Advertisement
Message and the Media
Our girls deserve better
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi
Sexualization has serious consequences. When girls internalize the messages around them, they are more likely to have low self-esteem, feel ashamed of their bodies, suffer from depression and eating disorders, take up smoking and have unprotected sex. Even their ability to think clearly and do well on math and logic problems suffers when their attention is focused on how they look. In other words, sexualization contributes to some of the most serious problems facing adolescent girls today.
There may be consequences for society as well. If pop culture is saturated with images in which girls are sexualized, will we begin to project adult sexual desires onto children? Will we come to believe that children want to have sex with adults, thus making child sexual abuse seem "normal" and perhaps increasing the demand for child prostitution?
Our girls deserve better
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi
Sexualization has serious consequences. When girls internalize the messages around them, they are more likely to have low self-esteem, feel ashamed of their bodies, suffer from depression and eating disorders, take up smoking and have unprotected sex. Even their ability to think clearly and do well on math and logic problems suffers when their attention is focused on how they look. In other words, sexualization contributes to some of the most serious problems facing adolescent girls today.
There may be consequences for society as well. If pop culture is saturated with images in which girls are sexualized, will we begin to project adult sexual desires onto children? Will we come to believe that children want to have sex with adults, thus making child sexual abuse seem "normal" and perhaps increasing the demand for child prostitution?
posted by:
|
San Francisco
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Sexualization of girls
Mon, February 26, 2007 - 7:09 PMI fully agree with this statement
even more
the sexualization of women in general
but espeicially young girls
we are beautiful
but we are not made for others judgement or standards of "appeal"
women are beautfiul sensual beings with wisdom
not sexual objects -
-
Re: Sexualization of girls
Tue, March 13, 2007 - 12:04 AM"we are beautiful
but we are not made for others judgement or standards of "appeal""
women are often evaluated as potential mates, and years of sexual and natural selection has literally helped shape their bodies. simple-minded heterosexual men may overly emphasize markers of fertility to the detriment of more important traits, especially in this modern milieu, where we live past 30, women don't die in childbirth as frequently, and survival and successful reproduction depends on other variables.
also, women are not "beautiful sensual beings with wisdom"; they are a diverse group of people with varying traits. some are wise, some stupid, some mean, some beautiful, etc.
we agree on so much; forgive me my hairsplitting, but i think it's important we ground our notions of gender in the natural world. -
-
Re: Sexualization of girls
Tue, March 13, 2007 - 4:14 AMI must admit, I have a litlte trouble with the way that this is phrased.
Girls _are_ sexual. I think the fact that it is nearly impossible for them to explore and express this simple fact in any kind of healthy way is as disturbing as the plethora of 'lolita' websites.
An astonishing number of my female students--and usually the ones who most gleefully yell naughty words from the stage at the annual Vagina Monologues, have no relationship at all to their own physical sexuality. They perceive themselves as empty space below the waist. -
-
Re: Sexualization of girls
Tue, March 13, 2007 - 6:09 AMhey perceive themselves as empty space below the waist.
---
and our society sees them as empty space above the neck.
which pretty much leaves boobs and womb (note, not vagina or clit where teh fun happens, just womb).
we still define ourselves as "maiden, mother, crone" which all three relate not to our powers in life, our ability to think logically, our love for our husbands, our enjoyment of friends, our talents, our jobs, our physical beauty, our artistic beauty... just our wombs.
Of course we are sexual beings, even as little girls. 1 and 2 year old children masterbate, cause it feels good. but our society is so warped, we don't know what to do with anything about "the body" anymore.
-
-
Re: Sexualization of girls
Tue, March 13, 2007 - 7:57 AMa famous phrase from the 70s was "women are seen as sexual objects; men are seen as success objects." what do you think of this, and may we attempt to consider ourselves as animals, rather than philosophize as if we are etheric floating deities? -
-
Re: Sexualization of girls
Tue, March 13, 2007 - 8:05 AMwhat do you think of this, - I think it's serious simplification. women actually are not often seen as sexual objects as much as they are seen as producers of children in whatever form that takes. they are sexual objects ONLY when they are Pre-childbearers, and are teh "Hooter girls" of the world. once they have a child or two, they are seen as any number of other lables, all focused in some way on "mom". "single mother" "working mother" "stay at home mom". not as individuals.
Men on teh other hand, in our society, are far more likely to be seen in a more rounded view, though i agree "success" is a huge part of that lable.
We can't look at our world any more "as if were are animals" cause we aren't. i mean, of course we are, but we now are creators ourselves. we have laws, legal codes; we have ethics to evaluate those laws; generic philosophy to study our place within/amongst ourselves, Art to comment about ourselves, etc.
once we moved into creation (art, literature, philo, science) we changed the game, and become ethric floating deities, whether we think that's best or not. Cause we get to sit here on tribes, at 10:04 am, masturbating over the word etheric, and not hunting or gathering for our survival.
animals survive. we exist. those are very different platforms. -
-
Re: Sexualization of girls
Tue, March 13, 2007 - 12:20 PMthe forms in which women are objectified and stereotyped amount to a greater limitation on their economic freedom, and you may be right that the reproductive lens flattens women's dimensionality more so than the "provider" lens flattens men's. i'm not sure. it's a complex topic, and i think we can do justice to the suffering of everyone while simultaneously opposing the oppression of women.
men cause most of the violence in the world, but they are also the victims of the violence far more often than women, though we as feminists focus on violence against women in some ways BECAUSE women aren't as a class doing it. activities where men suffer the most, like war, are also such male-generated troubles that it can be difficult to care about the male victims of it, as they are the perpretrators as well.
"once we moved into creation (art, literature, philo, science) we changed the game, and become ethric floating deities, whether we think that's best or not. Cause we get to sit here on tribes, at 10:04 am, masturbating over the word etheric, and not hunting or gathering for our survival. "
i think you certainly have some good points to raise here, but i sense a hold-over "soulism" and evolutionary escalator that is untenable as well. the gap you portray between us and other animals is far too wide. sure, culture has added dimensions to mating, survival, and activities, but natural selection, sexual selection, and other evolutionary processes remain active. they just take different forms. the whole attitude that we make culture and therefore we are disembodied floating entities with no animalistic exigencies is silly, and i know you well enough to know that's not entirely what you meant.
-
-
Re: Sexualization of girls
Tue, March 13, 2007 - 1:03 PMbut they are also the victims of the violence far more often than women
---
I'm not sure i would agree. depending on what violence means, when you compound rape, murder, and abuse with the effects of being "sidelined" in activities like war, i'm not sure i agree that men are more often teh victims of violence.
they just take different forms. the whole attitude that we make culture and therefore we are disembodied floating entities with no animalistic exigencies is silly, and i know you well enough to know that's not entirely what you meant.
==
certainly we are "animals" both with quotes and not. that is, both biologically and in some esoteric "i have animal instincts that still drive me". but the very nature that we are thinking beings means we can and do rise above our animals sides, or actively embrace them, or manipulate them as we choose, because of our thinking. And in the context of feminism, this means something to me.
what does it mean? Well, when was the last time a lioness looked at her lion and said "you know, you mistreat me and it sucks" or "you know, i'm oppressed. i work for you, hunt for you, breed for you, and you still eat my babies if you are pissed". the luxury to worry about "oppression", and significantly, oppression of others; the luxury to question "society" comes from the ability to think and remove oneself from teh daily chores of survival. i e., to stop being animals.
When you stop being animals, you don't have the "easy" excuse of "well, animals do it, so we can too". ethics and morality suddenly come slashing on you, and you have to wonder what is "good" or "bad" for the individual and society. you get to say "i'm working hard each day, and do not think men should be telling me what to do, just cause i have a vigina".
-------
Back to your first question of "what should we be discussing", i really am drawn to the idea that we have regressed in feminism, back into teh world of the patrarchial - but with "toys" to play with. we get goddesses now. but no one askes why those goddesses MUST be defined not as "dianna teh great hunter" but as "dianna, the mother of teh maiden/mother/crone" tripple goddess. It's subtle shifts where we lose. it's not that we are being pushed back, but rather pushed aside because we are "equal" now, with our tripple goddesses and our wiccan rituals.
the repercussions of said gradual pushing aside are there. we have gone from discussions about when it's ok to have late term abortions of a very particular and perhaps unnecessary single procedure of late term -- to the idea that if a man doesn't want to give you a pill, he doesn't have to. cause of HIS morality and HIS view of "teh female Other's body". that this discussion is even allowed to happen in public space, and given FULL CREDENCE of the media and not just tossed away as a strange fanatic, shows the step backwards women have taken in "feminism".
What does it take to gain "equality?" sadly, it takes the "permission" if you will of thsoe in the majority. be that permission given by choice, or by force. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Sexualization of girls
Tue, March 13, 2007 - 4:46 PMKip, I share your concern about regression.
Ever since I've been on this forum (admittedly not all that long), most of the discussion has been about why goddesses are good. Not really much about why they're good for women, or positive images of women, but basically that they're good because they're goddesses, and it's good to have goddesses.
It's not a very intellectually rigorous position (and right now, I'm hard-pressed to find a theorist since Donna Haraway or Judith Butler who is even intellectually interesting. Well, ok, Pat Califia, but she's currently a he.)
And it's not even a very good political position. Whatever happened to feminism grounded in the material realities of women, and working to improve those? Now it's all whether or not women should bring their kids to restaurants, and how to be a mother and retain your political credentials.
Sex radicalism, with all the really interesting and slightly dangerous talk about leather and restraint and coming to power has regressed to a lapse into weird Harriet and Harriet gender roles, complex rules of behavior, leather fashion parades and the LOOK AT ME, I'M A VICTIM AND I'M PROUD Vagina Monologues.
And spirituality? Christian apology or made-up goddess worship.
I actually thought that the discussion of Krishna's gopis was halfway interesting and refreshing--or could have been if it didn't so quickly melt down into a defensive religious love-fest.
Doesn't anybody dare to ask really dangerous questions anymore, push any new frontiers, cross our own boundaries, take some risks? -
-
Re: Sexualization of girls
Wed, March 14, 2007 - 7:31 AM"equality". one of the things that used to bug me in the 80's and 90's were all these women who wanted to be moms and successful workers, and expected that societ accept this, because they were "equal" to the men. what they didn't understand is that except for teh 9 months of pregnancy (which really can't be shared or passed along), these women were not willing to do what it takes to be "equal" and that is, MAKE A CHOICE.
men who are successful might well be "fathers", but they are fathers who see thier kids for 10 minutes a day, then say "kid, i need to get back to work". they are fathers for whom the kids are just "the thing to do", and not something that takes time and vestment of energy.
Do you remember the thankfully short lived show about the female American president? It was so "anti women" it was bogus. yet it was "sold" as proof of our acceptance of women. that "president' made sure "i tuck my kids into bed each night, and put my family first" and yadda yadda. a president not only DOESN'T do that, but CANT. his or her ambition comes first - to teh detriment of all else. his or her need to be super man leads to 4 hours of sleep a night, and days with no food, and forgotten anniversaries, birthdays, etc. they are selfish to a fault -- but teh roll model for women as president is a "mom" for teh country.
riiigghhttt.....
"intellectually rigorous position". I swear, i've gone back and reread DeBeauvoir as if she were new; as if what she said hadn't been accounted for - cause i swear there's little else out there that doesn't fall into the traps of "new age" "neo paganism" "women as beauty" "women as peace", talk, where teh world would be better and when goddess ruled there was nothing but love and peace till nasty man came along and ruined all that. THIS is not feminism; it marginalizes women into some passive, "dickless" wonders who can't stand up for themselves against the "dicks". Had there really ever been a time when "goddess" ruled (what ever that might mean), why would anyone consider or assume that women can't be the asses men are? can't be just as selfish, and power hungry men can be? Can't be pushy, needy, bitchy, liers, cheets, ambition driven, etc?
Question for all feminists out there. Who makes the bed, and the kid's beds, and gives them teh bath, and monitors thier tv, and on weekends shleps them to soccer, and buys their school clothes, and of course goes food shopping in your home? I bet your hubby is proud that he "helps out at home".
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Sexualization of girls
Wed, March 14, 2007 - 11:20 AM"I'm not sure i would agree. depending on what violence means, when you compound rape, murder, and abuse with the effects of being "sidelined" in activities like war, i'm not sure i agree that men are more often teh victims of violence."
this is a question disguised as a disagreement in my mind. all i know is the stats for the US when it comes to assault and murder really, and the numbers of male victims are MUCH higher. and obviously casualties in war are almost all men, though it does hurt more than just the combatants. this kind of tit for tat is touchy, especially among good folks who never intend to disregard any person's suffering, regardless of their sex, race, or whatever. whether your a man or a woman, getting hit hurts the same. statistics on reported crimes are already filtered, and it sure is difficult to get a handle on this matter.
i suppose, as a victim of violence myself, i am just asking with this point that we don't buy into the tough guy myth and we recognize how often men are hurt and killed. people can often assume it's not as big of a deal because most men can theoretically defend themselves better than most women, and therefore violence against women is more important to address. also, sexual abuse and domestic violence are often private crimes, and that makes awareness of them all the more important.
"but the very nature that we are thinking beings means we can and do rise above our animals sides, or actively embrace them, or manipulate them as we choose, because of our thinking"
true, language and cognition introduces an ability to be go against instinct, but that doesn't mean that it's easy, or that there's no cost. the more you press against your animal nature, the more neurotic you may become, though reflection itself is also part of our nature of course. and also, i question whether your implying a kind of existential freedom here, that is unbounded by determinism, just because it's thought. thought happens in brains that are materal and subject to determinism, albeit not only in the form of genetics or hormones or whatever. we are subject to memetic and cognitive determinist vectors as well. -
-
Re: Sexualization of girls
Wed, March 14, 2007 - 12:48 PMi suppose, as a victim of violence myself, i am just asking with this point that we don't buy into the tough guy myth and we recognize how often men are hurt and killed.
--
yeah, that's very fair. besides, most men who are violent, are violent cause violence was done upon them when they were innocent -
-
Re: Sexualization of girls
Sat, March 17, 2007 - 12:41 PMMovie: Tough Guise
Similar to the concept of the movies Killing Us Softly -
-
Re: Sexualization of girls
Mon, March 19, 2007 - 9:46 AMWhat do you think of "killing us softly", cause while I fully admit she has a point, i think she is an extremist, finding the one in 20 ad that is sexually subtally violent towards women.
Look at your average Cosmo, or ESPN, or Car and Driver. yes, the images are still dehumanizing (of both sexes), and yes, we glamorize things by associating EVERYTHING with sex, but i find that Jene's work is not ballanced.
just my opinion, what is yours? -
-
Re: Sexualization of girls
Wed, March 21, 2007 - 8:44 PMi agree about kilbourne's films, but at the same time sometimes the unbalanced lens helps us see things differently.
this line of thought reminds me of griffin's "pornography and silence," where she uses the most horrendous possible forms of porn imaginable as examples, shit i have never seen in my travails amongst sexy materials, and i doubt any of you have either. in the case of griffin, i think it affects her argument meaningfully, though it doesn't negate it of course. you'll find people who argue for porn's illegality or as inherently violent against women often seek the most hideous examples.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Sexualization of girls
Tue, February 27, 2007 - 7:36 AMWhile i'm sure it's worse now, we studied this effect in 1989, in my undergraduate feminist classes.
I hope it gets noticed, but i fear it's more "chicken little" from concerned groups who don't have the power to impact any real changes.
and i hope i'm wrong in that assessment.
-
Re: Sexualization of girls
Mon, March 12, 2007 - 11:58 PMas everyone has said, it's not just a matter of sexualization, but of neglecting the representation of women as sexual subjects. to forget this is to join proudly the crusade of the shameful and wounded.
-
Re: Sexualization of girls
Tue, March 20, 2007 - 6:07 PMi agree with how if gyrls are worrying about looking good they may not do as well as in math and such... I remember back in my pre teens and highschool I thaught about it alot and simply because i couldnt get away from it. It was everwhere from an add at my bus stop, tv, to the magazines my boyfriend read .... on and on. When womyn and gyrls think about their looks all the time because they are bombarded with it theyw ont have alot of time to think about other things, like being liberated, and not to mention men in general make ALOT of money off of this..... i could rant for hours -
-
Re: Sexualization of girls
Wed, March 21, 2007 - 8:46 PMright on katheryn. and on the other side of that fence, i'm learning to have fun with fashion! wanna meet in the middle? ; )
-
