Girls Gone Mild?
Fri, 2007-07-27 08:01
#1
Girls Gone Mild?
Fri, 2007-07-27 08:01
#2
One of my favourite recent discoveries is [url=http://www.shamelessmag.com]Shameless Magazine,[/url] as I mentioned in another thread. A recent article (well, a recent blog) looks at a new book by Wendy Shalit. So, sure, this topic could have ended up in the feminism forum, or the book forum, but Shalit's book deals with youth, and since our youth forum isn't always the busiest, here we go.
quote:
Has anybody heard of Wendy Shalit? She has a new book out called Girls Gone Mild. It reports from the movement headed by teenage girls who want to make modesty cool again, and reject the pressure to put out all over the place, or at least wear a t-shirt that says “Stacked Hottie.” There’s a favourable article about her in the [url=http://www.thestar.com/living/article/236893]Toronto Star.[/url]
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 [url=http://feministing.com/archives/007318.html]Feministing.com.[/url]
quote:
Jessica Valenti at Feministing.com though, isn’t buying it. She has a pretty searing critique of Girls Gone Mild here, where she suggests that Shalit has co-opted feminist language, and even faked some of the interviews with teenage girls, calling into question Shalit’s claims that teenage girls find the pressure to be “liberated” overwhelming. Has anybody read Girls Gone Mild, or do any of our teenage readers know anything about this underground campaign for ankle cover?The huge problem with both Levy and Shalit, is that neither of their arguments make space for the fact that maybe not all women who are into porn, and happy having many sexual partners, are poor lost girls who are trading sex for validation. Neither of their arguments can sustain the fact that some women have a lot of sex or pursue a lot of sex because they just plain like it. And the thing is, while wearing thongs, making out with your best girls, and flashing the Girls Gone Wild camera crew are completely acceptable and even encouraged these days, I don’t believe that having a healthy and happy sexual appetite is. And until we get to the point where it’s okay for women to desire sex, are critiques that unwittingly beat down women who like sex really that helpful?
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?
Fri, 2007-07-27 08:06
#3
Scott Piatkowski
Why is sexuality only about girls? Does she assume that boys are beyond "redemption"?
Fri, 2007-07-27 08:09
#4
My first instinct is just that the book is so problematic, for reasons just like that. But, it's nonetheless sparked my curiousity. One of those books I have a feeling I'd like to throw against the wall about half way through.
Fri, 2007-07-27 08:29
#5
Jessica, why is it problematic for a book to look only at girls? It's a female author who looked at the specific culture of teenage girls. In the real world, teenage girls and teenage boys have different subcultures. There are plenty of other books which look at boys. It ought never be the job of one book to study all problems.
Fri, 2007-07-27 08:31
#6
Oh no, sorry, I didn't mean that made it problematic, I think that's one reason I'm interested. I just have some concerns based on the reviews I've read, that I haven't fleshed out. I'm on my way for lunch, so I can't go in to detail now, but I will check back later. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2007-07-27 09:24
#7
From an interview I saw with the author, she doesn't appear to be as evil as feministing.com seems to make out. She seems to be more critical of the sexualization of youth and what that leads to. She sites toddler bikinis, thongs for 4-year olds, Bratz (I'm pretty sure), and some magazine that is targeted at 8-12 year old girls that tells them how to be "hot" (I think it's related to Bratz). She didn't appear to be against anything in particular for "grown up" women.
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.
Fri, 2007-07-27 09:39
#8
Kevin Sylvester did a lengthy interview with Wendy Shalit earlier this week and there were phone calls and emails in response to that interview today. I checked but they don't seem to have interviews for reading and listening on their website. (I didn't go through their whole podcast list.) Just this:
quote:
Wendy Shalit was praised and reviled for her first book. "A Return to Modesty" was written when she was 23. In it she argued that the fruits of the sexual revolution have not empowered women. Some feminists hated her conservative message but many young women responded positively. She launched a website and on-line community called, "Modestly Yours". Seven years after her first book she continues the theme with the recently published, "Girls Gone Mild: Young Women Reclaim Self- Respect and Find It's not Bad to be Good". Kevin spoke with her from Toronto.
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.
Fri, 2007-07-27 10:10
#9
I think I'm going to pick it up, so I'll get back and tell everyone what I thought about it.
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.”
Fri, 2007-07-27 10:43
#10
I think [url=http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/willis-aronowitz] The Virginity Mystique[/url] by Nona Willis-Aronowitz in The Nation is a good article and says a lot of the things that I would have said -- even though I haven't read the book but just heard that interview.
quote:
Since its release, Girls Gone Mild has been getting some interesting, and tentatively flattering, press. Maybe it's because, at face value, Shalit has a few good points--there is something undeniably creepy about a 10-year-old girl in a thong. My stomach does sink a little when I see one of my peers woozily stripping her clothes off on a Girls Gone Wild commercial. And do I want Paris Hilton to be a future role model for my daughter? Hell no. The fact is, many young women are dissatisfied with casual sex, feel ambivalent about the fruits of the sex revolution and buckle under the unwanted pressure to be supersexual. But in searching for a happy sexual medium, is a goody-two-shoes like Shalit all we've got?
quote:
The disturbing, almost automatic dichotomy of "bad girl" and "good girl" in Shalit's prose--and in the cultural conversation about women and sex--seems to assert that one can't reject the wild without embracing the mild, that there's nobody who lies between born-again virgins and Lolitas.
Fri, 2007-07-27 10:54
#11
quote:
The fact is, many young women are dissatisfied with casual sex, feel ambivalent about the fruits of the sex revolution and buckle under the unwanted pressure to be supersexual. But in searching for a happy sexual medium, is a goody-two-shoes like Shalit all we've gotThe disturbing, almost automatic dichotomy of "bad girl" and "good girl" in Shalit's prose--and in the cultural conversation about women and sex--seems to assert that one can't reject the wild without embracing the mild, that there's nobody who lies between born-again virgins and Lolitas.
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.
Mon, 2007-07-30 10:42
#12
I finally just caught the [url=http://wendyshalit.com/node/51]interview[/url] that Sharon was talking about. (I guess that's the downside of getting my news and views via podcast! It's convenient, but it sometimes takes me a few extra days to get on top of things!)
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. [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118254928882245220.html?mod=googlenews_w... Wall Street Journal[/url] said:
quote:
"Girls Gone Mild" loses some of its own force when it moves from reportorial survey to advice and advocacy. At the end of every chapter are "how to" boxes, obviously aimed at young readers, on such subjects as taking back your college dorm room when your roommate, planning a tryst, wants to send you into exile. Another -- "Confronting Your Baby Boomer Parent" -- tells you how to explain yourself to parents who think that you're "weird for being a virgin." A box called "A Recipe for Pleasing With Integrity" asks: "Is there a way for a young woman to impress others, without having to be mean or compromise her value system?" Why, yes: Bake an apple pie!
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?
Mon, 2007-07-30 11:20
#13
Scott Piatkowski
quote:
Originally posted by jrose:
[b]But I do wonder, do we "vilify the prude?" as Shalit calls it?[/b]
Yes, we do. We also villify women for being promiscious. Ever wonder what a woman could do to stop from being villify?
Mon, 2007-07-30 11:51
#14
Get herself a nice boyfriend in high school who takes her to the prom. Then either date him in college or, if separated by distance, break up, and find a nice boyfriend in freshman year of college, and date him until they graduate and get married.
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]
Mon, 2007-07-30 11:52
#15
quote:
"Is there a way for a young woman to impress others, without having to be mean or compromise her value system?" Why, yes: Bake an apple pie!
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 ]
Mon, 2007-07-30 12:44
#16
What is Shalit's background?
Mon, 2007-07-30 12:50
#17
Well, I'm strapped for time, so I had to go to the most accurate source out there ( [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] ) Wikipedia!
quote:
Wendy Shalit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAuthor Wendy Shalit (born 1975) graduated from Williams College with a BA degree in Philosophy. Born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, she is the sister of writer Ruth Shalit and Mina Shalit.
Her articles on cultural and literary topics have appeared in Commentary, The Wall Street Journal and Slate.
She is the author of the book A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue, published by Free Press in 1999. Her book has attracted much controversy, most notably earning her attacks from Katha Pollitt in The New York Times [1] and Larry Flynt in Hustler magazine, where she was awarded the Asshole of the Month title.
At the same time, Shalit received many letters of support[2] from young women who were disenchanted with the sexual revolution, prompting her to start an online support forum called ModestyZone.net.[3]
ModestyZone hosts the ModestlyYours blog,[4] with 20 bloggers "of all ages and backgrounds whose voices are not normally heard in the mainstream (or even non-mainstream) media."[5]
Mona Charen has called ModestlyYours an "antidote to the vulgarity that is shoved in our faces from magazine covers, television, raunch radio, movies, and shows. . . Shalit names a "rebel of the month" on the site, choosing young women who exemplify modesty, intelligence, and integrity. They are the counter counterculture -- and not a minute too soon."[6]
Amazon.com is listing Shalit's next book as Girls Gone Mild: Young Women Reclaim Self-Respect and Find It's Not Bad to Be Good,[7] due to be released on June 26th, 2007.
She currently lives with her family in Toronto, Ontario.[8]
Thu, 2007-08-02 02:23
#18
I'm not really having the same reaction to this, btw. It may be possible that she's channeling some right-wing modesty thing, but it's also possible that she's writing about girls withstanding peer pressure to be more sexualized than they're comfortable with being. Lots of feminists have decried the over-sexualization of girls.
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 ]
Thu, 2007-08-02 03:49
#19
Maysie
From what I can tell (I haven't read the book either) this is yet another example of the classic "madonna/whore" dichotomy. Something that is entirely structured by the male gaze and male interests, on both sides. This is male control of female sexuality. Or at least, attempted control. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
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!
Thu, 2007-08-02 05:19
#20
quote:
"Is there a way for a young woman to impress others, without having to be mean or compromise her value system?" Why, yes: Bake an apple pie!
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!
Thu, 2007-08-02 05:48
#21
quote:
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.
Thu, 2007-08-02 06:26
#22
I never understood tha ambivalence to Paglia. I used to read her weekly columns on salon.com. She's a talented writer with a good understanding of current social issues. I vaguely remember her being against strict gun control though, which is against progressive orthodoxy.
***
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.
Thu, 2007-08-02 06:51
#23
Scott Piatkowski
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]I never understood tha ambivalence to Paglia.[/b]
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.
Thu, 2007-08-02 06:56
#24
quote:
I never understood tha ambivalence to Paglia.
No ambivalence here. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2007-08-02 07:09
#25
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=001562&p=... more discussion of Paglia here.[/url]
Thu, 2007-08-02 09:41
#26
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
[b]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.[/b]
I used the wrong word, I meant belligerence.
Terrible.
Thu, 2007-08-02 11:03
#27
I think much of my ambivalence with the idea of this book is the ambiguity of the definition of the word modesty itself.
On one hand, it seems to have very negative connotation:
quote:
mod•est•ly, adverb—Synonyms 1. retiring, unassuming. 1, 2. unpretentious, unobtrusive. 3. pure, virtuous. Modest, demure, prudish imply conformity to propriety and decorum, and a distaste for anything coarse or loud. Modest implies a becoming shyness, sobriety, and proper behavior: a modest, self-respecting person. Prudish suggests an exaggeratedly self-conscious modesty or propriety in behavior or conversation of one who wishes to be thought of as easily shocked and who often is intolerant: a prudish objection to a harmless remark.
—Antonyms 3. bold, coarse.
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
quote:
free from ostentation or showy extravagance: a modest house.
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!
Fri, 2007-08-03 04:49
#28
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]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?[ 02 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ][/b]
These guys care.
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/08/01/qc-pedophile0801.html... website promotes Montreal Children's Festival[/url]
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.
Fri, 2007-08-03 05:06
#29
quote:
"I understand parents who could be stressed with that, but on the other hand, I'm telling you, there's nothing to be stressed about," said Montreal police spokesman Ian Lafreniиre. "We'll be present. The organization is aware of that and we'll do everything possible to find out what was the intention of those people."
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.
quote:
The site explicitly states it does not encourage direct contact with children, but that doesn't mean the web page is legal, McCall said."The [Canadian] Criminal Code indicates that if you have any written material that advocates sexual activity, then it's criminal," she said. "Where that line is drawn depends entirely upon the information we come across and whether or not it would support a prosecution."
Juts like the NAMBLA website. And it would be foolish to think thosed twisted fucks weren't involved in molesting kids.
Fri, 2007-08-03 10:51
#30
quote:
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 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.
Fri, 2007-08-03 11:42
#31
[url=http://feministing.com/archives/005685.html]From the Feministing archives...:[/url]
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.
quote:
I don't think bikinis are in themselves sexualizing on little girls. I had one (I just liked the word, though, when I was that age, and used to run around the beach yelling "bikini bikini bikini"--cool word), and what it mostly shows is how unsexual little girls are. I mean, the point of being prepubescent is that you can run around stark naked and it's not sexual.But the difference is that bras are pieces of clothing that are for the sole purpose of managing a secondary sex characteristic. Now, there's no particular reason why little girls should cover up their nipples--that's just convention--but the bikini isn't pretending the little girl's body is anything other than it is. But a bra is implying that a little girl's body is already the same as a grown woman's body, when it is not. And a padded bra is implying that there's something wrong with a prepubescent female looking prepubescent. When the far more disturbing idea is that little girls' bodies should, for some reason, be sexually alluring (I can think of no other reason for padded bras--it's not like the kids need support.).
Mon, 2007-08-20 05:51
#32
[url=http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=unrequited_love]Here is another review [/url] that I've come across during my morning peruse.
quote:
Had Wendy Shalit not adopted the tone of a beleaguered conservative, blaming feminism for turning young women into sluts, I could have gone with her all the way. She's not like those modesty-advocates of yore who fretted that women's liberation would result in coed bathrooms, and then went on to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment. She's different from the rest....
But my disagreement is not with Shalit's main point that our culture oversexualizes girls. It's with the way she divvies the moral universe into "us" and "them." I felt moved by Shalit's empathy, inspired by her call for authenticity. I found myself surprisingly open to love. But then I got dumped. My experience of reading Girls Gone Mild was less like true love and more like an unsatisfying affair.
Here's how Shalit dumped me: First, she tries to blame this hypersexual culture on lenient Boomer parents. I have yet to see hard numbers linking Boomer permissiveness to the pressure to have sex early, or to their daughters' low self-esteem. Shalit certainly fails to cite such research, depending instead on anecdotes. I'd counter hers with an anecdote of my own:, my just-pre-Boomer mother was not one of the alleged legions Shalit rails against for encouraging casual sex. And the daughters of Boomers that I know tend to look up to their parents (once they pass puberty) rather than view them with moral disdain, as Shalit's modest rebels do, like female Alex P. Keatons. Still, I'll concede, as Shalit writes, that "What is liberation to one generation can be oppression to the next." Okay.
But she doesn't stop there. In the world of Girls Gone Mild, permissive Boomer parents are lumped together with third-wave feminists to become the dread "them," the dark side of the moral universe. In a chapter titled "Feminism's (Mild) Fourth Wave," Shalit fans the flames of a far less believable intergenerational war. She writes:
"As the third-wavers continue to advocate a public, crude sexuality and younger girls feel oppressed by how public sexuality is, the two sets of women are on course for an inevitable collision."
...
But Shalit giveth, then taketh away. Her tactics are gratuitously divisive. After celebrating said young activists, for instance, who were hailed by third wave feminists as inspirational, she uses these girls to trump up the so-called intergenerational divide on modesty. She also loses progressive allies in the fight against the pornification of the girls' toy aisle by giving a free pass to advertisers and corporations. And she loses feminists young and old by conflating the inappropriate, premature sexualization of girls under age 18 with the entire project of sexual revolution.
When it comes to her opinions on women over 18, Shalit loses even more potential allies. In her desire to socially legislate the sexual behavior of adult women, she makes it impossibly clear that she is playing for the opposing team. To her credit, she anticipates such criticism and insists that she is not advocating we turn back the clock. But like a lover scorned, by the time we get there, I find her hard to believe.
Tue, 2007-11-20 11:49
#33
Speaking of abstinence based education, as mentioned above:
[url=http://www.shadowtv.com/redirect/notification.jsp?vid=f849d253635e04aa61... I don't know why I subject myself to the O'Reilly Factor.[/url]
Tue, 2007-11-20 21:44
#34
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]God I love being a grown-up. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
[url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-30-abstinence-message_x.... when you thought it was safe[/url]
Fri, 2007-12-07 05:18
#35
quote:
From the article: "I think the program should talk about the problem with out-of- wedlock childbearing — not about your sex life," Brown says. "If you use contraception effectively and consistently, you will not be in the pool of out-of-wedlock births."
Talk about opening a can of worms at the very end of an article. That eighth of an inch gold band around your finger CERTAINLY makes you a better parent.
Sun, 2007-12-09 08:25
#36
Apparently [url=http://www.femmerotic.com/journal/2007/10/23/one-ring-to-rule-them-all/]... Corinna, the woman who publishes Scarleteen,[/url] has been getting some backlash due to being quoted out of context in this book.
quote:
I don’t get letters like this every day, but I have had a recent rash of them, due to the recent release of Girls Gone Mild, by Wendy Shalit. In her book, Shalit culled a few select bits of the Sex Readiness Checklist here out of context, including ditching the opening material of that piece, to draw “her own” conclusion about those bits that nearly WAS my opening material.“Scarleteen offers a “sex readiness checklist” for young girls to help them gauge whether they should plunge into the fun. Among the items: “I see a doctor regularly,” and “I have a birth control budget of $50 per month.” The emotional readiness a girl should demonstrate is “I can separate love from sex.” Shalit notes, “Those who can separate love from sex are mature, like jaded adults. They are ready to embark on a lifetime of meaningless encounters.”
In fact, Shalit argues, all of this advice and deprogramming aimed at women is necessary because women do not by nature thrive on casual, meaningless sexual encounters. They crave emotional intimacy and fidelity — desires the women’s magazines are at pains to quash in the name of maturity.” - Mona Charen
It very intensely misrepresented the content and message, likely because it was important to provide an “enemy” in order not only to make her points (and to give the impression they were ONLY her points), but to make it HER point so we could stay all cozily us vs. them about all of this, which is a pity when so many of us on all “sides” share the same concerns. Perhaps ironically, we’ve actually gotten more criticisms of the readiness checklist from folks Shalit would likely consider her enemy because it asks a good deal of people, far more than a gold band around one’s finger. I’ve had adults say, “Well, I don’t have $50 a month,” or “I can’t talk with my partner about sex,” to which my response is that from all I know, in the work I do, if they DID have all of those things in place, their sex lives would likely be healthier and more satisfying for everyone involved. It’s a long list, that page, because sexuality and sexual partnership are complex and multifacted. neither are binary nor simple, and we have far more than two choices — do it or don’t — and far more than two contexts in which to make those choices — married or not married — and most of us have to make those choices far, far more than once in our lives, and every time we make them is just as important as the first or last time we did.
Scarleteen is fantastic sex education work for teenagers. My original benefit of the doubt that I was willing to give Shalit and her book is completely gone.
Mon, 2008-01-14 14:29
#37
Mon, 2008-03-17 04:58
#38
Michelle — Did you ever get this one off hold from the library?
My copy just came up from reserve on Friday and I had the chance to read the first 100 pages over the weekend.
quote:
Originally by Michelle: I'm not really having the same reaction to this, btw. It may be possible that she's channeling some right-wing modesty thing, but it's also possible that she's writing about girls withstanding peer pressure to be more sexualized than they're comfortable with being. Lots of feminists have decried the over-sexualization of girls
I was hoping this would be the case, but it seems to me she's channeling the right-wing more than anything, though I wouldn't say I'm far enough to give an educated view.
Mon, 2008-03-17 06:47
#39
Well, as I said, I've changed my mind about it after hearing that she attacks Scarleteen in it, although I will give the book a read when it comes up on my waiting list (it hasn't yet!).
Mon, 2008-03-17 06:55
#40
I actually just finished reading this book. I had never heard of it, but saw it in the "new release" section of my local library and gave it a try. (I had recently saw a young girl in a shirt that said "jailbait" so this partly framed my interest).
A lot of the research that Shalit did was very interesting - and I had similar reactions as she did when I lived on campus. Her main point from my perspective is that women are losing power with men if we make ourselves too sexually available. She is trying to convince women that you don't have to "put out" to ensure a guy will like you or stay with you.
I had similiar concerns to everyone here, in that I don't want women to lose freedom to wear what they want, or have as many partners as they want. However, she clarifies many times throughout the book that she is not interested in legislating anything or forcing women to dress modestly. She is simply trying to put an alternative view out there.
Mon, 2008-03-17 07:59
#41
quote:
Well, as I said, I've changed my mind about it after hearing that she attacks Scarleteen in it, although I will give the book a read when it comes up on my waiting list (it hasn't yet!).
I just passed the part about Scarleteen, and she is quite callous.
I am exactly the demographic she talks about through much of the book, and her ideas about the “good girl” and “bad girl” are nothing short of insulting. It seems to me that her definition of good vs. bad is entirely based on sexuality. A young woman can get straight A’s, volunteer, be a caregiver to others, yet if she’s had more than a handful of sexual partners she’s a “bad” girl. Though so far she hasn’t come right out and said it, it seems like she’s saying that young women are defined by their sexuality (or lack thereof). She paints women as weak, giving men entirely too much power. Her argument seems to say that women with multiple partners will fall victim to the horny males around them, if they let them, as though men are animals preying on women who are not “modest.”
Plus I’m finding a lot of grammatical errors in the book! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2008-03-17 07:59
#42
quote:
A lot of the research that Shalit did was very interesting - and I had similar reactions as she did when I lived on campus. Her main point from my perspective is that women are losing power with men if we make ourselves too sexually available. She is trying to convince women that you don't have to "put out" to ensure a guy will like you or stay with you.
But one of the alternatives to "puting out" she presents is baking an apple pie, which while an undoubtedly a tasty option, really dosen't deal with the issues faced by women who want to be strong and sexual at the same time. Surly It's possible to find a happy medium between being a sex object and being as asexual as a park bench.
[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Mon, 2008-03-17 08:09
#43
quote:
Surly It's possible to find a happy medium between being a sex object and being as asexual as park bench.
Exactly, and that is something that isn’t addressed at all in the first 100 pages. She doesn’t touch on the positive sexual experiences that young women can have, whether with one partner, or a dozen partners. Being modest is a wonderful choice (heck, I made it!) if it’s for the right reasons, but doing so out of fear of being a “bad girl” should hardly be the incentive.
Mon, 2008-03-17 09:01
#44
quote:
Originally posted by jrose:
[b]Exactly, and that is something that isn’t addressed at all in the first 100 pages. She doesn’t touch on the positive sexual experiences that young women can have, whether with one partner, or a dozen partners. Being modest is a wonderful choice (heck, I made it!) if it’s for the right reasons, but doing so out of fear of being a “bad girl” should hardly be the incentive.[/b]
Definitely. Each woman should do it based on their own personal reasons/goals/values etc.
I found the continual bad girl/good girl dichotomy of the book grew tedious very quickly. With the research she did and a lot of the interesting material, the book could have been a lot better with more of a focus on teaching girls to value self-respect above all else.
I think a lot of the book resonated with me, as I remained a virgin throughout high school and found the pressure a lot to handle. I was called many names, called down to the lowest by guys, etc. Shalit has written about issues that haven't gotten a lot of attention, but she didn't really approach it in the best manner.
But, her personal morality includes not even
[i]holding hands[/i] until she was married!
Mon, 2008-03-17 11:21
#45
quote:
I found the continual bad girl/good girl dichotomy of the book grew tedious very quickly.
I agree. I’ve found it tedious from the introduction, where Shalit goes on and on about the oversexualization of young girls, which she is absolutely right about. However, she seems to go on and on about Barbies, and Bratz, and thongs for teens in the same way that every mainstream newspaper, magazine, news broadcast etc. has gone on for the past decade.
Mon, 2008-03-17 11:24
#46
And she continually blamed 3rd wave feminism for the over-sexualization of young girls and the pressure to be promiscuous etc for young women.
An analysis of how men benefit from/created this situation would have served this important topic much better.
Overall, I thought the book was good because I rarely have seen this topic covered. But, there are many authors who could do a much better job and engage in more relevant analysis. She seemed to have set out to prove a pre-existing notion, rather than set out to examine all possible dynamics of this issue.