i think in some instances female celebrities can be empowered by ther sexuality. i think Beyonce or Madonna, as good examples; they're the strong women who are in controlccc123 said:
How is it possibly empowering to be made an object of sexuality...? These celebrities have thrived on this kind of image (though Beyonce does seem rather tame to me. Try Christina Aguilera) are valued not because of any modicum of intelligence they may have, but because people want to have sex with them. And I don't find anything empowering about that.xdemi101 said:
it comes from a greek verb that means 'to study' doesn't it?Zephyrio said:
I don't buy a lot of that stuff - it smacks of overanalysis (and this is coming from a phil major). I've heard claims like yours made about language and education with arguments to the tune that university life itself is chauvanistic. What example was given?ccc123 said:
Probably partly for stylistic reasons. Some expressions and figures of speech don't flow as naturally if you use 'they' and it can also make things sound too impersonal. Some books I come across try to alternate between he and she - at first it threw me off a bit but now I don't really notice it.scarybunny said:
Whaa?bassistx said:I don't know if you're being serious or not lol but thanks feminist boy for making my point clear
esquared said:
okay point taken.Zephyrio said:
I think xdemi101 was thinking more along the lines I was, in that there is a percpetion that gratuitous female sexuality is breaking free from the archetypal pure, virginal and submissive female, and thereby could be considered 'empowering.' Sure, as Schroedinger rightly said, this perspective is grounded in a misunderstanding of empowerment, but it nevertheless exists.Zephyrio said:
Oh my God. Not another Sarah. You completely missed the point.yunsss said:
+1Zephyrio said:
lol yay I couldn't tell if you were sarcastic or not, but it definitely made my point clear so thanks againesquared said:
CHAUVINISTyouBROKEmyLIFE said:
But it's their choice in the end. It's not up to you or anyone to impose anything on them. Their choice and if it is misguided then it's their mistake. I agree with you on some points but typing in caps with your tone isn't going to make you many friends. This is should be a discussion but it sounds more like crazy rant from your end.bassistx said:
Well I agree that many will choose to pick different roles to men, but I also think it's true that there will be real pressures in society to keep people from being perhaps who they want to be (i.e. it's legal to be gay, but surely you can understand there's pressure that might keep someone from wanting to come out / admit to themselves that they are gay). In my experience quite a few girls I've known, imo and occasionally theirs, want to be much more sexually promiscuous than they are, however the fear of retribution from their peers/men and just this general notion that it's wrong (something maybe worth arguing about) leaves them deciding it's not worth it.zimmerman8k said:
Well probably a little bit... but at least I'm honest about it.bassistx said:
ccc123 said:
I don't think bassistx was trying to dictate how a woman should dress/act etc. I think the point she is making is that invariably, women are inherently different to men, due to both biological differences (obviously) but also social constructs that constitute what makes a 'woman'. Bassistx is not saying that exhibiting archetypally masculine characteristics/behaviours is 'wrong' per se, but is questioning whether by embracing some of the things that distinguish us from males (e.g wearing heals, make-up etc) we are really denigrating ourselves.yunsss said:
You're so dumb. What you're saying here is exactly what you're trying to argue against. You're saying women have the right to wear heels, shave and wear make up regardless of social constructs yet you're arguing against women who reject the social expectations of women by dressing the opposite. EITHER WAY, it's the choice of the woman and she is exercising her right to choice.bassistx said:
