babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Girls Gone Mild?
July 27, 2007 - 8:01am
It's an interesting concept, for sure, and I think it's relevant, being in my early-mid twenties myself. But, there is also a lot of value in the criticism put forth by Feministing.com.
Has anyone read this book? Or do they know anything about it? I'm tempted to pick it up, but all of the reviews I've read about it makes my blood boil, for a number of different reasons, whether it's a glowing one, or scathing. Any thoughts?
One thing she did mention was that people like the feministing.com staff don't like her writing because they see anything that criticizes the "sexual liberation" of women as inherently bad.
My almost-13-year-old son listened quite intently and at one point, said to me, quite impatiently, "You're a feminist, right?" And I said yes, of course, and he wanted to know if I agreed with Wendy that "older feminists" defend actions such as baring one's breasts as "empowering."
It's quite a complicated conversation to have with an almost-13-year-old boy.
I did agree with one of the respondents this morning who said that Wendy offers no middle ground between unthinking promiscuity and abstinence until marriage. (I'm paraphrasing.)
It makes for an annoying listening experience.
My worries stemmed more from the Toronto Star article, differentiating the idea of a “good girl” vs. a “bad girl.” But I’m sure the title used in the article was just a take on a catchy clichй, not stereotyping that might be found in the book. The criticism cited in the Star article stems from feminist writers “including feminist writers Katha Pollitt and Camille Paglia, as anti-feminist, encouraging young women to cover up but not to hook up, and to consider chastity before marriage.”
Exactly, thank you for finding that, Sharon.
I think that's what I was trying to get at, the dichotomy of bad and good girl. I think that is why I am so intrigued by the subject, and somehow identify with it: to be sexually liberated, but selective, or to be a virgin, but to be a sexual being. I think that there is so much grey area of a person's sexuality that is often ignored in books and articles, focusing only on the extremes of sexuality.
I echo your feelings on the show, Sharon.
The main focus of the interview, as I absorbed it, seemed to be that we live in a society where we "vilify the prude," calling the term virgin “one of the worst things you can call a woman,” especially due to the commoditization of sex. She talks about sexuality that is devoid of meaning.
It all seems way too preachy for me. The Wall Street Journal said:
Anyways, I'm going to wait until I see it in a bargain bin somewhere, and then I'll pick it up, for a better review. But I do wonder, do we "vilify the prude?" as Shalit calls it?
Yes, we do. We also villify women for being promiscious. Ever wonder what a woman could do to stop from being villify?
Sleep with one boy at a time, and only after dating for six months at least. Have sex with less than three other guys before getting married. Never date a boy that a popular girl at school either likes or has dated in the past, otherwise you're a slut.
God I love being a grown-up. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
This book has been brought to you by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 30 July 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
I am usually pretty wary of prudery hiding behind feminism, but I don't necessarily think that's what this is all about. I think it would be so nice if teenaged girls could feel free to be as modest or "showy" as they like without it being some sort of big political statement or being labeled somehow, whether by moral majority types or feminists.
I'm going to reserve the book at the library and see what I think of it after I read it. It's quite possible that this is a moral majority thing and that it'll really tick me off. One red flag for me is the "thongs on four year-olds" hyperbole. Everyone's so damned freaked about what underwear a little girl might wear. Geez. Chill out, people, and quit thinking so much about little girls' underwear. It's creepy. Who the hell cares if a 10 year-old wears a thong? Thongs are fashionable, and many little girls like to be fashionable. I'm sure people were freaking out when underwear fashion for little girls changed from great big granny underwear to a more "bikini-cut" undie too. Get over it, seriously. It's just a fashion. It's not inherently bad.
P.S. I just reserved both books from the library - none of them are in, so I may be waiting for a bit.
[ 02 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Women who try to live up to either side: Modesty, so men will respect you and want to marry you or Being Sexually Available so men will fuck you or want to fuck you, lose.
(As for all this heteronormativity, how about we not go there in this thread, eh? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] )
Yes, young women are sexualized, perhaps more so than a few decades ago, but this in itself is not new. Neither is it new that the language of feminism is being used to coerce young women into acting in more sexualized ways that they may not be comfortable with, and always in service of the male gaze. This is a lot of things, but it isn't feminism.
Just like an abusive male partner forcing his pregnant girlfriend to have an abortion isn't feminism.
I would love to see sex and sexuality taught to young women and young men as a number of things: fun, silly, wonderful, respectful, intense, etc. What if we were all taught that sex is a whole bunch of things, and we may like something but not something else, and "fooling around" can mean a myriad of actions? What if young women were sexual when and where and with whom of their own choosing, each time and every time? That would be a radical new world. Bring it on!
I would not call this a feminist statement. This seems to be all about how to be pleasing to a man - through modesty. It has next to nothing to do with woman/girl power and everything to do with the male gaze, and male objectification. It would have been great had she decided to write a book about how young women are sexualized by the mainstream culture and how to navigate yourself through this without setting up an us versus them position. Camille Paglia!! Please!
My reaction, exactly. It's hard to take seriously any sentence that includes the words "feminism" and "Camille Paglia" as synonymous.
I mostly took offence at Shalit's implication that older feminists, who were part of the sexual revolution, have somehow become defenders/defensive of the sexualization of girls -- as if it's part of a second-wave legacy.
***
Now, back to the book.
I frequently went to public swimming pools last year, I was shocked to see six year old girls wearing skimpy bikinis. When I was a kid, six and seven year olds didn't care about sexiness and fashion. I only started to care about that sort of thing during puberty, around age 12. Psychologists notice kids get more intelligent around age 7. I think that five-year gap is a good time to grow up playing games and probably better off without sexual concerns.
Better 11 year olds play sports and watch cartoons then think about blow jobs.
I'm not ambivalent about her. I don't like her at all.
She's instrumental in the right's attempt to build a caricature of feminism that it can subsequently tear down.
No ambivalence here. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
I used the wrong word, I meant belligerence.
Terrible.
On one hand, it seems to have very negative connotation:
At least, I would associate prudishness and self-conscious modesty as negative.
On the other hand, other definitions (these are both from dictionary.com by the way) seem to define modesty, or modest, or modestly somewhat differently
I'm interested to read how Shalit defines the modesty of the young women in her book. Are we talking about an internal shyness or prudishness when it comes to female sexuality, or the lack of an outward manifestation of overt sexuality? Or the combination of the two? It’s a rhetorical question at this point, that I can’t answer until I read the book, but one that I’ll be interested in examining afterwards!
These guys care.
Pedophile website promotes Montreal Children's Festival
Now that's creepy.
I'm not having such a hard time seperating her right wingish messages from the rest of her ideas. Celebrating the "success" of Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, or Paris Hilton as role models is not liberating for young children.
Gee, that makes me feel better. Nothing to be stressed out about huh? A pack of pedos at a chilren's festival. Those of us who have been molested at a young age, were the police there for you? They weren't for me.
Juts like the NAMBLA website. And it would be foolish to think thosed twisted fucks weren't involved in molesting kids.
I don't think it is the kids. I think it's the parents. The way some people get so into dressing up and making up their children gives me the creeps. Little JonBenet Ramseys all over the place.
A number of issues that we have been talking about can be found in this article and the additional comments below it. This is just one comment, among many.