Regression

RealEstateKing

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/fashion/story/0,,2284888,00.html

What do you ladies think of this?

Has there been a regression in feminism over the past 10 years?

I sometimes find it wierd, being an old codger, that things that I remember as being considered 'sexist' in the old days (the 80's) are now often considered empowering or neutral:

I remember when there was uproar over Robert Palmer's video for 'Addicted to Love' cause it 'objectified' women, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0U5JfGYx4c but nobody ever says the same about "The Pussycat Dolls."


The existence of the term WAG as if it were something to aspire to:

The regression of something like Sex and The City: life, ultimately is about wearing fantastic shoes and bagging a rich man who'll look after you.

Poledancing classes.

Doesnt it sometimes seem as if some marketing genius has taken all the things women rebelled against in the 1960's and sold it back to them as 'empowerment'?

And with all this, you now have the 'right' to have a spirit-crushing job just like men, (which is sold to you as 'empowering' even though 90% of jobs are anything but). Furthermore, in the old days, you might have wanted the right to work: Now you have to , or you couldnt afford a house.

As well as this you're still the one looking after the kids for the most part, but you're expected to stay thin and pretty for far longer than in the old days.

Anybody else see something going on here?

GirlInterrupted

RealEstateKing wrote: »

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/fashion/story/0,,2284888,00.html

What do you ladies think of this?

Has there been a regression in feminism over the past 10 years?

I sometimes find it wierd, being an old codger, that things that I remember as being considered 'sexist' in the old days (the 80's) are now often considered empowering or neutral:

I remember when there was uproar over Robert Palmer's video for 'Addicted to Love' cause it 'objectified' women, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0U5JfGYx4c but nobody ever says the same about "The Pussycat Dolls."


The existence of the term WAG as if it were something to aspire to:

The regression of something like Sex and The City: life, ultimately is about wearing fantastic shoes and bagging a rich man who'll look after you.

Poledancing classes.

Doesnt it sometimes seem as if some marketing genius has taken all the things women rebelled against in the 1960's and sold it back to them as 'empowerment'?

And with all this, you now have the 'right' to have a spirit-crushing job just like men, (which is sold to you as 'empowering' even though 90% of jobs are anything but). Furthermore, in the old days, you might have wanted the right to work: Now you have to , or you couldnt afford a house.

As well as this you're still the one looking after the kids for the most part, but you're expected to stay thin and pretty for far longer than in the old days.

Anybody else see something going on here?

You're right -

Having it all = doing it all

bennyblanco

but wait,I thought men were meant to be the shallow ones?
waita minute..........................:pac:

pookie82

Yes but the problem is not just that these ideals are being wrapped up in empowerment and "fed" to women - it's that women are buying them. On the Sex and the City note - check out any thread on here over the last month about the up and coming film and you'll see young women frothing at the bit to get to go see Carrie and Co. faff about over shoes and men and shoes and shoes and men and..... shoes. Everyone's obsessed with what they were wearing at the premiere and how many times they've seen it already and how many times they CRIED..... blah blah blah.

Women bitch constantly about the pressure that magazines and celebrity puts on them, yet they read said magazines and pay hard earned cash for them every week. we bemoan their (the mag's) attitude to women and appearance yet we lap it up. All the pressures are put on women by women, engineered by some cunning litte person in an office somewhere who decided we were silly enough to buy into it all and make him/her millions.

It's a sad state of affairs, but until we boycott things like heat magazine and sex and the city premieres en masse, we can't afford to have issues with the way things stand at the moment. I've heard a lot of girls bitch about how sh*t they feel when reading a certain mag and the following week it's in their handbag again.

GirlInterrupted

pookie82 wrote: »

Yes but the problem is not just that these ideals are being wrapped up in empowerment and "fed" to women - it's that women are buying them. On the Sex and the City note - check out any thread on here over the last month about the up and coming film and you'll see young women frothing at the bit to get to go see Carrie and Co. faff about over shoes and men and shoes and shoes and men and..... shoes. Everyone's obsessed with what they were wearing at the premiere and how many times they've seen it already and how many times they CRIED..... blah blah blah.

Women bitch constantly about the pressure that magazines and celebrity puts on them, yet they read said magazines and pay hard earned cash for them every week. we bemoan their (the mag's) attitude to women and appearance yet we lap it up. All the pressures are put on women by women, engineered by some cunning litte person in an office somewhere who decided we were silly enough to buy into it all and make him/her millions.

It's a sad state of affairs, but until we boycott things like heat magazine and sex and the city premieres en masse, we can't afford to have issues with the way things stand at the moment. I've heard a lot of girls bitch about how sh*t they feel when reading a certain mag and the following week it's in their handbag again.

Sure tis post modern ironic......

b3t4

RealEstateKing wrote: »

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/fashion/story/0,,2284888,00.html
The regression of something like Sex and The City: life, ultimately is about wearing fantastic shoes and bagging a rich man who'll look after you.

In relation to this point I'd like to point out the following in relation to SATC
1. The character Miranda is a partner in a law firm.
2. The character Samanta has enough disposable income to be able to concider paying 50k for a ring in the film. She owns her own business.
3. The character Carrie, in the film, sold her own apartment so as to help support the buying of an apartment with her partner.
4. The fantastic shoes you are talking about are bought by the characters themselves and not their partners.

I really cannot see how you can correlate the above with 'bagging a rich man who'll look after you'. Was 'Steve' bagging a rich woman when he got with 'Miranda'?

Charlotte's character is the only character that you could say what you're saying about and she is only one element to the the entire SATC series/Movie.

A.

Reku

b3t4 wrote: »

4. The fantastic shoes you are talking about are bought by the characters themselves and not their partners.

Not a good thing when you consider the amount of Irish women getting into debt due to their spending on such shoes and clothing trying to emulate the fashion trendiness of these shows. I seriously doubt that the pressure to have designer labels comes from men (other than those designers and marketing folk that are males), as in general if a lad can tell just by looking that a woman's whatever is designer then odds are he's going to be competition for a male suitor, not a potential one. The amount of times I'd see that "skinted Vs. minted" bit in the Sunday times and just be baffled as to why anyone would even bother pay the extortionate price of the "minted" version.

Blowing crazy amounts of money on a single pair of shoes or a single designer item/outfit to me just smacks of being a female equivalent of gansters'/chavs' bling-bling, buying overpriced junk just to show off how wealthy you are. It's far more regular to read of lads being put off by a woman earning more than he does (sad and pathetic really, isn't it?:() than encouraged by it, as such this competition seems to be entirely down to women putting pressure upon themselves and other women.

b3t4

farohar wrote: »

Not a good thing when you consider the amount of Irish women getting into debt due to their spending on such shoes and clothing trying to emulate the fashion trendiness of these shows.

Anyone who gets themselves into debt trying to emulate anything is just plain stupid, simple as.

Blowing crazy amounts of money on a single pair of shoes or a single designer item/outfit to me just smacks of being a female equivalent of gansters'/chavs' bling-bling, buying overpriced junk just to show off how wealthy you are.

It may be a crazy amount for you to spend on a pair of shoes but I'm afraid everyone ain't you. To add my point of view, I've tried on some of these uber expensive shoes and in my opinion they are anything but junk.

From what I can tell, an expensive pair of shoes are simple an overpriced pair of shoe's to a person who does not love shoes.

Similarly, an expensive plasma tv is an overpriced tv for someone who does not place a huge influence on the size or type of tv they have.

e.t.c ad nauseam

I say live and let live.

A.

Reku

b3t4 wrote: »

It may be a crazy amount for you to spend on a pair of shoes but I'm afraid everyone ain't you. To add my point of view, I've tried on some of these uber expensive shoes and in my opinion they are anything but junk.

From what I can tell, an expensive pair of shoes are simple an overpriced pair of shoe's to a person who does not love shoes.

Similarly, an expensive plasma tv is an overpriced tv for someone who does not place a huge influence on the size or type of tv they have.

e.t.c ad nauseam

I say live and let live.

A.

I presume then that you equally forfeit the right to hold a view on the boy racers as regards their silly spending on modified exausts, tail fins, paint jobs, engines, external lighting strips, etc...?*

I'd view anyone who spends far beyond what they need to to satisfy their genuine requirements as just trying to "flash the cash". All these things depreciate so it is a rather short sighted plan if you do it solely to keep up with the Joneses, spending a lot on home improvements and land property at least I can understand since such things do not tend to depreciate as much as consumer goods do.

I could spend €1000+ on a TV, or get the same enjoyment from one for about €250, afterall the more expensive TV won't make a awful programme or film suddenly good. I could spend €100+ on a good suit that fits right and looks dignified and clean, or I could spend €1000+ on a similar suit that has a designer label, do I really gain anything extra with the latter other than a brand name? Will it improve my appearance further simply by vertue of the label? Improve my chances of getting a job/promotion? Will it be worth so little once it's out of fashion and I'm too afraid to be seen as being out of fashion that I'd not wear it that only a charity shop would take it (charity shops are being flooded with such clothing in the UK, and probably here too)?

I could spend €60 and get a pair of runners that fit right, have good grip, good arch support and let my feet breathe, or I could spend €200+ to get the fanciest nike runners there are, the point would be what though? Regardless of which I get the soles will be worn down within a few months so from simple economics the cheaper pair is the wiser choice. While I can quite understand the need to spend a bit to get shoes that are comfortable, worrying over their fashionability and as a result buying designer labels one can only assume you have neck trauma or are a podophile to spend so much time concerned with peoples' footwear. I can even understand the need to accessorise and have them match different outfits but once the shoes are comfortable does it matter if they are €50 clarks or €500 Manolo Blahniks, if it does then you'd best wear a helmet to protect you from all the things you're going to walk into while staring at peoples' feet.



*Chosen simply since it is an comparitive male version that is seems to often generate ire from a large number of the female population.

**All prices in the above post are randomly chosen numbers, I do not off the top of my head know the prices of these things nor do I wish to spend the time looking them up, so please do not try make points about my inaccuracy in this regard.

RealEstateKing

In relation to this point I'd like to point out the following in relation to SATC
1. The character Miranda is a partner in a law firm.
2. The character Samanta has enough disposable income to be able to concider paying 50k for a ring in the film. She owns her own business.
3. The character Carrie, in the film, sold her own apartment so as to help support the buying of an apartment with her partner.
4. The fantastic shoes you are talking about are bought by the characters themselves and not their partners.

I really cannot see how you can correlate the above with 'bagging a rich man who'll look after you'. Was 'Steve' bagging a rich woman when he got with 'Miranda'?

Charlotte's character is the only character that you could say what you're saying about and she is only one element to the the entire SATC series/Movie.

A.

That's the point Im making though: That 'liberation' has been resold to women as 'the right to have a fancy job'.

In the past, for example, feminism used to rail against 'the beauty industry' and 'the objectification of women', and other such old-fashioned sounding terms. Now the embracing of extreme materialism, extreme shallowness has rendered such talk archaic.

Secondly it's the unrealistic portrayal that makes me wonder: All of the characters on SATC have jobs that 99% of people could never aspire to, and yet it's sold to us as "Oh sure we're all like this now".

What about the 90% of women that have jobs that are nowhere near as glamourous as this and never will? What about the 30 or 40% of women who aren't physically attractive enough to lead the sort of sex life that the characters in it do?

And ultimately , Carrie does end up with Mr. Big in the end, does she not? The wealthy alpha male. It's not really a million miles away from Jane Austen.

Peared

People spend money on things they like and don't need, sometimes lots of money.

So what?

Maybe it doesn't mean anything, maybe they just like shiny stuff from a luxury brand?

'flashing the cash'? What, are we in the 80s?

Loopy

pookie82 wrote: »

Yes but the problem is not just that these ideals are being wrapped up in empowerment and "fed" to women - it's that women are buying them. On the Sex and the City note - check out any thread on here over the last month about the up and coming film and you'll see young women frothing at the bit to get to go see Carrie and Co. faff about over shoes and men and shoes and shoes and men and..... shoes. Everyone's obsessed with what they were wearing at the premiere and how many times they've seen it already and how many times they CRIED..... blah blah blah.

Women bitch constantly about the pressure that magazines and celebrity puts on them, yet they read said magazines and pay hard earned cash for them every week. we bemoan their (the mag's) attitude to women and appearance yet we lap it up. All the pressures are put on women by women, engineered by some cunning litte person in an office somewhere who decided we were silly enough to buy into it all and make him/her millions.

It's a sad state of affairs, but until we boycott things like heat magazine and sex and the city premieres en masse, we can't afford to have issues with the way things stand at the moment. I've heard a lot of girls bitch about how sh*t they feel when reading a certain mag and the following week it's in their handbag again.

Well said. Are we aspiring to look like Jade, Posh & Jordan? - they all constantly feature in every magazine:rolleyes:

Its about moderation really in this modern world. What blows me away is the amount of people in debt now in order to keep up the Jones's. Horsehit.

pookie82

b3t4 wrote: »

In relation to this point I'd like to point out the following in relation to SATC
1. The character Miranda is a partner in a law firm.
2. The character Samanta has enough disposable income to be able to concider paying 50k for a ring in the film. She owns her own business.
3. The character Carrie, in the film, sold her own apartment so as to help support the buying of an apartment with her partner.
4. The fantastic shoes you are talking about are bought by the characters themselves and not their partners.

I really cannot see how you can correlate the above with 'bagging a rich man who'll look after you'. Was 'Steve' bagging a rich woman when he got with 'Miranda'?

Charlotte's character is the only character that you could say what you're saying about and she is only one element to the the entire SATC series/Movie.

A.

My point was not that they have to bag a rich man, I never mentioned that. But look at these supposedly educated, self sufficient, successful women - how do they fill their time??? With shoes and man talk and shoes and dresses and sex. I never said they couldn't support themselves. But this sisters doing it for themselves crap like "I can afford my own car/ring/shoes" therefore I'm successful and a kick ass modern woman doesn't really carry through when their spare time is spent discussing blow jobs and fashion. In fact it makes me just want to take their monay back off them.