Hypocrisy is a revolting, psychopathic state. – Anton Chekhov
When the Ukrainian feminist group named “Femen” first appeared about three years ago I was predisposed to like them; the fact that they appeared to embrace their sexual power as women (as evidenced by their topless protests and other sexually provocative displays) at first made me hopeful that they would be pro-sex, pro-sex work and pro-woman (as opposed to anti-male like most people who call themselves “feminists” these days). Alas, I was doomed to disappointment; despite the unusual tactics employed by the group, Femen’s agenda is typically neofeminist – they blather about “patriarchy”, oppose sex work and have fought against decriminalization. Yet they seem to embrace their female identity and sexuality rather than denying it as neofeminists generally do, and indeed appear to lack the typical neofeminist self-loathing. And though they talk about politically empowering women, they support imposition of the “Swedish Model” on Ukraine; all in all, I am forced to conclude that Femen, or at least its leaders, go beyond mere neofeminist hypocrisy into outright lunacy.
What called them back to my attention was this article from the May 6th issue of Der Spiegel, sent to me separately (one hour apart) by readers Iain and Josh; more than any other article on the group I’ve ever seen, it reveals the inherent contradictions between their rhetoric and tactics and the things they claim to stand for.
…For two years, [Femen] has been fighting against sex tourism and prostitution in Ukraine, a country that even Google automatically associates with “dating agencies” and “women.” The advertisements to the right of a Google search for “Ukraine” are for “Single Ukrainian Ladies,” “Women From Ukraine,” or “Partner Search Ukraine.” Although the group has only a few dozen activists…and around 300 supporters, the topless protests have established a global reputation for Femen. One year ago, half-naked activists warning against the “Rape of Democracy” stormed the polling station where presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovich was casting his vote. After winning, Yanukovich curbed freedom of speech and the press, and even imprisoned members of his opposition…the SBU, Ukraine’s top secret service, has attempted to intimidate the Femen activists. They claim that SBU officials even threatened to “break the legs” of the group’s leader if she didn’t cease her attacks on the government.
…The leaders of a Kiev university recently sent summonses to several students because they were engaged in Femen activities. Then, in the rector’s office, SBU staff interrogated them. The men asked students “where the money for your campaign comes from” and “for whom you work”…In truth, Femen survives on modest contributions from a handful of donors. German Helmut Josef Geier, better known as DJ Hell, supports the group. They also sell fan items on the Internet and auction small pieces of art. To produce the latter, the activists first paint their breasts yellow and blue, and then they make prints on cloth or canvas. What would feminists, like Germany’s Alice Schwarzer or America’s Gloria Steinem, have to say about that? Old school feminists find the topless troops strange. “They dress like prostitutes”…gender researcher Maria Dmitrieva wrote of Femen in a Russian magazine. “The display of bare breasts, with or without cause, is certainly not conducive to social discourse.”
“Yes,” sighs [Femen’s leader] Anna Hutsol…”We’re different from classic feminists. In order to gain a voice, they had to become like men. But we want a real women’s revolution. Our naked protests are part of the fight for women’s liberation. We have the right to use our bodies as weapons. It was men who made breasts into a secret”…
Hutsol says that (second-wave) feminists have become like men, and I agree; I also agree with her statement that women “have the right to use our bodies as weapons.” But though the women of Femen defend their own right to use their bodies as swords, they wish to deny other women the right to use theirs as plowshares. A weapon is nothing but a tool, and if it’s moral to use female sexuality to fight for whatever, how can it not be moral to use it to put food on the table? In my column of November 19th I condemned American neofeminists for denying the fact that a woman’s right to “choice” over her own sexuality (which they promote so vehemently as a euphemism for abortion) automatically makes prostitution laws illegal and immoral. But their hypocrisy on that issue seems almost honest and fair in comparison with Femen activists’ claim that it’s moral to work toward suppression of other women’s sexual choices by aggressively flaunting their own.
Yes, they’re way off-track politically, just as you say. On the other hand, all those bare breasts! A guy will nod and follow along with almost ANYTHING if a girl will flash ’em. I own the domain mammmophilia.com, and someday hope to flesh it out (as it were) with movie recommendations, based on number of breasts shown, length of time, and degree of close-ups. My wife says I’ll enjoy any movie, no matter how bad, if there’s female nudity. Who am I to disagree when I’d so clearly be lying? 😉
LOL! 😀
Sorry, mammophilia.com. Although, extra m’s might convey the sense of appreciation men feel at the sight of b’rests.
That’s just excellent. It would absolutely suck if that group of women went through their entire lives never having seen that quote.
Thank you, Dave! I must admit to feeling just a teensy bit proud of myself when I wrote that. 🙂
I clicked through my RSS reader to remark on the same thing.
It’s frankly an aphoristic use of the swords into plowshares concept, and I’ll be stealing it – with attribution, of course.
Please, feel free. 🙂
I keep hoping for nude protests in Alabama. So far, no luck.
LOL
I’m wondering what your thoughts are on these ‘Slutwalks’. I have my own feeling that it’s mostly composed of middle-class nice girls (I’m quite serious) who actually aren’t attractive enough to land boyfriends. It’s just a hunch.
It’s confusing, but since you’re a female I thought you might be able to break it down for me. The slutwalkers are feminists…and they want to reappropriate the word slut so that it has a positive connotation. (I think) But ‘slut’ is a word a woman will use to discredit another woman. It’s rarely used by men. Also, what does the slutwalk have to do with rape and sexual assault? I’m very confused. Could you analyse this on one your posts, if I may be so bold?
Tune in this coming Tuesday, the 17th. 😉
I’m very interested to see your column on the 17th, as I am considering attending the Chicago SlutWalk. Obviously I agree with it’s basic concept, but I’m really wondering about what else is going on there.
Well, wasn’t the (ne/w/o/) feminist goal to become like men anyway? 😉
Does anyone know why Femen claims men are responsible for covering up breasts?
The first thing Christian missionaries do is tell pre-industrial people to cover their breasts (as if that’s God’s highest priority), but according to Hans Peter Duerr’s “Nudity and Shame” even in pre-industrial cultures men aren’t supposed to look at breasts – apparently because it bothers women.
I wonder if it has something to do with the different context of staring at a pair of breasts because you never get to see them and staring at a pair even when they are always around?
In cultures where women go topless or have some sort of minimal covering (jewlery/adornment) I wonder if staring directly at a woman’s breasts is seen as rude/anti-social?
I wonder if it’s not equivalent to when you notice a stranger staring at you on a bus or in a store. It’s seen as rude or an invasion of privacy. Like it’s not the breasts or body part that mark it as unwelcome behavior but the stare itself? Even then, I’m not sure about that since direct staring is not considered rude in all cultures like it is in the one I’ve inhabited since I was a little girl. “Don’t stare. It’s rude.”
Someday it’s hard for me to even begin to step away from my cultural view point but it sure is fun.
There’s definitely a difference between looking and staring; after all, every culture has some version of the “evil eye” myth. I think it’s because we can often sense others’ naked emotions projected through a stare.
But in answer to Sexhysteria’s question, I imagine it’s part of the whole “the Patriarchy is the source of all evil” nonsense.
Experienced nudists who have seen hundreds of bare breasts, young and old, feel no urge to stare at anybody. Staring is a consequence of novelty, not what you see every day. Whatever reason breasts are traditionally covered, it’s not to protect them from staring.
Dear sexhysteria, please watch the wonderful documentary “Beyond the Gates of Splendor”. The missionaries in that never demanded the people they preached to wear clothes. Some of the people did start wearing clothes on their own, but not all of them. 1 reason I love this documentary is because it shows that NOT ALL missionaries have demanded this and it also shows how REAL Christians (yes, there’s many fakes out there, unfortunately, but also many real 1’s) overcame a lot of adversity and practiced the level of forgiveness that the Bible tells believers to.
Could it be that Femen is in transition? Or indicative of a society in transition? They’ve got all the old talking points, but they’ve lost the hatred of femaleness which in neofeminists is second only to maleness (is it second?).
America’s Founding Fathers are revered for their distrust of strong government, but they also put in an Electoral College and didn’t let the people directly elect their senators. Some of the old “the people aren’t smart enough” attitude held on. Could that be how groups like Femen come to be?
And I would like to add my voice to those who were taken by “But though the women of Femen defend their own right to use their bodies as swords, they wish to deny other women the right to use theirs as plowshares.” That was golden.
The electoral college and indirect election of senators are pretty widely vilified these days, but the Founding Fathers established both of those institutions as a brake against the most powerful public offices becoming mere popularity contests; given what politics has become, are you so very certain they were wrong in that desire?
As for the praise, I sincerely appreciate it. 🙂
I feel that the problem isn’t so much that elections are popularity contests as that they have become money-raising contests. Your boss is the person who pays you; corporations, unions, and activist groups (in that order) give much more money to politicians than the American people in general and taxpayers in particular.
Given there was no instant communication (not even the telegraph existed at the time) the elcetoral college was an interesting soultion to the problem of making the electoartes voice heard.
Votes were counted locally, electoral college ballot castors were told the results, went to DC and made the will of their states known.
As for senators not being elected by popular vote, the job pf senator was not to represent the people, their job was to represent their individaul states concerns and rights aginst both the federal government and the population.
Plus, if you wanted to effect a change of your state senator you’d have tp pay more attetntion to you state politics, something most people dont do anymore
Precisely. People who decry those institutions forget that the United States was founded as a FEDERAL system, not a single centralized country as it has become since the Civil War. Representatives represented the people and senators the states, which is why the number of the former is affected by population and the latter is two per state regardless of size. Direct election of senators was not implemented to empower the people, but to curtail the power of the states. As for the electoral college, those who support its abolition are either urbanites or live in large states and fail to understand that in places where leaders are elected by direct popular vote the interests of rural areas are trampled by those of the larger population centers, or those of sparsely-populated states by heavily-populated ones.
Perhaps those who believe direct popular elections in the US are always good should consider what the world might be like if China, India and populous third-world countries like Indonesia were given a proportionately-larger voice in world affairs than the US and other comparatively less populous Western nations do.
The more populous states have more electors, so they do get a bigger say in presidential elections.
Still, the EC would work fine if it weren’t for the winner-take-all system (not Constitutionally mandated, but not forbidden either) which is used in most states. For instance, if in 2012 one more person in New York votes for Obama than whoever is running against him, then Obama gets ALL of New York’s 29 Electoral votes, just as if every registered voter in the state had cast a ballot for Barack. Does anybody doubt that the Democratic candidate will get at least one more vote in New York?
In Texas, it’s the same thing, only it’s the Republican who is guaranteed to get every last one of Texas’ 38 Electoral votes.
The result is “red states” and “blue states,” and no presidential candidate outside the Big Two Parties can get ANY Electoral votes at all. Of course no state is really red or blue; every state is speckled.
The whole Florida recount in 2000 would have been avoided if Florida wasn’t winner-take-all. Al Gore would gotten half of Florida’s Electoral votes, and George W. Bush would have gotten half of them. Third parties would be a bit more viable.
Winner-take-all has transformed slim majorities (or slimmer pluralities) into virtual unanimities.
A bigger say absolutely, but NOT as much bigger as direct popular vote would make it. As you correctly point out, “winner take all” isn’t constitutionally mandated, and the two halves of the Big Government Party both want it that way. But it isn’t the electoral system which shuts third parties out; they were quite popular into the 20th century and we’ve had several presidents who were members of parties which were “third” at the time of their election (including Lincoln). It’s the modern subsidized system of campaign financing that arose in the 1930s which shut the third parties out.
A-FREAKING-MEN!
“Perhaps those who believe direct popular elections in the US are always good should consider what the world might be like if China, India and populous third-world countries like Indonesia were given a proportionately-larger voice in world affairs than the US and other comparatively less populous Western nations do.”
We have no idea what the world would be like if those “third world” countries had a larger voice in world affairs than the US. But I’d like to find out.
What is your presumption about it, and why?
Enjoying the boobage like most males here, but this just further confuses me.
Exactly what do these women want?
Using their bodies in this way is a not-really-tacit way of admitting that they have power…yet they want to curb other women from doing the same thing? Or maybe, they want to decide *how* women use their bodies, and *which* women are free to do so?
I can’t tell if they, and other women like them, hate women in general, or hate whores, or just hate any other female that’s getting attention besides them.
And the statement “we had to become like men” is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard based on this context. They most certainly did not become like men…they did what women could do, which is take off their tops and stop a city(see Lady Godiva).
So I’ll ask again…what the *Hell* do they WANT?
Not “we had to”, Scorch, but “they had to”. “They” meaning second-wave feminists.
As for what they want…attention, maybe?
@Scorch: “I’ll ask again…what the *Hell* do they WANT?”
Attention. At its simplest, just that: Attention.
Not necessarily for themselves, although I think the ones in the pink and red jeans (top photo) are quite yummy. They are striving to turn the bystanders’ attention to their bare boobs into attention for their cause. It might have been more effective, upon me, if I could read Cyrillic.
Sex – titillation – as political theatre. Who’d have thought?
Maggie
You say ,feminists are anti male ladies…always at war with men.People who do not embrace thier sexual power as women and seem to have a self loathing of thier feminity.They dont have pro sex, pro sex work and pro woman dispositions.They cant accept that a womans sexuality is a sword and a plow..a gift to be embraced and used/exploited. You choose to term them as neofeminists.
What is your take on this school of thaugt;
That feminists consider the use of female sexuality in the weapon and plow mode as inhibiting the upward mobility of women in society, they see it as one of the factors that prevents men from seeing a women as an equal who has the right/capability and brains to do what ever a man can do.
They see the use of sexuality as making men view women as “just flesh”…..”walking boobs, ass and vagina” ….an object to be explored/taken /conquered/ looked after provided for/ do the cooking and house keeping.In other words constant and crass expression of feminie sexuality makes men view women as an object rather than an equal human with same or superior mental capabilities and possibilities.
Ive read feminist articles that advise women in top executive positons in particular and women working in coporate enviroments in general not to wear clothing that flashes or reveals thier sexuality in any way.They say it makes male collueges and surbordinates view them as sexual objects…..a load of boobs and ass talking to you or giving orders.
The same article went on to ask how a Female President of a country can be taken seriously if whilst discussing with the president of another nation or one of the Generals of her military ( of which she is the commander in chief), he is struggling hard to supress an erection caused by the exposure of cleavage from her low cut skirt suit .
Feminits posit that using the body as a sword…..fuels the impression that a woman is “simply a body” …her most potent attribute rather than equal or superior brains/interllect/skill….
I personally feel the Ukranian ladies certainly have other avenues to draw attention to thier cause other than just flashing naked bodies on the streets. I agree that the agenda of Femen is confusing and contradictory if they openly display sexuality but stand aginst decriminalization.They oppose sex work but use thier nudity in a manner similar to the way some sex workers may use partial nudity to draw attention or a client
Many men see using the body as a sword as a dangerous phenomenon….womnen have been known to blackmail/curry undue favour/strive to gain advantage/settle scores….by use of thier body in and out of the work places
Using the body as a plow draws the questions ” couldnt she do something else to earn a living??….isnt she smart enough to learn a skill to put bread on the table??…if she is trying to raise some money , how to men raise money without having to fall on thier backs and spread thier legs??…is falling on your back and spreading ur legs no simply a quick/easy and very profitable way out??
These are some of the thinking patterns of feminists as they percieve themselves as fighting the cause of womanhood.
Your opinion??
Neofeminists are not true feminists because they reject what it means to be a woman. If they want to disguise their femininity and act like men for the illusion of political power, that’s fine with me. But it stops being fine with me when they tell me that I must do things their way.
“Upward mobility” is a joke if one has to give up what one is in order to achieve it. If I told you that to achieve “upward mobility” you had to wear a mask which made you look white because “nobody will take a black man seriously” you would be offended. And if I said “they see [skin color] as one of the factors that prevents white men from seeing a black man as an equal who has the right/capability and brains to do what ever a white man can do,” you would rightfully call me a racist. Yet you’re going to sit there and suggest I respect the views of self-hating women who want me to act like a man so I can “succeed” by their rules? I’ve got news for you: I’ve never hidden my sexuality, and it’s never hindered me. I blatantly advertise my femininity in this blog, yet nobody claims that my tits somehow stop me from writing well or thinking rationally.
Last time I checked this was still supposedly a free country where people are allowed to decide what THEY want to do for a living rather than being controlled by other people’s expectations of what they “should” want. I have plenty of skills I can use beside sex work, but sex work was the best option on many levels for me and is for many other women. Besides, I’m not so insecure that I give a damn what some self-loathing feminist thinks about my intelligence.
If you think “falling on your back and spreading your legs” is so “quick and easy”, why aren’t you doing it? People who make that accusation are silly asses who have never done sex work. Whoring is a trade like any other, and more important to society than many.
Kola, why cant a man see you as an indivdual cabable of doing anything you want with the boundries of your innate ability and honed skill, and a sex object?
You seem to be, in a round about way, advocating that noone should see you a desirable as a woman. But if that were the case no man would ever have sex with you, and somehow I doubt that is what you want, even if it is the logcal outcome of what you SAY you want.
Luljp, Kola is a man; he was quoting what the neofeminists might say and I answered accordingly, purposefully ignoring his sex in my answer. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.
My mistake, the way the question was phrased plus the moniker of a small toy sized animal threw me
aologies kola
“Last time I checked this was still supposedly a free country where people are allowed to decide what THEY want to do for a living rather than being controlled by other people’s expectations of what they “should” want. I have plenty of skills I can use beside sex work, but sex work was the best option on many levels for me and is for many other women. ”
As I understand true empowerment, then, with women(as well as other minority/targeted groups), it means the ability to decide one’s own fate. To control one’s own body, relationships, finances, and career, and to have the freedom to matriculate in society without hindrance or prejudice the same way that others do. I understand that now about the female fight for equality more than I ever have in my life. And this:
“If I told you that to achieve “upward mobility” you had to wear a mask which made you look white because “nobody will take a black man seriously” you would be offended. And if I said “they see [skin color] as one of the factors that prevents white men from seeing a black man as an equal who has the right/capability and brains to do what ever a white man can do,” you would rightfully call me a racist.”
…just forcefully drove it home beyond any possible ambiguity.
But Maggie, what about those that don’t like/agree with/believe in sex work? What about their rights? (not arguing with you, just trying to look at it from multiple angles)
Precisely.
They have as much right not to do sex work as I have to do it. I don’t like spinach, I don’t agree with the notion that fiction set in the “real world” is superior and I don’t believe in Christianity, but I don’t have the right to stop others from eating spinach/watching Lifetime channel movies/going to Pentecostal churches. This is exactly what yesterday’s column was about.
A while back there was some fuss around here about why isn’t dick worth as much as pussy. I occurs to me that it isn’t dick that’s worth as much as pussy; it’s biceps. And quads. And lats and pecs and abs and all those other muscles. Just as a woman who learns to use her pussy and tits and hands and mouth just the right way can make a good living, a man with strength and aggression who learns some skill in using those attributes can be an athlete.
Athletes are respected in our society. Sure there’s the stereotype of the “dumb jock,” but even dumb jocks are more respected than dumb people in general. And if the jock can demonstrate that he has some brains about him, he will be well-thought-of indeed. I suspect that even the average professional athlete makes as much money as a call girl, and elite pro athletes can make much more.
There is no law and no social stigma attached to a man using his manly attributes to earn a living. Anybody who claims to support equality for women needs to support her right to use her womanly attributes to make a living.
Perhaps some day we will even see noted prostitutes (and retired prostitutes) endorsing products. If Michael Jordan can endorse shoes and underwear, why couldn’t Xaviera Hollander or [ahem] Maggie endorse perfume and, er… underwear?
You’re exactly right, and I’ve pointed this out before. Nobody thinks there’s anything wrong with a man making a good living with his natural, sex-based biological abilities, but let a woman do it and suddenly it’s “oppression”. And some people wonder why I say that neofeminists are a kind of male chauvinist; isn’t their granting of greater career freedom to men (not to mention legal superiority via the Swedish Model) proof enough?
Maggie
“Whoring is a trade like any other, and more important to society than many”. – i agree….. Escorts provide all the latitude and terrain for;
Fulfilling sexual fantasies, specialised sexual services, providing exploration that many men cant do with regular partners, filling up empty and lonely hotel rooms of travellers and tourists, adventure, giving companionship, removing the burden of srtings attached relationships…and so many more services required by the men of the world…..escorts even become real life and true freind.I even know of escorts who offer sexual councelling online based on thier vast experience , some of them actually offer it free, ive read such in some escort profiles.
The fact that sooooo many men of diverse backgrounds partonise escorts shows they are required.Clients of top grade escorts include societys most influential and powerful.The average diplomat, politician, bussines man,military officer etc would seek the services of an escort once he is in a different country or out of station…..most though try to be secretive. An European president is currently in the spot light over revalations of his patronage of escorts
If you think “falling on your back and spreading your legs” is so “quick and easy”, why aren’t you doing it? –
This is not my personal opinion, it is a summary of the way “Femminist” see sex work, my entire paragraph about “falling on your back and spreading legs for money is a synopsis of what ive read from the opinion of femminists….and they did use words and sentences just in that way…ie falling on your back and spreading your legs to make fast , quick and easy and plenty money. i know escorting can be hard work, attending to the needs of clients and understanding his exact requirments , then fulfilling them requires its own kind of skill, and there are courtesans out there who do this well……be it the GFE,BDSM,services for couples, role playing,various kinds of fetishes.As u know i do see escorts.I also know seeing quite a number of men in one day is no easy picking of money, i also know some escorts actually do enjoy the work, becuse they really like the adventure and thrill of also meeting all kinds of men, being wined and dined , and the variety of sex that comes along with seeing people with varied sexual passions.
Just wanted to put the records stright on that one as to the fact that its not my opinion……the personal opinion i expressed was about the Ukranian ladies not needing to go naked to attract attention to thier cause and concuring to the contraditons in the goals of thier organisation….i was seeking your thoughts on the falling on the back to earn money opinon of femminists….. Also feel it kind of really peeved you…..
Must say there is something sexy about you when you lose it, and that short fuse starts to burn, also amusing how you struggle to remain calm , but then some of the fury still bubbles to the surface in a restrained manner…i try to imagine what your face looks like then..and imagine am whispering comforting and soothing words close to your ear in a very close quater situation.
“If I told you that to achieve “upward mobility” you had to wear a mask which made you look white because “nobody will take a black man seriously” you would be offended. And if I said “they see [skin color] as one of the factors that prevents white men from seeing a black man as an equal who has the right/capability and brains to do what ever a white man can do,” you would rightfully call me a racist” –
I know you said this for emphasis and to make me undertand your point..but i must confess that i get unfomfortable with my colour being remebered at the snap of a finger. Nooooooo!!!!!…..am not insecure….its just that being a 44 year old black man, i cant claim not to have mental alarm bells ringing when colur seems very close to the sub consious of those am interacting with…44 years is enough time to gain lots of experience , lose my naivety, and realise that though the world, judges people to a large extent my the content of thier character today…it is still a very colour consious world that judges views and opinions by colour shades.Not sure if many people here knew i was black before you replied my comments here….but i know its natural inclination to asses my coments from the point of being black , henceforth as they now know.
They would simply have seen and judged my coments as the comments of another man had they not known…but henceforth my commentswill be assesed….against the background of “is he saying/thinking like this bcos he is black?? .Its stark reality ……we all struggle against these inclinations ..but its still there. I know you meant absolutely no offence, and just tried to drive home a point, but the very quick reference to my race atthe snap of a finger makes me uneasy…again its not being insecure…its common sense and intuition that grows over 44 years…..i dont think you have to be black to understand the circumstances that have shaped this ‘being on guard posture”……no offence taken at all
Kola,
Yes, I know you are black now, and I still don’t care. 😛 No offense meant. Yes, I know Maggie was a ‘whore’, and I still don’t care. I hope both of you realize that the vast majority of people honestly don’t give a damn whether you are black or white, a nun or a whore. There is just a small, outspoken minority that gives the rest of humanity a bad reputation.
Tony
Well I already knew because of your earlier posts. To me, what makes you “exotic” isn’t that you are black but that you are not American. You have a perspective on my nation and culture, and on many issues, that is different that what I’m used to hearing. This is valuable. Even if you turn out to be dead wrong on something, it will be useful to have seen it from another angle. And when you are right…
But Kola, my bringing up your race is EXACTLY like your (or a neofeminist’s) bringing up my sex! It’s a biological characteristic which certainly has bearing on some issues, but not on all the ones people pretend it affects. People who advise members of their own groups to hide their essential femininity, blackness, Jewishness, baldness or whatever in order to achieve some kind of externalized “success” should be dismissed out of hand, because no material success is worth having to hide what you are. Survival, yes; avoiding persecution, of course. But hiding one’s nature to play political power games is a dangerous gamble in addition to being a lie.
I did recognize that the “falling on your back” comment was intentionally spoken from the neofeminist viewpoint, but you’re correct in that it angered me and I apologize for that. I should’ve said “if they think it’s so easy why aren’t they doing it.” Because that’s always how it is with certain people; their own work is soooo challenging, and those who make more than them are “cheating” or “taking the easy way out”. These are people who lack either the wisdom or the ability to “work smarter, not harder”.
I loved the point Sailor made. I actually haven’t heard that argument before (though I admit I haven’t followed much literature on the subject at all). It is bloody hard to fault. But it is still flawed right? A man using his body for profit is fine – but only as long as his dick remains in his jock!. If he pulls it out he’s now a sex-worker.., and that’s capital-W WRONG! But, I haven’t read much about male sex-workers being exploited, abused, entrapped, enslaved, etc., etc. I mean, hell, where can I sign up!?!? Every guy on earth WANTS that job! Yet society frowns on them as much as female sex-workers.
Soooo, in this really a gender issue?? Or is just that sex is involved? Is it possible that the core of this has nothing to do with gender, but simply down to the act of paid sex?
That’s a controversy among sex worker activists, Wander; male prostitutes argue exactly what you just said, that it’s a sex issue rather than a gender one. But most female advocates point out that the vast bulk of the laws are concerned with women, and even the language usually refers only to women in most places. These advocates (and you can count me among them) feel that the only reason male prostitutes are persecuted is out of “fairness” because female ones are, and that if there were some place on Earth where there were no whores but only gigolos, prostitution would never have been outlawed there. If you look at history you’ll find that homosexual prostitution was never targeted unless either female prostitution or male homosexuality in general is targeted first; there is no place where neither of those is illegal but male prostitution is, which tends to indicate that its criminalization is a secondary effect.
The ignorance of these kinds of Feminist groups is so.. annoying. The human dynamic has become so twisted away from our nature that it is no small wonder that more more people are going insane. Human instinct basically has 6 modes; Food, Fight, Flight, Fuck, Question, and Create. (Most psychologist seem to limit it to the 4 F’s, but I personally see the last two as paramount to human instinct).
How we got to the point where four out of six are considered taboo is beyond my comprehension. We are not just denying what it is that makes us male and female, we are denying are very humanity.
Demanding that other people deny the essence of their humanity is tantamount to considering them as sub-human, and thus of no more import than livestock.
I was going to write about how our modern mentality shows our attempts to make virtual slaves out of everyone else, but decided against it. Maybe that’s a little off topic 😛 ..maybe not.
So, I guess to wrap up, perhaps a little lamely, if you decide to pursue one of those 6 attributes in an effort to fulfill your basic human needs, more power to you. All I ask is that you give it 100% of your effort. (Bad whores are partially what give good whores a bad name :P) As for those ridiculous women who think that bare breasts make a point, while I might enjoy the view for a moment, the mentality that such a demonstration reveals undermines every effort they make by revealing sub-par intelligence, a derisive attitude towards their audience’s intelligence, and only serves to underscore that they measure their own self worth by their physical attributes. If they were at all confident in themselves, and demonstrated that confidence in their daily lives, people would see them for who they are and they would be to busy living a good life to be whining in the streets.
I can think of a few cases in which bare-titted protests make sense, for example protesting laws or policies which required women to hide while nursing as though they were doing something shameful, or institutions which treat women like inferior versions of men. But that’s about it.
It’s all about context. But if I were going to protest women treating men like sex objects, I wouldn’t do it by walking around with my cock out. (Not that you will hear many men complain about being objectified in regards to sex.)
@ Tony: “Human instinct basically has 6 modes; Food, Fight, Flight, Fuck, Question, and Create. (Most psychologist seem to limit it to the 4 F’s, but I personally see the last two as paramount to human instinct).”
I don’t see those last two as “paramount to human instinct.”
They are much greater than human instinct. The ability to question and to create, in my opinion, set Humanity apart from the other animals. They are the seed of greatness in our species.
Take a look around you and see how many humans coast on past “question” and “create”. Most of us have “questioning” ground out of us in childhood. And, sadly, when “questioning” is extinguished, creativity fades with it.
There is no question, Maggie, you are well versed on this subject. Both more knowledgeable AND a better writer than I. Dammit! (I am told, however, that my oral skills are unsurpassable.). Maybe one day you can test this theory. Haha.
But, I think you dismissed the argument too quickly. Women are indeed praised for using their bodies – in dance, in sport – just as men are. Using your body as a plowshare is accepted in the same ways it is for men.
Only when sex-work is introduced does the acceptance flee. Right?
I, for one, don’t give a crap about labels of “neofeminism” or post-super-neo-fascist-feminism, and on and on… They’re making it all too complicated! I am a marketing exec by trade. You wanna win this fight? Simplify!
I know right from wrong. Sometimes I might not behave completely “right”, and I know it when I fall short (often, actually). I think we all do. I don’t need (or want) some pseudo-cerebral explanation to categorize it all for me. Just tell me I fucked up!
Get the argument back to the core issue instead of this other crap.
Feminism can be many things. Two of them:
1) A freedom movement to liberate (a la civil rights).
2) A movement to increase female power, in a zero-sum game, reducing male power.
A note on #2: Controlling male sexuality is the key goal for women in every society since the beginning of time: it’s a cornerstone in biosocial female behavior in a range of species. Controlling the sexual behavior of other females your males might get involved with is a key to this. Smart women are able to grab a high-value male and guarantee his resources go to her and her offspring and not his offspring with other women. Lucky women get a guy who has so many resources she doesn’t have to care how many other children he has.
We all do these things instinctively.
Women often don’t identify with feminism, but both feminists and non-feminists absolutely use the language and power of 1) to get more 2) for themselves.
This is where you get the hypocrisy.
It’s absolutely germane to not call these women “feminists” in the Civil-Liberties sense. They’re only “feminists” in a “War on Men (and other women)” sense.
Being for basic civil liberties is the hardest thing people ever do. We want them for ourselves; but we don’t realize that this means they have to be available even for our perceived enemies.
All the time.
Yep. Civil rights have to be protected even for bad people. After all, the next time power changes hands, YOU could be the bad people.
I reread this post in light of the recent topless marches organizedin the U.S., Canada and France by GoTopless.org. These women are saying: if men have the right to go topless, then so should women.
But equal rights is only one reason for girls and women to reject breast shame. My recent blog post on the subject describes the many other reasons to promote breast pride. Your feedback would be appreciated: http://sexhysteria.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/breast-shame-tradition-deception-and-the-money-trail/
My ex-husband may have secretly breathed a sigh of relief when I miscarried in 1994, because I had already made it abundantly clear that I planned to nurse for two years, to do so whenever and wherever I happened to be when my baby was hungry, and to refuse to put a blanket over myself when she was eating. I already had my stock answers planned for sick-minded people who objected: “Would you eat in a toilet?” or “do you cover your head when you eat?” etc. And yes, I was ready to risk arrest and to make a huge public stink if I was (the advantage of living in a small town where one is well-known and considered a minor, if eccentric, pillar of the community).
I have to disagree with your essay on one point, though; I don’t think insecurity about the relative beauty of one’s tits is learned. Women are insecure about every aspect of our looks, from hair to toes, whether a big cultural deal is made about that feature or not; this is only natural since so much of a woman’s sexual (and therefore social) power derives from her looks. It’s no different from men being self-conscious about their height.
That having been said, I do feel the idea that naked tits are somehow “indecent” is utterly absurd. I never wear a bra unless I’m doing something (like riding in the jeep) where I need the support, or wearing something so sheer in public that I might cause a general uproar. But most of my summer tops are tight and thin enough that my nipples are at least discernible, and though I occasionally get a disapproving look from the buttoned-up type I’ve never been the target of any apparent hostility because of it.
On the hypocrisy:
If you view racist anti-racism and sexist anti-sexism and every other altar of the PC progressive platform as merely a power play in a “revolution”, designed to “normalize” or provide power to one group, then it makes a huge amount of sense.
Otherwise, it just seems schizophrenic.
[…] http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/a-war-for-peace/ […]