Aw, thanks EJ!

She really was great--able to make serious points while still playing along with Colbert's humor. Nicely done.

Try scrolling down the page; she's nearly the last segment.

Sphealy,

Do you have some specific complaint about my post? I think it was rather fair.

Can you make sense of Valenti's assertion for me that it's unimaginable women might enjoy exhibitionism at Mardi Gras, and hence her assumption it's exploitative? If so, to what do you attribute women's participation?

Do you consider Chipendale's dancers as being exploited because they are paid for eroticism? Nude models for art classes? How about clothed models? Where do you draw the line?

If the standard for exploitation is lower for women, how does that not infantilize them?

Valenti showed some leg on Colbert, during a promotion for a book where she has a financial interest. Does Valenti always wear stilettos? Did she exploit herself for monetary profit?

How would you feel about a man who complained of feeling inferior and debased whenever he saw Fabio on TV or on a checkout isle book covered in embossed roses? Or the CK underwear model's butt on a billboard? Would you feel that guy was just unable to take responsibility for his own insecurity without blaming others, or that underwear models should be banned?

Is the bar set higher for rigorous study to become a feminist activist, or is there some sort of market proving mechanism that is separate from the sort of populism Al Shartpton appeals to, that I'm unaware of? Do you consider "women's studies" a rigorous field and a good major to empirically test and develop critical skills, as opposed to the type of soft subject usually reserved for minors? Do you feel it's misogynist to even consider it might not qualify? Why?

How do you distinguish smart feminists helpful to society, from base populists and bottom feeders, if not for the content of their ideas taken skeptically and their qualifications? Is there another take on Valenti's performance I'm missing?

Do feminists including Valenti not frequently blame normative beauty standards on "misogyny" while ignoring similar standards for heterosexual men by heterosexual women, and for gays and lesbians by gays and lesbians as well. How then can normative beauty standards also held by lesbians for other lesbians be a misogynistic design? And while ignoring any biological context? Is there another description for that tendency which is more fitting than conspiratorial blaming and victim mindset?

Actually, Ms. Valenti never once said that women necessarily don't enjoy a little exhibitionism at Mardi Gras, or in any other venue. She said she doubted that girls on "Girls Gone Wild" were doing it for their own personal satisfaction. Worlds of difference there. Her take seemed pretty libertarian to me -- if you really want to and it makes you happy then by all means. She just questions the motivations.

That's fair enough. I happen to believe that people should be free to do drugs if that makes them happy. Doesn't mean I wouldn't question a drug addict about whether the drugs are really making them happy or not.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

NYT summary of the Supreme Court decision on equal pay that Jessica mentioned on the show:

US Supreme Court rules, 5-4, that workers may not bring pay discrimination lawsuit under federal law unless they file formal complaint with federal agency within 180 days after pay was set; case involves sole female supervisor at Goodyear Tire plant in Alabama, who learned only late in career of nearly 20 years that she earned less than all male colleagues in same position; Court says timeline applies even if effects of initial discrimination were not known to worker and even if they continue; workers brought nearly 40,000 pay discrimination cases from 2001 to 2006 and many of them will likely be barred by Court's new interpretation of Title VII of 1964 Civil Rights Act; workplace experts see broad ramifications narrowing legal options; Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion rejects EEOC view that each paycheck reflecting discrimination is itself discriminatory act that resets clock; Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, who once headed EEOC, join Alito; EEOC backed plaintiff Lilly M Ledbetter in lower courts until Bush administration disavowed position and filed brief for employer; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in vigorous dissent, says pay secrecy in most workplaces makes it impossible to know who is paid what, and even small initial disparity expands exponentially; Ledbetter started at same salary but her raises were smaller, so by 1998 she earned $3,727 a month, to $4,286 for lowest-paid man.

And how Democrats in Congress are responding: 

In a biting oral dissent read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called on Congress to enact legislation to correct the high court's "parsimonious reading" of pay inequity claims.

Ginsburg's words spurred Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney of New York--already outraged by news of the decision--to do just that.

Maloney said Wednesday that she will introduce a bill next week to enhance the ability of women and others to gain protection from the courts for discrimination in the workplace.

Maloney's bill will provide that every pay period that fails to correct previous discrimination constitutes a new infraction, allowing employees who discover discrimination long after the initial incident to challenge their employer.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton--who in March reintroduced with Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., the Paycheck Fairness Act to firm up federal enforcement of equal-pay mandates--also said Congress would respond to the high court's ruling. "It is my hope that Congress can remove the technical hurdles that will prevent individuals from receiving what is rightfully theirs," Clinton said.

The Supreme Court's strict ruling has spurred widespread criticism of the time limit provision since salary information is usually kept confidential in workplaces, hindering employees' ability to detect wage bias.

The Clinton-DeLauro bill--which is in committee and has been repeatedly considered since 1999--addresses this by requiring employers to provide information about salaries to help victims of discrimination identify disparities sooner. However, it would not directly reset the clock. The Supreme Court ruled this week that claims for discriminatory pay must be filed within 180 days from the date the person learns of the discriminatory act.

Maloney's bill is still being drafted so her aides could not discuss the details of the legislation; it is unclear whether the bill would have changed the outcome of the case decided by the Supreme Court.

Short flabby guys do not run the country. Unless he's a financial genius, the average captain of industry (and most male politicans) are at least 6' and above average in appearance, by "average" for the entire country-- not for TV land.

It was a good interview with Colbert, he threw softballs so Jessica could make her points. And I took her point about Girls Gone Wild to not be about exhibitionism (the world would be a poorer place if some women didn't have that interest), but she's dubious that women are turned on by appearing in soft core porn for free. One suspects there's a diminished capacity (age, alcohol, drugs, duress) issue in many of those signed releases.

A law professor of mine summarized the Invasion Of Privacy tort as, you have to pay someone if you want to take pictures of them naked. Joe Francis (is he still in jail?) made a fortune with finding a "beads" loophole to this general rule and I don't think that's a good thing.

Wrong.

The context was GGW, and specifically at Mardi Gras as had been mentioned extensively. And what Valenti said was that she found it unimaginable that women participated for their own pleasure. That is the context. Go watch it again.

To ignore the context of Mardi Gras is ridiculous. Even out of context of Mardi Gras, obviously both male and female erotic workers do it for money and many also enjoy the exhibitionism and their 15 minutes (or 1.5 seconds) of fame. Both pay and direct enjoyment are incentives for people to do things for their own pleasure, a fact one has to be incredibly zealous and ideologically blinkered to miss.

Unless Valenti is calling all erotic workers "exploited" including Chipendale dancers (which would be a real conservative throwback) then it's reasonable to assume erotic work is done for a combination of pay and pleasure, relative to say waiting tables, and "OK" enough to not require Valenti's sagely input. I'm not endorsing the profession, but not going to moralize on it any more than I'd moralize on thong underwear either.

What Valenti is selling is lightweight, schoolmarmish, bottom feeding, populism.

She's not on the high-ground with her faux moralizing and simplistic reductions of issues any more than prohibitionists were in regards to alcohol consumption.

Frankly, she's motivated by her financial incentive the same as anyone else. She is selling a book, not giving it away for the betterment of humanity.

But I think a doctor, lawyer, investigative journalist, bureaucrat, physicist and even an erotic dancer have more intellectual integrity and clearer purpose, earning their pay more honestly.

Hmmm

16 comments at this point, and easily 1/2 of the entire print on this thread are taken up with notes from a guy named "kozmik" who seems very concerned about what feminists think about exibitionism.

Hmmm.

He (or she) was turned down by the feminist women in college I suspect.

sPh

That gets to another frequent complaint people such as Valenti often make: that women are valued "only for their looks." Really?

Call me crazy, but I value Valenti's female perspective on the above statement much more than your, or my, male perspective.

You deny that women face much more pressure in our culture around their looks, and their looks are much more tied to their success than men.

I don't. It actually seems pretty obvious. 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

A law professor of mine summarized the Invasion Of Privacy tort as, you have to pay someone if you want to take pictures of them naked.

Something is wrong with that law professor or the summary. Taking pictures of people, clothed or naked, has requirements of consent which vary by usage. Pay is not a requirement of consent. A release form most certainly is consent.

I believe the producer of GGW was convicted (imprisoned?) of receiving consent from a minor to be pictured erotically. The point being she was not able to give legal consent, and it was his legal burden to establish her age.

But, that issue is wholly different from Valenti's assertion women of legal age can’t give consent to be pictured naked, for pay or otherwise, without exploitation. Merely because she finds it offensive and degrading to women and can't imagine women might enjoy exhibitionism.

Which is just good old schoolmarmish faux-morality, more in keeping with reactionary conservatism than liberalism.

I think Valenti by failing to distinguish between adult women who most certainly are capable of giving consent and bearing responsibility for their actions, and minors who are not, just infantilizes women and panders to a culture of blaming and paranoia under the guise of morality. (which btw is a wholly different matter from say big tobacco's liability, for ethical and practical reasons.)

That is the same as other prohibition movements, though usually practiced by conservatives and reactionaries.

Which is why I consider people like Valenti a reactionary at heart, or a feminist fundamentalist is another term. She is so steeped in the rhetoric of feminism on the most superficial level, that it has become her ensconced tradition, her orthodoxy. She reacts to protect her ideology on a knee-jerk level no different than the most fundamentalism bible thumper for “family values” and justifies it with shallow claims of morality, like all reactionaries.

Which is a general problem with feminism today, that is has transitioned in large part from common sense goals shared by almost all women and most men, to preaching dos and donts, so sayeth feminist authorities. Which has basically replaced paternalism with materialism.

So for example, I presume a woman who is excellent at math, reason, science, law, medicine, would fail their exams based on looks and have no job prospects?

What? You're mumbling. I can't understand a word you are saying.

On what are you predicating that a woman would fail an exam based on looks?

In your poorly constructed analogy [which was shoddily put together to support a false dichotomy], you seem to be equating an exam, a static test by which one's aptitude of a subject is measured, to the things by which other people subjectively value a woman for. Or that looks have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on other people subjectively judging women. Looking at point #2 in your post, you are also falsely assuming that all things are equal; that one's grades are an ironclad guarantee of securing a lucrative job.

You think it's "obvious" Valenti must be right because she's a "female" and a "feminist."

Not because she's feminist. Yes because she's a female.

It's still obvious to me, and not at all shallow: A woman has a better perspective on whether or not WOMEN feel pressure from society about their looks.

On another note, since you brought it up again, this "bumper sticker" label of yours does not at all match the writing over at Feministing, both in the front page writers, or the comments.

When I go over to Feministing, and I read smart writing, and then go into the comments and read smart comments, it makes me think that not only are you wrong about how you characterize Jessica and her web site, but wrong about whatever else you're saying on this subject.

Or, maybe I'm just shallow.

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

This comment will probably draw intense flames. So be it.

I saw Jessica Valenti on Colbert's show.

She is quite the babe.

There. I said it. Heap all the scorn on me you want. I won't retract it.

Colbert thinks so, too.

Only Colbert could say to a feminist, you've got a "tight little bod."  :-)

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

Kozmick, I'll take the bait.

I've had this theory developing for some time that exhibitionism and masochism are related - the thrill that cross dressers get a heightened, but not qualitatively different one that scantily clad women get. Being oggled - I think - might relate to a sense of vulnerability. It's 'daring' to be vulnerable and, literally exposed, rather than disappearing behind the walls of a defensive barricades of layers of form hiding clothing - just a thought.

Secondly, I speak as someone who, in younger days, once removed my clothes on stage for 'artistic' reasons.

As far as sex workers go - no. They do it out of desperation, then the twisted dynamics cause them to turn into lizard people - users who have no friends because everyone they meet is a 'mark.'

I'm not kidding. The truth is, noboby really stays in stripping. They blow all the cash on coke and either pull out of the life or sink into prostitution.

I suppose I'm coming down on the 'school marm' side. People can 'choose' to exploit themselves in our society. That doesn't make it right, just as we shouldn't encourage people to 'choose' to become hooked on heroin.

Look at the status of sex workers around the world - they're not not nice Jewish girls with lawyer dads just on a fling - their desperate. In the US it's a matter of degree less exploitative, but it's still the beginning of the road to ruin.

feather:

YOu could also say Kozmick is grist for the mill. Speaking as an expert on maleness (being male) I think the cscs comment that short flabby guys run the world is beyond laughable.

There are such a things as 'arguments' that are not worthy of reply, but at the same time, if feminists refuse to engage with male critics and instead just preach to the choir, what good are they doing?

I think the cscs comment that short flabby guys run the world is beyond laughable.

Exactly. The notion is basically this simple: Supposedly, men don't have to deal with normative beauty standards because they're all just a misogynistic conspiracy to oppress women. Therefore, if one has ever felt lesser in beauty than anyone else, rest assured, you are actually superior in that you are owed something for the injustice done to you. A nice neat little ball of self-affirming nonsense.

And the male version is exemplified by when Valenti brought the t-shirt saying "feminists chicks dig me" so knuckleheads will think, "dood, if being a feminist gets me laid, yea!" even if he's short and flabby, and doesn't mind it being by a woman who probably has issues with normative beauty standards. Oi vey. What a long way to accomplish the same goal, and having so much in common with other forms of cognitive dissonance usually associated with fundamentalists.

I suggest an easier route would be to just acknowledge that we all have to deal with normative definitions of beauty, and that "ideals" aren't norms, but that doesn't necessarially devalue "idealized" notions of beauty, intelligence, whatnot. and in fact, the lack of any concept of ideal would be a lot worse.

Of course, in that stark reality, not everybody can be above average in looks and intelligence and everything else, and wholly valued for their individuality, and a lot of other feel good stuff that is totally removed from biological reality.

It points to the fact that Feminism - even third wave variety, doesn't really have a single message.

3rd wave is vacuous.

Traditionally feminism had strong, common mandates from women for common sense issues. Basically: equality.

Now those values for the most part have been absorbed into the mainstream. There are still issues of achieving equality goals, but those are technical matters best handled by technical people in relevant fields. Really smart people who are highly skilled in real workplaces.

Which leaves 3rd wave with what? What's left for your typical "women's studies" grad other than perhaps teaching? Well, for one thing, they had better find something to write a book about, or work for a "women's magazine" which gives lip service to "empowerment" while really being in the business of selling makeup and clothes, or they're out of work with no other career options.

Dissertations on Girls Gone Wild and bumper sticker feminism which as Valenti said is more like "self help x100" is what it produces. Volumes of self-help to go into book cases filled with self-help.

I agree that we all have to deal with normative standards of beauty or handsomeness.  However, I think that those normative standards of beauty have a larger effect on women than they do on men.

For women, it's both Scylla and Charybdis.  On the one side, there's the assumption that women can't be professional -- or simply aren't. It's still a new idea that one can be feminine and professional at the same time.  Within the last twenty years, career advice to women was that they should never carry a purse, because it wasn't professional.  Instead, a briefcase was recommended.  That advice isn't given anymore, but the sentiment still lingers.

On the other side, women are often grouped into "attractive" and "not."  There's not really any middle ground.  And if one is in that "not" group, just try getting out of an interview round. 

I think the cscs comment that short flabby guys run the world is beyond laughable.

Sorry, I was using a bit of shorthand, and not being all that articulate.

Maybe I should have said, compared to women, short, flabby guys run the world?

Look at the slate of GOP candidates -- aside from plastic Mitt, all the other guys up there are what I am saying are "short flabby guys."

Does that make more sense now, or am I at least now conveying more of what I was trying to say?

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

I've had this theory developing for some time that exhibitionism and masochism are related -

To be blunt, and no disrespect meant, but that's a pretty goofy theory. I hope you haven't spent too much time on it. ;)

Saying exhibitionism is necessarily motivated by masochism makes as much sense as claiming modesty is. Exhibitionism, lies on a continuum with modesty, merely distinguished by where one judges the line to be. Both are simply the product of some internal mental calculation, ultimately seeking pleasure, seeking "love" of some form or another, which is highly subjective.

In western society for women it might be showing some leg as Valenti did, and perhaps a bust line, even in workplace attire. For men, roughly the same equivalent such as shorts and part open shirt are the most revealing allowed.

In some fundamentalist society hair is a big deal. Scalp hair for women and facial hair for men. Men must have it, women can't show it. Why? Apparently only god knows. (and btw, that's not just Islam, but the whole Judeo Christian tradition. Mary is often pictured in a headscarf, men traditionally had to wear beards.)

In liberal Europe topless is the norm on the beaches and in really liberal society like Brazil, it's having only half your labia or testicles showing round the G-String on the beach, to be conservative.

Being oggled - I think - might relate to a sense of vulnerability.

Sure, vulnerability can be a part of it, but I don't at all understand how you equate that with masochism. The desire to make oneself vulnerable in the hope of positive feedback is actually an act of optimism towards group recognition. It's generally seeking love, not masochism.

Also, there is the social statement of exhibitionism and rejecting norms if one feels a calling. Which is also seeking love, only it's the love of something beyond the present, perhaps a higher authority, or future people, or such. Love outside the present tense perhaps, which is also maybe what god/karma is.

Btw, speaking of masochism and god, self flagellation and human sacrifice and such is not masochism per se. It's exhibitionism first, seeking the love of some higher truth/god, which is then exhibited dramatically to prove devotion to the cause. In the same way as one might express sincerity through tears, self flagellation or even human sacrifice are just extremes of that. There are deep biological underpinnings for that, which is why such traditions are so powerful in human history, and why apes weep.

"As far as sex workers go - no. They do it out of desperation, then the twisted dynamics cause them to turn into lizard people - users who have no friends because everyone they meet is a 'mark.'"

It depends. That's simplistic. there are many degrees of sex workers unless you're speaking of illegal 3rd world prostitutes exclusively, though you seem to be mixing them indiscriminately and equating them wrongly.

There are the GGW on spring break or whatnot, erotic performers in porn, there are strippers, there are street prostitutes, illegal escorts, legalized and regulated sex workers, etc.

Many strippers for example choose it over waiting tables and such in a high risk gamble they'll make lots of money fast and then escape to a better life. Many wind up on drugs, though so do many waiters. A friend has a family with his partner who is a highly educated grad of a top university who paid her way as a stripper. (granted she's atypical)

In terms of global prostitution, that's not really relevant to the discussion is it? I don't think anyone is defending global poverty which leads people into all sorts of Social Darwinian base struggle for survival. Prostitution, is one, but so is crime, cultivating and selling drugs, selling organs, indentured labor, etc. Men included. In the most base form of existance in extreme poverty, one has to survive by any means and those who are weak or without something to sell will not.

Prostitutes in Eastern Europe or Thailand or such and college girls participating in GGW are on the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of desperation and voluntary actions for perceived benefits. One is trying to get food and shelter, the other hoping for a bit of fame and wholly abstract pleasures.

global poverty is a different issue than feminism having more to do with economics and large philosophical issues. For example, does all humanity have an obligation to uplift all humanity at once? Or is there an efficiency in economic nationalism, in increasing the wealth of subsets in steps? What is the optimal way to end poverty? Charity or micro-finance or some combination of both or what? These are highly technical and even philosophical questions. Humanist questions.

Look at the status of sex workers around the world - they're not not nice Jewish girls with lawyer dads just on a fling - their desperate. In the US it's a matter of degree less exploitative, but it's still the beginning of the road to ruin.

Again, you're equating opposites on the spectrum between GGW college students and sex workers in failed economies. There are legal sex workers in liberal Western countries (and Nevada lol) who are aren't "on the road to ruin" but are in highly regulated and safe industries by their own choice relative to other jobs they might do. whether they're exploited or not is a highly subjective question.

You're making a very sloppy slippery-slope argument and logical fallacy. What you're arguing is roughly analogous to saying that socialized medicine in the USA would cause our economy to collapse like the USSR's, while ignoring the middle ground in all those Social Democratic countries with high standard of living.

Stay focused.

Answer the question.

Your views versus Valenti's.

And your opinion, and other feminists' are in play.

To clarify things for you:

1) Your assertion is that Valenti's opinion is valid because she's a woman and is therefore qualified to speak for the experience of women generally. That seems an obviously stupid generalization, but I'll come back to that.

2) Regardless, that of course is merely your opinion on her authority, which presumes your authority, which not only have you failed to demonstrate by any meaningful thought thus far, but you've even gone further and just disqualified yourself by making authority on the matter gender based. Nice going.

3) To put a finer point on it, if female gender is the arbiter of correctness on female generalizations, as you assert, where does that leave the opinions of other women who disagree with Valenti, and where does it leave your opinion? It seems the answer is somewhere outside your theory, and perhaps nowhere.

4) This is where smoke comes out of your ears as you repeat "does not compute" and try to limit the discussion to the amazingly irrational set you've chosen to discuss. Can't you please limit cognitive dissonance to rt wingers? Apparently not.

If we take your argument to be valid that female gender qualifies one to speak for all women, as a man speaking for another man, please allow me to extrapolate from that and declare you an idiot.

My goodness, appeals to authority are bad enough rhetorically, but it's generally presumed such false arguments are popular because despite being false even children can make them. Yet you've really botched it.

So far you've said you like Valenti, she's a woman speaking on feminist issues so she must be right, you'd rather not consider other female views cause that's complicated, and your opinion as a man is that our gender disqualifies us from having an opinion. And Duh. All of which would make an excellent comedy routine, but I suspect you actually want to be taken seriously.

Really, the most complete thing you've said so far was: "duh" and you really haven't added anything since.

The "iron mines of Minnesota" aren't the example usually cited when discussing pay disparity

How about a tire plant?

Or is that not fitting with a woman's delicate hands, a job that she wouldn't self-segregate into?

NYT 5/30/2007:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it harder for many workers to sue their employers for discrimination in pay, insisting in a 5-to-4 decision on a tight time frame to file such cases. The dissenters said the ruling ignored workplace realities.

The decision came in a case involving a supervisor at a Goodyear Tire plant in Gadsden, Ala., the only woman among 16 men at the same management level, who was paid less than any of her colleagues, including those with less seniority. 

There's really no point going on with this.

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

I think Colbert was making the satirical point that either she's an ideal beauty, which she's clearly not, or her theory of repressive ideals has a problem. Anyways, it was a softball she missed.

It's also worth mentioning Colbert is way above average looks and tall by Western European standards and Colbert's wife is also very beautiful, which I suppose could have been purely chance. :rolleyes:

Since he's "colorblind" and doesn't even know he's white, maybe he also has x-ray vision seeing only the quality of people's inner character and has no idea his wife and he are both above average in physical attractiveness. lol.

To me, the whole sexual objectification thing is... complicated.  I don't know Jessica's specific views on those complexities (I imagine it would be pretty impossible to express them in a five minute interview), but based on the interview, I don't get the impression that she sees it in black and white terms. 

Exploitation generally isn't about whether a particular action is "bad".  It's about power -- and power is complicated. 

Just think about the historical context of the "black entertainer" stereotype in the US.  Nothing wrong with being an entertainer.  But when you look at depictions of "black entertainers" historically, you can't ignore the context, and you can't ignore the proliferation of certain kinds of images of black people, over other kinds of images.  Entertainment, in that context, is not always just about black people freely deciding to entertain people (especially when the people being entertained are white). 

Sometimes it is, but all the time?  No way.  It's about stereotypes, marketing, the avenues to power traditionally available -- and not available -- to African-Americans, and on and on.  Given that context, when is "entertainment" exploitation and/or minstrelsy?  When is it art?  When is it an act of acquiescence?  When is a cleverly concealed (or in your face) act of rebellion?

It's hard to draw lines.  But asking those questions is perfectly reasonable.  Stereotypes exist, inequities exist, cultural forces exist, and they affect people's choices.   Everyone can experience pleasure through pleasing someone else, but when one group's pleasure matters more -- historically, culturally, economically -- than another group's, "pleasure" becomes much more complicated.

When you look at Girls Gone Wild, all of that stuff matters.  It would take a book to try to encapsulate the cultural legacy of hundreds of years of legally enforced economic dependence on men, much of it centering on being treated as sexual property, but consider just one bit of all that:  Women are ten times more likely than men to be sexually assaulted (actually in the '05 statistics it's closer to 11 times)  -- which, BTW, is linked to sexualized "acting out."

It's not so simple as "Guess they just all really love taking their tops off for the camera." 

Personally, I would never say that therefore, no one should ever watch Girls Gone Wild...

Guess all I can say is that I'd like to be in a culture where people of both genders could feel free enough to just enjoy and express themselves.

Spoken like a third wave feminist ;-)

JV: "Best thing to do is ignore. (And laugh to yourself a bit.)" A shame, though. I admired the video, am now very intrigued about the book, and have mixed feelings of my own as a knee-jerk old liberal type about the third wave. But who wants to post when this clown with a problem with womens' rights hijacks the thread?

But can't resist self-promotion, to a link to a recent article of mine about a show called "Global Feminisms" at the Brooklyn Museum. I'm not boasting, since I'm sure I'm pathetic at it, but women and feminist frames in art have been a theme of my webzine.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

However, I think that those normative standards of beauty have a larger effect on women than they do on men.

I think that's a lot of victim complex BS. Men often buy Mustangs and strap the latest cell phone or ipod to their belt (or back in the day Sony Tape Cassette Walkmans) as a technology, wealth, penis surrogate to assert their sexual viability. Not to say they have no legitimate value, or that there is anything wrong necessarily with symbols, either makeup, ipods, fast cars or bust lines. But they're certainly marketed up the bejuzzus and sex/status surrogates for men just as much as women.

Child studies show girls at a young age are more empathetic, role play with dolls more, and are more concerned with appearances. While boys tend to like gizmos more. Even in differing cultural environments. That leads directly into the fashion magazines and Sharper Image catalogs, obsession with looks and gizmos. Both are normal ways in which men and women fulfill thoer own pleasures and seek out the attention of potential mates, which occupies a great deal of our time, and that of our primate relatives, and life generally.

If someone feels society might benefit by less commercialism and superficiality, that's a humanist issue.

Calling it a feminist issue and focusing only on fashion and looks and the female equation, while ignoring gizmos and such male issues, well it shows an incredibly superficial and sexually blinkered world view, it's devisive, and it fails to produce viable solutions. That has never actually been a core feminist issue but a fringe argument. And fringe feminists show their ignorance and have been loosing audience and diminishing for decades for it. Which is itself a testament to stupidity.

That's another trait fringe feminists (imo faux feminists) share with religious wingers: denial of biological roots and evolution which might force them to accept the irrationality of humanity in modern context, without blaming some devil, bogeyman, or other original sin. Which is all these kooks do for the most part: seek out simple answers, some devil on which to blame everything.

And yes women do need to adapt their nature as best as possible to fit into the reality of the modern world and business, which they're not always perfectly evolved to. Just as men need to, and aren't perfectly evolved for. Welcome to the club.

Anyone who can't understand they'd be better off reading a math textbook than Vogue or Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, and for that matter figure out hair and clothes without a lifelong subscription to several fashion/beauty magazines, regular trips to the mall for the latest trends, and books of "100x self help" ... well the glass ceiling is the least of their problems.

Off-topic, but I was poking around your site, and really liked this "work for performance":

In each part, someone takes the role of docent, or tour guide, for a group posing as chance museum-goers. It hardly matters who plays docent for a given part; no advanced degrees required or respected. Call it art about the museum, but the performers do not notify the institution. They also take no special notice of others who, I hope, may be lured into joining the tour.

Wait, there is this one bit that sorta relates to the thread: 

With each room, the docent removes an article of clothing while speaking until . . . I hesitate to say. The gesture may seem motivated or quite unconscious. Either way, the docent should not emphasize the act and yet not behave too reasonably. Say, removing a jacket can respond to seeming discomfort, but only if the museum supplies intense air-conditioning. If a guard moves to intervene, the docent points to the work and, by a mere sign, cautions silence.

A spin-off of Girls Gone Wild, mebbe?

I was using a bit of shorthand, and not being all that articulate.

What else is new?

Maybe I should have said, compared to women, short, flabby guys run the world?

Do you even know how stupid that is? Reagan, he was a really fat ugly short guy right? How about Kennedy? Nobody ever made fun of Nixon, Clinton, or Gore for being even slightly overweight right?

And how about Thatcher? A real hot babe swimsuit model right? Chancellor Merkel, another hawtie! Hillary Clinton, a real twiggy. Madeline Albrihgt the model of ideal beauty standards so repressing other less attractive women.

How about the News Hour? Jim Lehrer is averagely pudgy and average height for his age, but so is Gwen Ifil, who has her own show and is actually younger.Gwen ifil is very attractive, especially if you value things like great smiles, intelligence, strength, and charisma. And you could also argue Lehrer is attractive for the same reasons. But she's hardly the misogynistic oppressive standard of beauty Valenti whines about and is completly on par with Lehrer. The rest of the journalists are more or less attractive equally by gender.

On local news, both male and female "reporters" tend to have above average looks and height, because they're more edutainment, have lower journalistic skills, so looks have a larger relative value, for both genders.

In film, music, and other entertainments, almost all are thin and good looking, male and female.
...

Cscs, I swear, you have an amazing capacity to say the most incredibly stupid things in complete earnest, one after the another.

dbl

Feel free to make your first substantive post. I've made several.

I continue to support the traditional goals of feminism broadly defined as equality, and the practical implementation of them by intelligent and skilled persons in the real world now that core feminist values have been accepted into mainstream humanism.

I agree with many feminists, past and present, that "3rd wave" fringe feminists, such as Valenti represents, hardly qualify to wrap them self in the flag of feminism or its accomplishments nor have their issues ever been central to feminism. Absurd as the notion of Al Sharpton claiming to be a civil rights leader rather than a bottom feeder.

Sure, anybody can opine about Girls Gone Wild, and I'm sure mall-chicks will pick up a copy of "Full Frontal" along with Ms Magazine (which today is little better than Vogue or your typical commercial rag) along with a "bitch" t-shirt to be "empowered."

So what? That's what feminism is reduced to today? I don't think so. That's just flakey washouts on the fringe needing a bumper sticker cause, and an excuse, same as always. The Feministsing.com logo is a mudflap chick giving the middle finger. That's the totality of it.

Women in real professions beyond "activism" and women's studies showing they can compete with men on equal terms, proving they have the intellectual capability, they are the real feminists today representing core feminist values in the era when they've been largely absorbed into mainstream humanism.

Valenti is to feminism what Al Sharpton is to civil rights.