Is Feminism Still Relevant?

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by jeevey

Maybe I missed the intended message of the phrase, "boys streaming in to pile on her." Should I assume that unless dad keeps the gate the daughter will welcome the streaming pile? Cause I find that one disturbing too.

rewording:

I think Aeon was just contrasting protecting his daughter from the horny hordes with letting the horny hordes into his house to try and spread their raunch. It was meant to be absurd. I don't think he meant, consciously or subconsciously, anything sexist by it. Maybe we afford him the benefit of the doubt?

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I can see the point that a father might be instinctually more protective of a girl because women share a disproportionate burden of the negative consequences of heterosexual sex -- pregnancy, std's -- as well as being the potential victims of sexual violence.

Interesting point. More interesting when you consider the ones most likely to be raising consciousness about sexual violence against women are the same ones to feign outrage at the idea of a father wanting to protect his daughter

^not a jab at anyone. Just a thought

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Interesting point. More interesting when you consider the ones most likely to be raising consciousness about sexual violence against women are the same ones to feign outrage at the idea of a father wanting to protect his daughter

Well, as I continued ...

However, I think that's much different than viewing her body as a temple to be kept pure, and sex as something dirty and defiling, as well as something that men "get" from women. That attitude always bothered me, and I remain stunned at the sexual double standards I remember accepting as a teenager as I mostly watched from the sidelines.

I really wasn't a part of this as a teenager. I certainly wasn't out, but hooking up and trying to "get" somewhere with a girl wasn't high on my list of priorities. So, in a way, I really don't know what teenage boys are like. Is there consideration for the girl and what she wants and what her feelings are? Reciprocity? Is it about bragging rights? A feeling of accomplishment? Actual gratification? What is it that goes through a boy's mind (that you assume isn't going through a girl's mind) that we are afraid of?

[jeevey]

It's not outrage at the idea of wanting a kid to take reasonable actions to stay safe. But that had very little to do with the territorial marking that often goes on with girls bodies in the purity movement. If you haven't checked it out very much than you should- it's both fascinating and creepy. It's rather blatantly incestuous as well stereotyping for both boys and girls.


And I'm sure that Aeon didn't consciously intend to imply the things he did- I just think that his language reveals a lot about his imagination and his assumptions that he probably didn't even realize was there. What I'm asking him to do is examine his language and wonder what his assumptions are, exactly. It appears that his knee jerk reaction is to consider that there are two options for teenage female sexuality- either a dad keeping the gate or streams of boys pile on the girl whether she will or no.

[Irvine511]

The virgin/whore dichotomy lives on, and is hideous.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by jeevey

It's not outrage at the idea of wanting a kid to take reasonable actions to stay safe. But that had very little to do with the territorial marking that often goes on with girls bodies in the purity movement. If you haven't checked it out very much than you should- it's both fascinating and creepy. It's rather blatantly incestuous as well stereotyping for both boys and girls.

Trust me, the "purity movement" sounds like something I want no part of. Maybe I'll look into it for morbid curiosity's sake

And I'm sure that Aeon didn't consciously intend to imply the things he did- I just think that his language reveals a lot about his imagination and his assumptions that he probably didn't even realize was there. What I'm asking him to do is examine his language and wonder what his assumptions are, exactly. It appears that his knee jerk reaction is to consider that there are two options for teenage female sexuality- either a dad keeping the gate or streams of boys pile on the girl whether she will or no.

Well, I mean we could psychoanalyze him, but it think it's within the realm of reason to think he might have just been using absurdity for absurdity's sake. Like, if I bring a cat home and my non-existent roommate says "oh, why don't you just bring home all the neighbourhood's strays?".... I think if the social stigma wasn't there, I might actually bring home all the strays however.
But anyway, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

[jeevey]

Oh, I think your morbid curiosity will enjoy it. From there you might wander into biblical patriarchy and the quiverful movement and your morbid curiosity just might start writing pulp fiction, cause it's fucking bizarre.

@ Irvine- yes. Exactly.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by jeevey

And I'm sure that Aeon didn't consciously intend to imply the things he did- I just think that his language reveals a lot about his imagination...

Oh goodness...

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

but it think it's within the realm of reason to think he might have just been using absurdity for absurdity's sake.

Exactly - I do that quite often in here (perhaps jeevey does not know me well enough because of my absence) to demonstrate the point, by taking it a bit to the extreme logical conclusion.

I'm quite sure if I could get my wife and daughter into the forum, they would both post that they are quite happy knowing a grown male is looking after them. Both my wife and daughter (and son) constantly comment how when I'm home (and not doing Army/Business stuff) - they feel safer. Is that so odd?

My sense of duty also comes from the very basic fact that women - especially teenage women - are vulnerable to predators because they are less likely to protect themselves from a stronger male. That's a simple fact. (I also don't let my young son near the Catholic priests).

This really seems like a non-issue. Good luck in expecting fathers (and mothers) to not want to protect their children as best they can, for as long as they can. Yes, eventually they will become adults and develop their own relationships and establish their own boundaries. But what's the frickin' rush...?

[Irvine511]

I think the broader point is that, as much as we need to protect our children, we also need to teach people not to be predators in the first place. And that this "protection" works on the sexist assumption which isn't so much that our daughters will be defiled if they have sex but that our sons will seduce and destroy them if we don't lock her up and hold him back. The focus is on her, when it should be just as much on him.

I understand what you are saying, and that the issue is personal safety which is a bigger issue for women. But the broader point, and the one that the author is making, is that when we assume our daughters need to be "protected" by you from sex, you're not just warping your daughter's view of herself and her body and the fact that sex is pleasurable and normal and natural, but you're also harming the boys as well (and thereby doing further harm to the daughters).

[Irvine511]

And AEON, just curious, what did you think about the article in posted about Dutch parents and "sleepovers"?

Also, why just protect your son from priests? Lots of girls were abused as well. Indeed, the vast majority of sexual abuse victims are females at the hands of an older male relative. Uncles are much more of a threat than priests, in aggregate.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

And AEON, just curious, what did you think about the article in posted about Dutch parents and "sleepovers"?

My instincts cry ludicrous, but I'm willing to look at more research. I just don't think teens have much more than hormones driving decisions. Remember - Romeo and Juliet is a Tragedy, not a Romance.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Also, why just protect your son from priests? Lots of girls were abused as well. Indeed, the vast majority of sexual abuse victims are females at the hands of an older male relative. Uncles are much more of a threat than priests, in aggregate.

The truth is, I have rarely allowed any adult to be alone with our children - son or daughter. I was just making the point that I also feel protective of my son (as I did with my younger siblings and cousins).

And as my son matures, I do plan on teaching him to honor women. That they do no exist for his own satisfaction.

[jeevey]

To be clear about my point about imagination:

The thing is that most sexism, racism, homophobia and so on operates below the conscious level. There are relatively few times that someone decides, "I will now make a sexist comment in order to delegitimize, alienate or silence this person." The majority of biases reveal themselves through offhanded comments and humor which the speaker thinks of as normal. That's true of all of our presuppositions, not just ugly biases. The trick of anyone who wants to overcome his or her own biases is to examine that offhanded stuff and wonder what it means and why he is saying it. We have to deconstruct ourselves, not just the culture.

So, Aeon, when you naturally assume that the alternative to a father protecting his daughter from sex as described in the purity article is many boys "streaming" into the house to "pile" on her, I ask you to examine that. Why many boys? why piling? What does this reveal about what you think about boys, about girls, and about what girls want and decide, and if they can be trusted to want and decide healthy things?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by jeevey

So, Aeon, when you naturally assume

It is not a natural assumption. It is designed to make you (and anyone else reading) understand how ridiculous it is that a father should not care about a teenage daughter's sexual activity. The "streaming" comment is meant to illustrate a logical worst case scenario - and to question whether or not you are okay with it - that she is free to simply enjoy sex, no matter how many men or how many times.

If I'm sexist because of these things, so be it. My wife and daughter would certainly want to change a million things about me - except my desire to protect them as much as possible. Furthermore - if I held the "hey - just let the kids do what they do" attitude toward my daughter, my wife would probably leave me and find a man that would be more protective.

If that's sexism - then maybe the world needs more of it.
[/QUOTE]

[AEON]

Originally Posted by jeevey

So, Aeon, when you naturally assume

It is not a natural assumption. It is designed to make you (and anyone else reading) understand how ridiculous it is that a father should not care about a teenage daughter's sexual activity. The "streaming" comment is meant to illustrate a logical worst case scenario - and to question whether or not you are okay with it - that she is free to simply enjoy sex, no matter how many men or how many times.

If I'm sexist because of these things, so be it. My wife and daughter would certainly want to change a million things about me - except my desire to protect them as much as possible. Furthermore - if I held the "hey - just let the kids do what they do" attitude toward my daughter, my wife would probably leave me and find a man that would be more protective.

If that's sexism - then maybe the world needs more of it.

[Pearl]

Here's my take on this discussion since I'm late to it:

I like how the father in Irvine's article admits his daughter's body is not his to control or "protect". It is creepy that girls' virginity is prized in some parts of this country, and it is the father's duty to make sure she is pure on her wedding night. Her body is not his, she is not his property or territory. There is something incestuous about that mindset.

As for AEON, I don't think he's lost in fantasy world that some seem to imply. I think he is a little misguided when it comes to the reality of sex. It is asking too much to expect men and women to remain virgins until their wedding night - especially when people are marrying later or not marrying at all for various reasons.

I also think it is asking too much for someone to refrain from sex until they graduate from college, and not because of hormones. Sex is a natural way of being human and a natural thing to do in a relationship. To put any kind of shame on wanting to explore sexuality is stunting a person's growth and sense of self, and that is not healthy at all.

Furthermore, I don't understand why some people see sexual activity in black and white. Its like, either you are an aimless, promiscuous person or a responsible adult who is about to get married. There are plenty of ambitious, self-respecting people who have satisfying sex lives outside of a serious relationship. It is unfair to look down at them if they don't fulfill any sort of criteria for someone to have a healthy attitude toward sex.

Yes, teens and adults can be irresponsible when it comes to sex. But trying to shame and control sexuality is far from the answer. I really think we should face and accept the reality about sexuality (ie, some people enjoy casual hook-ups and are not suicidal) before we get all preachy on each other.

Finally, when I become a mother, I will not be upset if my son or daughter wants to explore sex. I will focus on instilling good self-esteem in them early on so they would make wise choices once the teenage years hit. But I won't be freaking out about the possibility of a revolving door of sex partners when they are 16. That happens as a result of lousy parenting, not foolish teenage minds. If that occurs, then I failed as a parent.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by AEON

My instincts cry ludicrous, but I'm willing to look at more research. I just don't think teens have much more than hormones driving decisions. Remember - Romeo and Juliet is a Tragedy, not a Romance.

But teens do not function on hormones alone. They do have immature minds where a certain part of their brain that allows good decision making, does not fully develop until they are 25. So mix that with their first brush with love (or rather, infatuation at this point), then you can handle teens more. I'd give kids at this age more credit and not let a certain percentage stereotype all of them.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Pearl

Finally, when I become a mother, I will not be upset if my son or daughter wants to explore sex.

Please check back to this comment when that day comes...

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

The "streaming" comment is meant to illustrate a logical worst case scenario - and to question whether or not you are okay with it - that she is free to simply enjoy sex, no matter how many men or how many times.

well, she is free to enjoy sex, isn't she? with or without your permission, she is ultimately going to make her own choices.

and do you not trust her to choose when, where, with whom, and how many times? why would you assume that her default would be to have sex with many anonymous partners? i don't think it would be. in fact, i think that most teenagers would want to be in a real relationship, and relationships with accountability should be encouraged.

while i don't think it's yet feasible for American culture, what i love about the Dutch attitude is that it creates a context for what you (and i) think is the "best" place for sex -- within a monogamous relationship. that sex belongs in a relationship with one person, and when sex is acknowledged and regulated (via birth control, monogamy, health care) then the negative consequences can be drastically reduced if not entirely eradicated.

i'm sure this is very difficult for parents to wrap our heads around, but i prefer the Dutch model and their, you know, rates of teen pregnancy 4x lower than ours (shouldn't the anti-choice folks be proud of this?).

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by AEON

Please check back to this comment when that day comes...

Oh please. Do you really think I should handle that stage by flipping out and shaming my kids for even thinking about sex? I will teach them it is perfectly natural to be interested in sex, and not wrong, dirty or sinful. Honestly, AEON, I think your worries over this could backfire on you, and you may get a rebellious kid doing the opposite of what you want them to do.