Posted on 09/20/2005 9:30:45 PM PDT by goldstategop
It was all supposed to be so liberating. But it wasn't, as Ms. Levy argues forcefully in "Female Chauvinist Pigs." It was merely the academic groundwork for what she calls "raunch culture," now so ubiquitous that we take it for granted. Young women wear shirts emblazoned with "Porn Star" across the chest. Teen stores sell "Cat in the Hat" thong underwear. Parents treat their daughters' friends to "cardio striptease" classes for birthday parties. This is liberation?
Ms. Levy is baffled. "Why," she wondered, "is laboring to look like Pamela Anderson empowering?" Why did female Olympic athletes pose for Playboy before the summer 2004 Games? Why did Katie Couric feel the need to point to her cleavage and gush "these are actually real!" when she guest-hosted "The Tonight Show" a couple of years ago?
Some sort of pervasive pressure, apparently, requires "everyone who is sexually liberated . . . to be imitating strippers and porn stars." Ms. Levy describes the perfect distillation of this impulse--a social group called CAKE that hosts steamy, hooking-up parties in New York and London. CAKE makes big bucks advertising "feminism in action"--it claims to be the place where "sexual equality and feminism finally meet"--but its events are indistinguishable from those held at the Playboy Mansion.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
I don't know what this means, but I assume it's another reason I don't have daughters.
You can't write satire like this.
OK guys, it's all yours!
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
I couldn't do that. When we saw them a couple of weeks ago I let into both the girls for the clothes they wear, but they were unfazed.
Later, for the gazillioneth time, I told my wife I am grateful that when she births children she births boys.
May they find contentment and fulfillment in it. To each one's own.
Tom Clancy once wrote how it's God's revenge against a man when the man becomes the father of a daughter. All those moments of thinking lustily about women earlier in his life come back to terrify him once he has a daughter; he now has to protect his daughter against --- gasp --- other males.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
It was all about women being just as scummy as men and now they are so enjoy it
I know it upsets him, but his household is run by three women who are into fashion, so he clenches his teeth and says nothing
Brother is pretty sad
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Hasn't been all that strange . . . there was never any question in the feminist movement that sexual equality COULD be mandated by holding men to what was then perceived as the sexual standard for women--making men responsible for their promiscuity (as in paying for the care and upkeep of their progeny out of wedlock). No--the fems wanted equal access to promiscuity--abortion, in particular. Sorry--that, and that alone, is the soul of the feminist movement.
First, women are sexual beings and the vast majority of them desire men as their sex partners. Feminism denied this fact. Remember the old slogan, "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"?
Then when reality intruded on their ideology they modified it to recognize that women were indeed sexual and did desire men, but they decided that women should be just as in your face about their sexuality as men are.
It just doesn't work that way though. Men are biologically programmed to want to spread their genes around and historically the men who were the most promiscuous had the most children. We've evolved to treat sex as something very desirable, but not emotionally binding. Women haven't evolved the same way. Women need providers for their children and because of this they generally reject sex unless it's accompanied by a relationship.
If they want their feminist philosophy to truly serve the interests of women they need to recognize these facts.
If your wife knows the difference between style and fads, you shouldn't have a problem.
Oh right. Cardio striptease. Sure. I knew that. :^O
http://www.cardiostriptease.com/
I'll never forget the group of five or six "women's libbers" on Phil Donahue in the early 70s.
"Nice girls DO!" they declared emphatically.
They pouted and whined about "The Double Standard." "The Double Standard" meant that girls were expected to save themselves for marriage, but men were supposed to be "experienced" and worldly.
Double standards are always cruel and unfair, and this one had to go, no question, but....
What would our culture be today if, instead of lowering the standards for women, those same "Women's Libber's" on the talkshows had demanded that society RAISE the standards for men?
That would be difficult though, and liberalism has no interest in anything unless it's easy and it feels good, and it costs them nothing.
"Where are the simple joys of maidenhood?
Shall I dress like they do at age fourteen?
Shall I wear all the daring things
Like navel jewels and nipple rings?
Oh, how should a maiden best be seen?...
(snip)
Shall I wear a microminiskirt?
Maybe that would not be wise
For it shows the tiny, purple veins
On my upper thighs..."
-- Laura Ainsworth - My Ship Has Sailed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.