existence of an opressive patriarchy....
i've read some things where people stated that the traditional male roles are "assertiveness, leadership, risk-taking, ingenuity, and the warrior spirit- all of which helped build the world into what it is."... what the FUCK?

This brings us to example #1 of gender opression in the USA... it's as if Women are excluded from being assertive, or from taking initiative. They cannot be ingenious or lead society forward and shape the world//?  According to tehse people, those are the roles reserved for men. BUT HERES THE KICKER!!! there are such things as assertive commanding indigenous women... but can they then not be calle this beacuse they're not docile? because they're no subordinate? should the be excluded from shaping the world and leading people beacuse they can bear children?
is there a such thing as a woman leader?

sure there is.

men and women together support this,. and i'ts just truoblign to me.  women aren't just men who can bear children. ti's just realyl fukcing weird that anyone woudl argue against htem beign equal in a society that attempts (but fails) to push that so hard.  there is no such thing as equality. we live in a world where it seems that that's not even possible at this rate. it's confusing and it doesn't make sense.
i'm not goign to move on to my second example that i've thought about while typing because i jsut dont' have it in me, and i really don't feel like i need to argue anymore. i could be repeatative and i apolgoize for that. but let's be real for a minute. i was only going to cover the matter of whether or women's job is to be attracted to men. as a heterosexual fifteen year old girl theres not a whole lot of evidence that i have to back up any thesis... but from a general standpoint we have to realize that women can think for themselves without the men intereferring. i know this board is piopulated by a majority of men, which is fine, i'm not complaining, i jsut wanna hear other stand points. this should be a thread in itself...
just now i thought of another issue concerning this... that alone is the male image in todays society... of course this is just the "superficial" issue... the cliche' issue of IMAGE and SELF IDENTITY. nobodys goign to critique a man for the way he looks - rugged might be used as a term to describe him. it's "sexy", even, to some (no offense TOM! HONEST! I love the facial hair! i'm a sucker!)... i dont want to go on because i could rant foreve.r

i know that none of you have yet to argue against me so i'm just sort of sparking aggression.  excuse me, seriously.

basically -
I think denying a person the right to fulfill whatever role and denying them the oppurtunity to be who they want to be is like denying them air to breathe.

oh and.
the world's fucked up.
sorry i launched into thsi whoel controversail tangent. it just really makes me mad.

i'm not a feminist, i swear.   :-/  it's almost as if i don't even knwo waht i'm talking about. i mean what i'm saynig and i'm concerned but not to the point where i'll parade about. but that's me being contridicting. i just said it's not about superiority. UGH. options options options.

Quote

If women stopped lowering themselves to solely sexual objects for 30 days, they'd be running the country within 27 days.

That, my dear, is contingent upon a society where all men see women as equals.  ;)

Quotetheres nothign that cna really be done/
it's society. we've portrayed women as this.  it's now the new essecnce of woman.
i am, however, by no means a feminist in the sense that i'm unruly and think men are stupid blah blah blah. i do thionk that we should be treated equally, and by all means, that initself is  the definiation fo a  feminist. it's a complciated topic and it's not an easy issue to discuss...
To my understanding, feminism is about the idea that femininity isn't just modesty, it can be whatever a woman wants it to be. A woman should be able to be however she wants, while still being very much a woman. Feminism is NOT about superiority. it's about equality. and I don't see how anyoen could argue against that.  

but theres all this bullshit, women against feminism which makes me feel weird.  they think it's like their natural right to work in the kitchen and portray this sexual image. i'm goign off on a long tangent, but i have a lot to say so bear with me.


It just  seems that by doing this, the indivudals prove the existence of an opressive patriarchy....
i've read some things where people stated that the traditional male roles are "assertiveness, leadership, risk-taking, ingenuity, and the warrior spirit- all of which helped build the world into what it is."... what the FUCK?

This brings us to example #1 of gender opression in the USA... it's as if Women are excluded from being assertive, or from taking initiative. They cannot be ingenious or lead society forward and shape the world//?  According to tehse people, those are the roles reserved for men. BUT HERES THE KICKER!!! there are such things as assertive commanding indigenous women... but can they then not be calle this beacuse they're not docile? because they're no subordinate? should the be excluded from shaping the world and leading people beacuse they can bear children?
is there a such thing as a woman leader?

sure there is.

men and women together support this,. and i'ts just truoblign to me.  women aren't just men who can bear children. ti's just realyl fukcing weird that anyone woudl argue against htem beign equal in a society that attempts (but fails) to push that so hard.  there is no such thing as equality. we live in a world where it seems that that's not even possible at this rate. it's confusing and it doesn't make sense.
i'm not goign to move on to my second example that i've thought about while typing because i jsut dont' have it in me, and i really don't feel like i need to argue anymore. i could be repeatative and i apolgoize for that. but let's be real for a minute.

i know that none of you have yet to argue against me so i'm just sort of sparking aggression.  excuse me, seriously.

basically -
I think denying a person the right to fulfill whatever role and denying them the oppurtunity to be who they want to be is like denying them air to breathe.

oh and.
the world's fucked up.

what exactly are you arguing?

The tricky part is one of your last statements: I think denying a person the right to fulfill whatever role and denying them the oppurtunity to be who they want to be is like denying them air to breathe.

If a woman wants to dress in thongs and see through shirts, who are you to say they can't? Or, if a woman wants to have kids and be a housewife, it's not your place to say that's "wrong".  Won't you be the one "denying them the oppurtunity to be who they want to be"?

I'd invite you to researh the philosophy of feminsim, becuse a lot of my personal philosophy is aligned with feminism; you don't have to be a woman to be a feminist. I had many discussions about this during my masters program and working as a social woker for the past 5 years.

As far as  America being a land of "equality, we are, mostly. Perhaps we are moreso than other nations, but if you look at the infamous statement from The Declaration of Independnce:  

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

this was written by white men who: owned slaves, were in the process of eliminating Native Americans, treated women and kids as possessions. Somehow, we forget this hypocrisy. It sounds great, you know, to say "all men are created equal", but it's just words, especially in 1776. It's pretty ridiculous that we come back to a statement that was a sham.

anywho, keep on trucking Jenny. I can tell by the way you think and challenge things, that you're pretty amazing. You're a really unique person. Don't settle for the lies, find your truth. There's power in real truth.

Peace.  out

hoenstly, it was a rant. it was a mess of things launched into one big vent. i don't know my specific thesis. i'm certianyl not arguing that women have to be women to be femisnists. thats not what i'm saying. i know that i'm not in anyone to say anything about whether or not they choose to"work in the kitchen" or be passive or not be self righteous. but people who argue that that's what they SHOULD do is ridiculous..
i'm arguing about OPTIONS. simply OPTIONS. but i'm also not even arguign against anything.

i don't think i ever said or implied that it was "wrong" to be a housewife. that's techincalyl what my own mother is (which is contridictary because i have a lto to say about that but will refrain for my own state of mind and just so i don't regret anythign later...)

"all men are created equal..." means exactly what it says unfortuantely.  all MEN. all white men, more specifically, when this was written. WHICH BRINGS ME TO ANOTHER ISSUE THAT I HAVE A SERIOUS SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH. They're HYPOCRITES. Laws are supposed to be for everyone -- but couldn't you argue most are aimed towards the poor? the less fortunate? the homeless? an example being the "no sleeping under bridgers law". who does that effect? certainly not me. but it does the homeless....

so i guess i apologize if you foudn anything insulting and/or untrue. i iddn't mean for it to be portrayed like that. i was simply FED UP...

i've got more thoguhts boiled up i just don't want to be insensitive.

So Spears was shopping for pants/panties? I'm confused.

Quoteall MEN. all white men, more specifically, when this was written.

Oh, come on... are you serious?

Why don't you take a look at the bulk of indentured servants - white people working for other white people like literal orphans. You can't really believe that there was ever a time in the history of man where one race as a whole held it's own in equal regards, do you?

Even in the biblical age, never has a race been without its interior tiers in the social ladder where people on the lowest rut are no more or less respected than livestock.

Quote

Oh, come on... are you serious?

Why don't you take a look at the bulk of indentured servants - white people working for other white people like literal orphans. You can't really believe that there was ever a time in the history of man where one race as a whole held it's own in equal regards, do you?

Even in the biblical age, never has a race been without its interior tiers in the social ladder where people on the lowest rut are no more or less respected than livestock.

fine.
FINE.

i hate this thread.

i think i'm getting an ulcer.

Pepcid AC

I could care less about Britney or what body parts she's showing the world, but here's a great book on some of the related issues that came up:

Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics by bell hooks

It's a great primer on the history of feminism and the various branches/directions the movement has taken, and it's connection to other issues of marginalization. This and other writing by hooks ties together feminism with other movements for justice and mutual respect. And, if you can ever hear her speak, go immediately. It's life changing stuff no matter what you identify as. She's brilliant, inspirational and is no stuffy academic.

Here's a different thought, and hear me out. Because I am damn certain it's offensive if you don't.

Instead of treating women and men as equals, how about we treat men like men and women like women. I don't understand why, but so many people are uncomfortable admitting that we are made differently. But look at the fact of the matter: we are.

What are women essentially built for? Bearing children. What are men essentially built for? Providing one half of what it takes a woman to bear children. That is our most basic biological difference. It stands on one chromosome and that one chromosome is our difference.

So what do we get beyond that? Women bear children, we've established this. Women (on average, so don't rip me apart here on exceptions) are smaller and not as strong as men. Men generally are taller, larger, and capable of bearing more weight than women can, whether it be lifted, pushed, pulled, etc.

So hmmm...even without some sort of guiding framework here, would it not seem at least somewhat apparent that men ought to protect women, and women support them in that? Look at what that involves:

A man who protects a woman makes sure that she is treated with all due respect. He is strong, supports her as a person and loves her in a way in which she is best served, namely through keeping her safe and providing protection (this is very basic, but i hope you catch my gist. it is 4am, afterall). So what does a woman do in this scheme of things? She is not degraded or belittled by this by any means, but rather given the ability to have a true sense of dignity about her. Rather than be forced to fend for herself amidst seas of ravenous horomone-driven men, she is treated with respect. I'm not a woman, so I don't know really what all that entails, but I do know what I give to me lady, and the way she appreciates that because it gives her the ability to be truly respected.

I think the most important thing, though, is not expecting men and women to act as equals. We are biologically different for very important reasons, and to deny that and have both men and women fend for themselves in the same atmosphere is (in my opinion) wrong. Women ought to be treated respectfully as women, and men ought to be damn sure that they understand that.

Will our entire society ever be able to grasp that? No. Can a few people have a lot of influence though? I believe whole-heartedly that that is a yes.

And keep in mind, I am not pushing for women to stay at hoem and make me dinner. I am pushing for men and women to better understand their roles as men and women. I don't really know what feminism is, but if it supports that, I support it. If it supports "equality", then I don't support it, because I think it misses the point. I think the point of the different genders is very clear, so why have we worked ourselves into a state where we have to tiptoe around it?

I think I understand your point Tom, but what if a woman doesn't want to have kids or she is infertile, then she has no role in society. Or if a man is handicapped or is short and not strong. Then who defines his role?

I, for one, undertsand equality as a statment about opportunity and oppression. The mindset that men are overall stronger has led to a male dominated, oppressive system.

And don't get me started on how we treat blacks, hispanics, homosexuals, and muslims in this land of "equality". I don't think it's as simple as you paint it out to be.

So, a man can lift a heavy box and fight off a squirrel and women can bear children. Based on those tenants, there should be no equality? Got to disagree with that.

I think we're moving, albeit slowly, towards a place where a man or a woman can be exactly who they want to be and not be made to feel they're doing something wrong or against nature.

I've been a stay-at-home mother and a working mother and, in both situations, there were people who made me feel I was letting the side down. I think we're moving away from that.

I'm with Tracy on this, although I do respect Tom for his considered views.

we're all human beings and should treat one another with equal respect, regardless of sex, gender, race, ability, size, or stature.  

now of course that applies to so-called "western civilization" cultures alone.  many other cultures have different roles and subroles for men and women based on plenty of other factors-class, wealth, education, birthright, etc.  not that i agree with those characteristics, but they are "indiginous" to their particular culture and therefore should be respected-UNLESS we're talking about female mutilation, caste systems, or some other horrific tales of woe where people are hurting one another.

it's easy for us, as so called "modern" civilizations, to cast judgement on other ways of life, but keep in mind that so called "feminism" has only enjoyed (at most) a fifty year run here in America.  there's much work to be done to ensure said "equality", but Ms. Spears et al do no justice for that work, IMHO.

I think we're heading towards a period where everyone is defined in their own way and not by their body parts.  I'm certainly not a walking penis, and I don't expect women to be walking breasts or vaginas.  

Ah, God bless 4am.

Thanks Tracy, you made a good point about those who physically can't fulfill those roles. And I know it's slightly flawed logic, but I'm kind of working on discovering the point I'm trying to make. I haven't gotten there yet, so this helps.

That said, you have a great point, too Doc, from being in both roles there. And I don't see anything wrong with women who do either. I think though, as a whole, it's getting more and more uncommon to see mothers who really embrace being mothers. Especially up north. Up there, you do it because your husband is rich enough for you not to work. And then you don't really mother, you just get a nanny and get drinkin earlier.

I suppose my views on the subject are pretty traditional. I certainly don't support oppressive behavior, and I think that certainly men being more powerful has led to oppression where it shouldn't have been. But before the oppression, there is something good and right. But it has to do with giving up a lot of the power that we might hold near and dear. I think the reason we have the problems between both sexes is that many of the people involved believe that they can be the stronger sex, or that one is more right, and things get thrown around as comparisons. But there's not even room for comparison, there, I don't believe. Men and women are created as complements of eachother, and need to embrace that, not fight over it. We've all got so much to give eachother, and men need to understand that we are here to respect women, and not to take any kind of advantage of any sort of them. And women ought to expect that of us, and support us in our respect of them. I'm serious, I think Tracy's right. If women stopped taking most of the BS that men give, they would find that they could almost force a respect out of the men who wouldn't give it before. I think it is a man's job to give that respect in the first place, but it is certainly unnaceptable to have this many men in America completely failing proudly at it.

And there's probably a lot i didn't say and loopholes everywhere, but does that help what I started to say last night?

Quoteas a whole, it's getting more and more uncommon to see mothers who really embrace being mothers

No offense, but what does that mean?  Stay home and have no career?  

Nah, Tom.  I get what you're getting at.  As well as everyone here who has spoken up.  You've all made excellent points.  

I don't think this issue will ever be truly resolved, but then again, I'm only 21 and really don't understand my own role, much less a woman's, completely.  I'm just gonna sit back, respect myself and women, and hope all goes well from there. I think that's the best we can all do as a society.

Or something.

Wait, so they are makeing Pop Tarts in diffrent shapes now?

Quote

No offense, but what does that mean?  Stay home and have no career?  

John--I get the feeling that this was a reference to the number of women experienceing the post-partum depression stuff and drowning their babies or worse, then there's that whole Madonna-jumping-on-the-adopt-a-poor-African-child-thing (motherhood with a trophy child?).  I am just guessing here.....

Quote
I think though, as a whole, it's getting more and more uncommon to see mothers who really embrace being mothers.

It's been my experience, both proffessionaly and personally, that it's mostly the mother who "sticks around" and raises kids. My dad left our family and I know a lot of friends whose fathers did the same. As a family therapist here in Nashville, I can honestly say that most of the kids we encounter (easily over 75%) are from single mother homes.

We have really screwed our kids over when the mother is expected to be a mother and the father finds it to be optional.

Quote


We have really screwed our kids over when the mother is expected to be a mother and the father finds it to be optional.

Absofuckinlutely man!

To me, feminism is about having a choice--and having a society that respects those choices. A woman should be allowed to persue a lifestyle brings her happiness, whether she be a traditional mom, a CEO, a stripper, a firefighter, or what the hell ever she wants to be.

Some people have a problem with feminism because they assume that all "feminists" are of the radical persuasion. That isn't so.

I don't have a desire to have kids or be a "stay-at-home" mom, but that doesn't mean that I don't respect women who choose to do so. And I most certainly don't view professional women as those who are neglecting to fill their "destined" roles.

QuoteA woman should be allowed to persue a lifestyle brings her happiness, whether she be a traditional mom, a CEO, a stripper, a firefighter, or what the hell ever she wants to be.

 

Mentioning having a career as a stripper as a choice is a loaded statement. Radical, not to mention  socialist and even some liberal feminists would argue that this isn't the case with reference to girls/women being conditioned and sexually objectified from birth in our male dominated society.

Quote

No offense, but what does that mean?  Stay home and have no career?  

Not at all. My stepmom works full-time with some form of IRS something or other and comes home and sits my half-sister in front of the Disney channel. It's not uncommon at all, either. Look around you and there's a ton of women who have other people or the tv raising their kids. I know I'm going to have to work, and I know my wife is going to have to work, seeing as I'll be a teacher and (Lord-willing, if things keep looking the way they have been recently) she will be, too. And I know that factors in, and I know everyone is tired at the end of a workday, but the point in having children is to raise a child or four. And by raise, teach them everything you know and grow them into a beautiful human being. Not to teach them everything Disney channel knows and to grow them up into a beautiful Raven. I have complete respect for working mothers, as my mom has had to be one since before I was completely potty-trained, but she worked hard and then came home to work hard to be a good mother, too.

And don't think I'm leaving dads out of this by any means. I've grown up with a decent example of how not to be a good dad. And I've learned from that, too. Is this thread still about feminism only, or can we expand it to both gender roles?

This is good and interesting.

I've thought about it, and as much as I love kids I just don't think I would be willing to have any unless I could be a stay at home mom.  I have a deep amount of respect for people who are able to work full time and still do a good job raising children, I don't think it's something I could do.  I really do think it's best if one parent is able to focus on the home and the family but that's strictly my opinion and I completely respect anyone who choses not to do that.  

QuoteI don't expect women to be walking breasts or vaginas.  

I love it when you talk dirty John  ;)

Quote
We have really screwed our kids over when the mother is expected to be a mother and the father finds it to be optional.

That's so true.  I notice this about my family, the men aren't expected to do anything concerning children.  When my brother helps his daughter with  her homework my mother acts like he's father of the year.  To be fair, he does a million times better than our dad did with us.  Even though my parents remained married until I was 17 my dad participated very little in our raising.  

everybody keeps using the general "we". what does "we" mean? we as people? we as men? we as women? (dependent  on whose speaking i suppose...)

i don't think that the point of this is to at all come to an agreement... i think everyone is raising some really interesting points...
i'm fucknig fifteen years old. I don't want children... i mean, i don't think i do anyway...

and meg - you're right. i just hate the title of "feminist" but really, IMO i think that anyone who wants ANYBODY (man OR woman) to have the RIGHT to choose without it seeming foreign techincally falls under that title...

gender and class and roles in society are the best to discuss... ahhh CONTROVERSY CONTROVERSY!!!