Outraged moms, trashy daughters

How did those steeped in the women’s lib movement produce girls who think being a sex object is powerful?

by Anne Kingston on Tuesday, August 10, 2010 9:00am - 0 Comments

Bennett Raglin/ Getty Images/ Cole Garside

A few weeks ago, when she was chatting with her teenage daughter, Olivia, Leanne Foster mentioned the word “feminist.” “She just wrinkled her nose,” Foster recalls. “It was ‘Eww, yuck.’ ” Olivia, an articulate 15-year-old who’s about to enter Grade 10 at a Toronto private girls’ school, thinks feminists are about as relevant to her life as a rotary-dial phone. “When I hear the word I think of the hippie-ish generation where they’re all ‘girl-power,’ ” she says. And not in a sexy Spice Girls “girl power” way, more in a humourless, style-less way: “They refuse to wear perfume because they don’t want to be seen as sex objects,” she says dismissively.

Like many other teenage girls, Olivia regards the fight for female equality as over. “In the Western world, we’re pretty equal,” she says.

She has every reason to think so. Going to university is a given. So is having a career—perhaps in business or maybe medicine. She’s surrounded by smart, independent women, including her mother, who holds a Ph.D. in education and is the director of LINCWell, a student enrichment support centre at St. Clement’s girls’ school in Toronto.

Yet Leanne Foster, whose position puts her in the daily orbit of the age-old divide between teenage girls and their mothers, is not as sanguine as her daughter about female equality. She sees a unique generation gap emerging: on one side, mothers who came of age during the women’s movement of the 1970s fighting for equal opportunities, “empowerment” through financial independence and rejecting female “objectification”; on the other, their daughters, raised in a hyper-sexualized culture replete with Bratz dolls, porn-inspired American Apparel ads, and the message telegraphed by Kim Kardashian and her tabloid-cover cohorts that a leaked sex tape is the quickest route to female success.

For these girls, Snoop Dogg’s misogynist Bitches Ain’t S–t is not an affront but a ring tone, and “slut” and “bitch” are not put-downs but affectionate greetings between female friends. Snooki, the 22-year-old star of the reality show Jersey Shore, whose ambitions consist of getting drunk, vomiting on camera, and spending days in a tanning salon, is the star of the hour. “I love Snooki,” says one 20-year-old. Olivia agrees. “It’s so ridiculous, it’s funny,” she says of the show. “I don’t relate that to my life at all. I wonder, ‘Why would you do that?’ But it’s enjoyable to watch.”

Meanwhile, their mothers, who walked in Take Back the Night marches to raise awareness of violence against women, are horrified, particularly by the sight of Snooki getting punched in the face by a man—footage used by MTV to promote the show.

Some of them see a clock ticking backward. “It’s worse than the 1950s,” says the mother of a 24-year-old, referring to the ubiquity of Photoshop and cosmetic surgery creating beauty standards more unattainable than ever.

Kimberly McLeod, a Toronto social worker who counsels mothers and daughters and has two girls, one 11, the other 14, is dismayed by the constant bombardment of sexualized media images directed at girls. “I don’t meet many girls who feel good about themselves, even though they’re totally gorgeous,” she says.

But the generation that grew up reading Our Bodies, Ourselves is most apoplectic over what they see as the unrelenting pressure on girls to be sexual, and not on their own terms. “I’m so deeply pained to see where women are today and how girls—and I mean girls—are being groomed to believe their purpose in life is to be sexual beings that please men,” says Nancy Vonk, the co-chief creative officer of Ogilvy & Mather in Toronto and the mother of a 16-year-old daughter. Vonk recalls wearing satin hot pants when she was 15. “But it was a different time,” she says. “Back then there was at least equal premium put on intellect and what was in your head. It was the opposite of ‘Go out and please men.’ ”

Bookmark and Share
  • http://macleinn23.wordpress.com/ Shane
  • KMD25

    THANK YOU, MacLeans! This article was an excellent catalyst for productive conversation between the generations. Whenever there is conflict and misunderstanding, it is so meaningful for both parties to have their respective points of view represented by a third party piece such as this. Knowing that others feel the same way we do normalizes our own feelings and relieves some of the stress of our struggles to understand and communicate. In my family, it was a heartwarming moment when my 24-year old daughter brought home this issue, which she had spotted while in the grocery store line. It exactly echoed a series of discussions we'd had over the last several months. After a hug and a laugh, we were able to put the issue in perspective and agree that the world would be boring, indeed, if each new generation was not significantly different than the last. p.s. I have to admit that her generation growing up in the 90's and 2000's is much smarter about MANY things than we ever were in the 70's. We didn't protect ourselves and look out for each other the way this generation does!

  • Wendy

    con't
    So for those women who say feminism hasn't helped them, well, you have to realize that feminism exists within a larger captialist structure, a structure that keeps wanting women to pump out those babies so that there are future workers for tomorrow. If you think marriage would help you. Think of gain. Research shows the family wage has been steadily declinig. Chances are, you'd still have to go out to work to make ends meet and guess what? You'll be doing most of the housework and baby-care which again, are supported by the statistics.

  • http://www.youtube.com/LibertyTruthJustice LibertyTruthJustice

    Very sad, this is decadence. Corruption. However, the most interesting element in this article in the focus it gives on mainstream culture. This was ALL produced from "above". Both these generations were products, marketing products. Not the other way around. And it's been the same with the men as well. It's…sick. How people don't realize the degree of manipulation that goes on, and has been going on throughout their entire lives. When you see a single, consistent pattern of behavior being promoted all over every media, literally raising an entire generation, know then you are in a completely brainwashed society.

  • Out and About

    A shattered society, indeed. Well, I've adapted. Wonder if Pozner has?

  • bergkamp

    "Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history. Most managers are now women too. And for every two men who get a college degree this year, three women will do the same. For years, women’s progress has been cast as a struggle for equality. But what if equality isn’t the end point? What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women? A report on the unprecedented role reversal now under way— and its vast cultural consequences … "

    I just finished reading Hanna Rosin article in The Atlantic about the end of men in America. Is there any reason to believe same trends are not occurring here?

    I think this article is just another in long list of articles where women whinge about how the world does not revolve around them. I also bet a lot of the women had parenting techniques that have led to behaviour they are now bemoaning.

  • Sean

    I found the following statement by Kate Lloyd of interest: "They [teenage girls] see being able to hold that type of sexual behaviour over the boys as power; I see it as giving their power away.”

    Without taking away from some valid concerns she may have. I can't help but be struck by the incredibly sexist underpinnings of that attitude. The idea that women's sexuality is a resource, and one that loses value by sharing, seems like a rather reductionist concept of female worth. A girl/woman's sexuality, from that perspective, is a source of power. But it's only valid if she doesn't share it. Sounds awfully 1950's to me.

    And the whole idea of 'giving power away' sounds like a polite manner of describing some girls as sluts. We seem to view sex as a transaction that is neutral for the male, but fraught with risks for the female. Following Lloyd's logic, the primary risk for girls is the degradation of their social status (I assume that's what she's getting at by talking about "power"). I can't find a way to consider that view as anything more but a continuation of the very logic the article's moms claimed to have railed against for much of their lives.

    Looking at the article more generally, I'm wondering where the boys are in all of this. Placing the entire burden of sexuality on the shoulders of our daughters isn't simply an unfair perpetuation of prior generations' gender dynamics, it precludes any real chances for change. Sex and sexuality are a two gender game (for the most part!), and we should probably be problematizing our sons no less than our daughters. (Assuming one thinks there's a crisis – I don't see it as grimly as the moms in the article, but that's another discussion!)

  • Gaunilon

    "What really irks her is how a Girls Gone Wild sensibility has been sold to women as “empowerment,” that old feminist mantra. But in this version, men are the dupes, “nothing more than helpless, ogling, crotch-driven slaves” of “scantily clad or bare-breasted women [who] had chosen to be sex objects.”"

    So the men look upon women as worthless sex-toys to be tricked into sex, and the women look upon men as foolish dupes to be enslaved by their sex-drive. Terrific.

    Just exactly how far do we have to fall before we begin to recognize that sex without love (and by "love" I mean "free choice to join a lifelong and exclusive team relationship with the other person" not some kind of emotional fervor) is depraved?

  • jordy2010

    I remember when i was ikn my 20s the main msg from the feminists was
    that women were placed on this planet to have fun and to masturbate…period!!! now these feminist old hags are surprised that todays young girls call each other slut and bitch…….

  • Wendy

    Hmmm..I've been reading a lot of these threads and I think there seems to be an oversimplification of many of the issues that gave rise to feminism both in the 60s and in its present form. Firstly, despite second wave feminist desire for women to be the equal of men, they have never been and are still not the equal of men. Historically, women and minorities won entrance into the workplace not because people were more "enlightened" but because they could be paid at a fraction of the cost of a male worker. This is the logic of the market. There is always a downward pressure on wages to create the underclass.

  • terre

    And can someone enlighten me as to how men are "the more powerful" sex? Can someone give me even a single instance in which this is unequivocally the case? (Men make up the vast majority of war dead, prison inmates, homeless persons, etc.)

  • Gaunilon

    "We seem to view sex as a transaction that is neutral for the male, but fraught with risks for the female."

    It is – or at least the risk isn't equally shared. The female is the one who risks ending up with a child to raise.

  • TheRealKuri

    In many ways, the nature of the sexuality does still seem to be about "giving away". The BJ references (exaggerated though they may be) concern me, because if this is done to the exclusion of other acts, it's very one-sided. I, too, am skeptical that the problem is as widespread or deep as the article describes, but it's concerning if young women aren't truly taking pleasure in their sexuality and using it as a transaction towards social status. I don't see making chastity a virtue as a good thing, but if the majority of young women are having sex but not having orgasms, you can hardly call that empowering.

  • Mike T.

    Parents not liking the way kids act and socons pontificating about it?

    How very novel and unique! Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

  • badcrow

    You ignore the fact that a females' sexuality is a source of power and has ALWAYS been recognized as such by women, and used as much as possible in every setting. It is the female who cultivates this natural power over sex and death. They are the reproducers, after all, and this IS a valuable commodity. Genetically speaking, the control over the continuance of bloodlines is perhaps the most valuable commodity on earth. Since the dawn of mankind, women have known this power and wielded it skillfully and unmercifully.

  • MB101

    THANK YOU SEAN!

  • Dickie

    You are correct that the tired old notion that sex is something that a female gives and male gets is regressive, but I think you miss the point.

    Trying to emulate Snooki, Paris Hilton or the lessons of ubiquitous porn, which is not touched on in this article, and wherein girls learn that licking a toilet seat and calling themselves "dirty whores" IS female sexuality, is a dangerous abdication of autonomy and control over one's own body, especially for a young person who is still discovering who they are in the world.

    Expressing your own sexuality with a friend and partner in a respectful environment is one thing. Posting home-porn shots on your web page and banging six guys at a keg party is another. Our culture is currently promoting the latter and marginalizing the former.

  • Gaunilon

    I agree that the author has selectively chosen her statistics to present the image of workforce discrimination, and that is disappointing. However I think she has a very good point in terms of the sexualization of young women, such that they are encouraged to view their worth in terms of their sexiness and male-attracting potential. That is a genuine problem, and it is the same or possibly even worse than the similar problem in the 50's. Wouldn't you agree?

  • jethro

    i agree. women — stupider, meaner, emptier — are better suited to postmodernity than are men.

  • PSS

    The sort of tragic twist here is that feminists generally sought parity between genders and the abolition of the culturally embedded notion that a man could use a woman, most any woman, for sexual gratification (or another end) and what has happened is that in obtaining the first goal, we've entangled ourselves in the second obstacle. Now a man and a woman are equally free to use eachother as a means to an end (or at least, we are told they ought to be – though not in those terms). I am not clever enough to suss out whether or not a woman who frequently engages in casual sex is "liberated and powerful" or playing into a man's game. Frankly, I'm not sure what the difference really is.

    Indeed, this sort of egalitarian promiscuity is frequently touted by both men and women in college-level feminist courses. It's frequently bandied about that porn is liberating; that a woman in such a movie is expressing her sexuality. Or, at the very least, that a woman ought to be allowed to be in pornography (academia is terrified of sounding like a prude or religious person when discussing sexuality). My point being that the idea that this is a product of pop culture alone is deeply mistaken, it's also very much embedded in academia.

  • ibivi

    Yes, probably by spoiling them and letting them behave however they wished. Many young adults are totally selfish because mommy wasn't into discipline and setting rules. They were given anything they wanted like cellphones and generous allowances. They also didn't set rules about appropriate dress and running around looking like junior hookers was OK because that's how they're idols dressed. Well, mommy was dressing young too. The irony is that those mommies are having to send their children to charm school to learn manners and how to behave in public. It was too oppressive for them to require that the girls learned how to be polite and kind to others. I read articles on women's blogs and there is alot of complaining going on about their darlings not calling.

  • MissT

    I know my 15 year old daughter was beaten and sexually assaulted by five women-hating boys. When I was 15, I was raped by a dirty 37 year old man.

    Women have it great in this country when we are being lynched.

  • Mugwa

    Haha…ha.

    You femininsts/progressives have approached an omega point of irony. You want to be the man and have the man's job? Go ahead you spinster fools! I am doing fine without the rat race and all of its male-killing stress. You want it, you can have it. Don't whine though when we men don't want to give up our permanent hiatus sitting out this recession with quality time with our kids and rediscovering the meaning of God and life. I for one think its just deserts to a movement steeped in leftism and Godlessness, and you deserve all of the vacuousness you can muster!!!

    Maybe we will be like Russia – can't find a good man anywhere except in a vodka bottle. Total decline. What you will trade for power you will reap in health problems and lack of satisfaction…

  • rob20

    today, there are more women in medical school than men.

    i think a lot of this talk by the feminists is a way for them to feel relevant today. you can only complain and ask for so much; after you get it, then what? face it, women can do whatever they want. they can even work at HP and ruin the career of an amazing CEO with unfounded claims of sexual harassment.

  • saskboy

    Does that stat in the States list the average wage of women compared to men? It almost certainly paints a different picture than the one you presented.

  • Sean

    I was speaking more to the identified perils of diminished social worth, status, or 'power' (as Lloyd puts it). Lloyd had even referenced oral sex in the same paragraph, which carries (to her) the same risks (minus the pregnancy).

    Pregnancy is obviously a pragmatic 'risk' of sex that society disproportionately lays upon the mother. But a great deal of societal pressure on women has to do with the same old 'good girls don't put out' mentality. So long as two teens having sex results in broken/damaged girl and an unaltered boy (both in the social sense), I think the focus on outward style and media portrayals is likely misplaced.

  • Someone

    I agree with Gaunilon.

    In addition, though, Sean, you seem to consider "degredation of social status" very lightly. Whether a teen girl is invited to a party in 11th grade or not is one thing. Whether the societal consequences affect her psychologically enough to be reflected throughout the rest of her life is another.

  • Gaunilon

    I see. In that case I agree. The one-sided social stigma makes no sense, is harmful, and is not based on reality.

  • Sean

    I don't take it lightly. But I think the mothers bemoaning feminism's death ought to think carefully about the values they help to perpetuate. It's a purely cultural construction to disproportionately make chastity a virtue for teenage girls.

  • Blacktop

    When I was going to high school in the 40s the most popular girl in the class fell "in love"with the most popular boy. Both wer 17. The parents, very religious, insisted that they marry. The boy gave up a university degree once he had served in the army. He retailed newspapers. The girl had a premature birth and the child died after 6 months. Both grew to hate each other. Another classmate (a girl) thought it smart to run with some of the nearby servicemen. She was infected and put into a dertention camp for VD.

    That was enought to deter too much casual sex.

  • RobAnthony

    The line you referenced from the article struck me as well. I'm not fond of viewing sex in terms of a power struggle. I was reading a Montaigne essay a little while ago (On some Lines of Vergil), where he was pondering over issues of sex, marriage, love. One of the points he made was how women teach girls to be chaste, although women have just as much of a sex drive as men, the effect being to give it a more special value. If she's put such a high premium on having sex, a man must put in a special effort to earn it. This was the late 16th century, seems like we're dealing with the same issue in a different age.

    I DO agree with pop culture being largely degraded. I watched a lot of TV as a kid, and grew to have no use for it. I found more interesting culture in books and music. Perhaps kids could be shown there's more interesting things than the latest TV show out there?

  • RagingRanter

    It's a purely cultural construction to disproportionately make chastity a virtue for teenage girls.

    Most adherents of evolutionary psychology would argue that while this might well be a cultural construction, it is a response to evolutionary drivers, which are much different in men and women. It's been observed, for example, that in environments where women outnumber men (as is the case on every university campus in North America nowadays) their behaviour becomes more overtly sexual. This is an evolutionary response to heightened competition for mates.

  • Reason

    It should be a virtue for both. In a society that pushes as virtues those things that are best for the individual or society, doesn't a lifestyle of decreased risk both psysiologically and psychologically (and spiritually for those of us who embrace that), which keeps from society the burdens of illegitimate children and STD's seem like a logical thing to promote? And yet what we promote is "if-it-feels-good-go-it" with regard to sex and then react with bewildernment at the consequences. The hypocrissy of the past was this elevation of sexually experienced males- it should never have been seen as a plus for either gender. Now we treat it like a plus for both genders when we treat virgins as punch-lines and make virginity seem like an unwanted condition.

  • hosertohoosier

    Women were objectified in a different way in the 50's – back then they were viewed as walking wombs, as opposed to walking pairs of breasts. A woman's worth was computed based on her qualities as a mother (of which attractiveness was only one feature). While both stereotypes are problematic, I don't think it is hard to imagine which would be a better and more lasting source of self-worth for me.

  • bergkamp

    "However I think she has a very good point in terms of the sexualization of young women …. "

    I think sexualization of young girls is outrageous and makes my blood boil. I have niece under 10, I sometimes take her shopping, and I am shocked/disgusted by some of the clothes on offer. I also know those clothes would not be produced if people – mainly moms – weren't buying them.

    However, it becomes different question when it comes to teens and older. I was at family affair this weekend and my mom and two aunts were telling stories about the all girl catholic high school they attended and their stories on their fight to wear makeup, shorter skirts than appropriate …. . I read Kingston's article, thought about my mom and two aunts, and thought plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

    What these professional mothers are bewailing is biology/mother nature. Young women around the world tend to experiment with their beauty/looks/sex in ways moms and dads don't appreciate.

  • Sean

    Interesting comparison!

  • ColdStanding

    Yeh, right, you read Montainge for the essays. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

  • ann

    That requires good parenting.

  • Sean

    You might have a problem establishing causation, using university campuses for evidence. How can you know it's the ratio of men to women for certain? Couldn't factors such as age/generation play a role too?

    There's probably something to the evolutionary angle, but such theories tend to sound more scientific than they really are (i.e., they tend to substitute biology for culture, when the explanations are ultimately a particular rationalization of cultural patterns too – and often don't sufficiently account for cross-cultural variation). All of that said, it's undeniable that sexuality is a biological drive, and thus at least partly bounded by our evolutionary heritage.

    (I'm not really looking to get into a big debate on evolutionary psychology. To be clear, I agree that culture cannot explain all of human behaviour divorced from our biological make-ups.)

  • Gaunilon

    I'm not sure I get your point here. You're saying that being objectified as a womb is better than being objectified as a pair of breasts in terms of a better and more lasting source of self-worth? Neither one strikes me as particularly compatible with lasting self-worth.

    Also, I don't think women in the 50's were objectified much differently than today – there were a lot of men sleeping around, paying for their mistresses/girlfriends to get abortions, or getting girls pregnant and then just leaving. It wasn't about "walking wombs", it was about sex – the children that often resulted, as today, were viewed as a nuisance.

  • Sean

    I hesitate to use a singular example, but a friend of mine has a teenage son. The son has been at parties where girls were performing oral sex on the boys (not all girls and all boys, and not the son!). His take, for whatever its worth, was that the girls were the 'aggressors' in such circumstances, all but belittling any boy who didn't want to as chicken.

    Now, that's one boy's perception and recollection, so I'd minimally want to know if such dynamics are typical. If they are, it could suggest that the male sex drive has the potential to be subverted into a weakness, and that such public sexual (but non-intercourse) events might be interpreted as empowering for women. But I'm just putting the idea out , not championing it or anything.

    There's also the pragmatic differences in male and female physiology to consider. Without being crude, it's generally much easier to 'pleasure' a teenage boy than a teenage girl. I'd go so far as to suggest many teenage boys would botch any such attempt. I'm not trying to get graphic here, but am pondering if a straight exchange of orgasms might be difficult in such circumstances.

    Finally, I wonder if we consider oral sex a bigger deal than it really is, partly because we call it 'oral sex'. Is it really that different than what used to be euphemistically called 'heavy petting?'

    All of that said, I strongly agree with your underlying point that we tend to be dismissive of the female sex drive – particularly for the young. And that they're being relatively robbed (compared to boys) of the chance to simply enjoy their sexuality in its many possible manifestations.

  • hosertohoosier

    A woman's ability to be a good mother was more valued in the 1950's. This includes qualities like submissiveness and domestic skills that are less emphasized today. Moreover, lacking porn, people's assessments of appearance were grounded much more in reality. Even in terms of physical dimensions, the ideal woman was no twig (eg. Bettie Paige).

    Contrary to Mad Men, there was probably less sleeping around then than now – even though most people were married and divorce was uncommon. The key statistic to look at would be the number of illegitimate births. Absent birth control or legal abortions, sleeping around is likely to produce children. The rate back then was far lower than today, even though today we have both effective birth control and legal abortions. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.pdf (see page 1)

  • hosertohoosier

    "What these professional mothers are bewailing is biology/mother nature. Young women around the world tend to experiment with their beauty/looks/sex in ways moms and dads don't appreciate."

    I think it is a bit more complex than that. Women like the attention of men (just as men like the reverse), and that is natural and timeless. What has changed over time are the instruments by which we get there. Makeup, dresses, etc. Those instruments do not make women better off as a whole. If you imagine a world with no perfume, women are not worse off, because men would still pay lots of attention to smelly women. However, in a world with these things all women are expected to make efforts to look pretty, using what tools are available.

    In other social settings this is not necessarily the case. For instance, the fashion industry was once primarily male-oriented (think of the foppish dandies of the 18th century). Women are engaged in an appearance arms race with one another. Each is trying to outdo every other girl, perhaps with a shorter skirt or better makeup. They would all benefit if limits could be set on that arms race. The problem is that the usual regulators for young girls – parents – have grown increasingly weak-willed.

  • hosertohoosier

    1. I don't buy the idea that this is empowering for women. Oral sex is an inherently unequal act, compared to regular sex. One party gets an orgasm, whereas the other gets the shaft literally. Belittling men who did not participate didn't gain the girls any meaningful power, either. Power is the ability to make others do something they would not otherwise do. In this case the girls may have managed to coerce a few boys into accepting blow-jobs before they are ready. It is not clear that this is all that useful – especially since most boys eventually come to like blowjobs anyway.

    2. Oral sex is a bigger deal than heavy petting. It requires the removal of clothing, and is a possible means for transmitting STD's.

    3. Denial is by far the stronger weapon of sexuality among young women. Both young men and women are certainly hormonally charged, but men have a distinct hormonal peak around 17-18. So this is precisely the age at which denial is most likely to succeed, regardless of the assumptions you make about the female sexual drive. However, denial ceases to be effective if most young women are promiscuous. In that case, men can easily find what they want elsewhere.

    The analogy I would draw is to a cartel. With a cartel, different sellers of a product get together and limit supply in order to raise the price. If young women or men did this with sex (ie. if they were chaste), they could substantially improve their bargaining position in relationships. I can't see how the reverse is true – if something is given out in a large supply relative to demand, it will tend to command a low price.

  • Gaunilon

    All excellent points, and I completely agree that the increasing prevalence of birth control and abortion is correlated with higher, not lower, rates of out-of-wedlock births (the stats being quite indisputable on that point) together with even less self-discipline than before.

    That said, there was quite a lot (and I realize this is a relative term, but anyway) of sexual irresponsibility in that era. The 60's, after all, did not emerge from a vacuum – they were a reaction to the hypocrisy of the 50's.

  • dave

    The key statistic to look at would be the number of illegitimate births.

    One problem with using this data though is that 50's society, and earlier, had cooked up multiple ways of working around "no abortions" and the social stigma attached to unwed pregnancy that fundamentally screws with the data; from shipping the girl off to a cousin/aunt/etc in the country who'd midwife and raise the kid as their own, to the "Maternity Home" of Butterbox Babies, or simply "disposing" of the baby after birth at the extreme.

    Furthermore, condoms go back 400 years but also gained more widespread acceptance during and after WWII because an entire generation of young men were provided them in the service for… relaxation abroad…

  • JoeC

    I'm not sure that "depraved" is always, or even often the right word. Maybe "a bad idea" would work a bit more generally.

    That said, I've seen the messes that friends have gotten into engaging in "casual sex". Never turns out to be as casual as they thought.

  • bergkamp

    We are quite prudish in western world compared to anytime in history up to 150-200 years ago. We are slowly breaking away from Victorian sensibilities and reverting to our true, primal selves with all this focus on libertine behaviour and how it is ok to do what feels good.

    The instruments are also timeless – Cleopatra bewitched Caesar wearing perfume and makeup.

  • Sean

    You make some good points, though I think we all need to be cautious with intermixing the perceptions of social 'actors' with the observations of social observers. Freakonomics aside, not all human behaviour can be assessed via rational economic frameworks.

    I'd also note that power relationships cannot always be observed in one interaction. Forgoing an orgasm might realize benefits of a different sort, at a different time.

    All of that said, I'm not about to go to the wall in defending what are admittedly more questions and musings on my part than assertions.

  • Jane

    This article does nothing but bring up the relentless tropes that every generation is worse than the previous, today's little girls are corrupted, and the media hates women. There is nothing original to be done with this concept; it does always generate comments, though, because everyone has an anecdote or maybe a rebuttal.

    It's fillery journalism like this that used to be relegated to the Back Pages, which have grown larger as the magazine has been redesigned, filled with "human interest", and generally become another one of Those Magazines, the ones by the cash register.

  • reen

    I thought I'd comment, since I am a woman and actually feel some of the societal pressures that are mentioned in the article. Perhaps I can explain the whole "power" thing and, in particular, how a girl giving oral sex to a boy can feel empowered.

    I think the most important factor here is emphasis on looks and sexiness. A girl doesn't have to actually receive an orgasm from a boy to get something out of a sexual interaction. If she gets the boy erect, and especially if she can get him to orgasm, that is like an acknowledgment from him that he is turned on by her, that she is sexy and attractive. It is even better for the girl if she keeps her clothes on during the act, because she didn't reveal anything of herself, yet she put the boy in a "vulnerable" position, forced him into a degree of intimacy that acknowledges her good looks. Since good looks are so important to social status among girls, using them to turn men on helps your social position. May be not all girls/women feel this way, but I guarantee that this sentiment exists among many.

  • jkg

    There's probably something to the evolutionary angle, but such theories tend to sound more scientific than they really are

    Evolutionary psychology tends to fall into the trap of "just so" stories, some of which are rather convincing. As an example, a popular neuroscientist by the name of Dr. Ramachandran was teasing some of his evolutionary psychologist friends, and to really get their goat, he, as a joke, wrote a paper giving the evolutionary psychological basis as to why Why gentleman prefer blondes . It managed to get some support and it was published.

    I agree that culture cannot explain all of human behaviour divorced from our biological make-ups.)

    One of the greater puzzles today in biology is, in fact, dealing with the famed "genotype environment interaction." Before, research approached such questions viewing both components as if though they solely add up or minimized one while inflating the other. Injecting biological questions into human behaviour tend to be far more conservative because of the problem of interaction effects.

  • Blacktop

    Sean, you sound like you are spouting a lot of learned crap. There is such a thing as common sense, observation, and for all we know actual experience in the matter This one area because of its multidimensional characteristics is where one does not need to look up in a manual to find a statistical inference. Looking from the viewpoint of another day – call it 1940 0r 50, the feminist movement has encouraged people to think of sex mainly as pleeasant pastime rather than a reinforcing element in marriage – probably designed in evolution to keep couples together long enough to raise the child, since, unlike many animals, it is not ready to go when it drops. The whole meaning of sex has been twisted out of shape by The Pill, feminism, living together with no committment . At a biological level, man is designed to look for sex and take it if necessary, always looking for the most nubile woman available. Women are designed to have and rear babies and keep a man around to protect her and her baby and go out and kill an elk or something. At its basic level that is so, but civilization has put various patinas , probably first to keep the tribal lines pure., secure good mates and so on. The current gloss is to use it as a power play, I guess.

    Beside that purpose what we have is pure sluttery with the boys taking advantage wherever possible.

  • Gig

    "slowly breaking away from Victorian sensibilities and reverting to our true, primal selves"

    BWAHAHAHAHA!

    Everything old is new again — in no time, we will be wearing bones through our noses, being dragged by our hair.

  • sharon normal

    Keep Elle Woods out of it! Legally Blonde has a great message for girls. Elle's character arc began with her heart crushing breakup, and she chased what she thought had value (ex boyfriend) by imitating what he valued (getting into law school). Not only did she study hard, work hard, achieve, gain perspective on her doofy "I got bangs" sorority sisters, but she realized that by using her intellectual talents she could empower other women (the downtrodden manicurist), stay true to her own instincts, and succeed. Along the way she realized that the adolescent prince charming fantasy that inspired her was a mirage. She grew past her man, grew into her talents, and got noticed by someone else, a man who she never chased but who chased her, who loved her integrity, independence, and charm. I love to watch this movie with my daughter.

  • Mwalimu Daudi

    "“If you did not know anything about American culture or American life other than what you saw on reality TV, it would be extremely easy to believe that the women’s rights movement never happened, that the civil rights movement never happened, that the gay rights movement never happened,” says Jennifer Pozner, the director of Women In Media & News in New York City, whose book Reality Bites Back: The Troubling Truth About Guilty Pleasure TV, is to be published in November.

    I wonder who Jennifer Pozner thinks she is kidding. Reality TV is soaked in gay/lesbian sexuality almost to the point of being X-rated. It is nearly impossible to find anti-black racism in reality TV, and there are numerous mixed-race individuals. And the hyper-sexualization of women was exactly what some critics of feminism point ot would happen.

    The truth is that Pozner and others like her helped to create this mess, and are now suffering a severe case of buyer's remorse.Sorry, Jennifer, but the old rule still applies: your break it, you buy it. And you just purchased a shattered society.

  • Dave

    Precisely. Double-Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • guest

    The Feminist's vision of "JUST-US" conbined with it's man haters downed the movement in hypocracy and darkness. Today's girls operate on a higher moral plain than there misanderist mothers but that not saying much,

  • normalphil

    I think some of this may be due to our society downplaying the idea that making human beings is serious work. Sexuality is fun like nothing else, but at seventh and last it's not just a toy.

  • Viva_Vivian

    "All excellent points, and I completely agree that the increasing prevalence of birth control and abortion is correlated with higher, not lower, rates of out-of-wedlock births "

    I don't understand what you mean by this. I find it difficult to believe abortion and birth control facilitate conception of "illegitimate" children, but I also don't understand the prevalence of "baby mamas" in society either. I'm not sure what the answer is here.

  • juli

    I was born out-of-wedlock, as was one of my friends and 4 of my little cousins yet our parents are all still living together and, besides the non-married aspects, we're all part of happy, unified families. We may all be illegitimate children, technically, but non of our births were the results of our parents sleeping around. Or even of our parents accidentally conceiving; we were all planned and wanted children.
    The point I'm trying to make of this is that an increase in out-of-wedlock births could be a shift in ideals (i.e. marriage is not necessary to have a family) rather then an increase in people sleeping around.

  • Blacktop

    Gaunion, what hypocrisy ? People were tired out from a bad, bad depression and blooded out by a terrible war. What they wanted was stability and the physical benefits of peace, and a chance to marry and raise a family. As a product of that age I can testify that most were afraid to indulge in pre-marital sex because of the real threat of disease (there were special camps for the diseased under the provincial health act) and afraid that an unwanted pregnancy meant sacrificing your own dreams of an education. Do you know that druggists, the only stores to carry condoms wouild not sell to teenagers? Then we were confronted by the possibility of another war. We were there in Korea and then an agonizing cold war when who knows? At least we escaped the insanity of the Viet Nam nonsense. Most ordinary people had SFA to start. I "waslucky and did OK and at the same time I was paying for a small house, a car, furniture, stove, fridge, washing machine (there were no driers then) . Then our generation's children grew up sneering that we were "materialistic" so we could give them a home better than the crowded little place we had, and an education,, which many of us had only by good luck The so-called "baby boom"is also part of the problem A bunch of spoiled, self centered brats because we wanted them to have the things we didn't have.

    What these girls missed that this thread is about is the guidance of solid parents who did not "make out", "zone out", take off or otherwise fail in their role and trying to be friends with their kids when teaching self-discipline and giving guidance was their role. All I can say is, "Poor kids, misled about life by their own parents.

  • Blacktop

    Are you guys real? What do you know aboujt the '50s except somethning you read in a text book? You talk about 50's hypocrisy – I have countered elsewhere but I just can't believe you guys are real!! Did you ever stop to think that it was a much more moral country then and it is now a very immoral country? In fact very few people think about morality at all now. And incidentally, one could only get a legal abortion later in the game. It was not only a question of the law but a matter of a particular hospital's policy.

    The 60's emerged from an imagined view of the 50s and these spoiled kids view of themselves as neglected and its style was because of the imagined rejection ocf parents who loved them notwithstanding that many of them were high, zonked out, screwed out, or beggars, particularly in the States, which behaviour was largely copied in Canada. Nobody has mentioned the copying of American mores by Canadian kids watching US TV.

    We raised a generation (or two) of vipers.

  • Von

    These so called feminists are a little silly. What do you think would happen to your daughters after preaching about sexual freedom and letting the feminist movement get in bed with Hugh Hefner? Sounds like unintended consequences bit back in a big way.

    Feminism is gross to most of us "daughters" today, because of what its become. The only proud feminists I know of who are under 30 (which I am) are all lesbians. (As an aside, tell me why a lesbian cares so much about reproductive freedom?) The women who lived their life fighting the fight all appear dowdy, angry, shill and alone. No one really wants that in their heart of hearts.

  • hosertohoosier

    I've never seen legally blonde, but I think you may have a point. Often people judge how much of a "good feminist message" is in something on relatively superficial grounds. The fact that the main character in Legally Blonde is a ditz shouldn't matter. Transcending gender (certain behaviors are also proscribed for men) should be about choices, including the choice to be a ditz. I think the more pernicious role models are "strong independent women" portrayed as being depressed and unfulfilled without a man.

  • Marion

    I second that! It's a very nice movie.

  • Marion

    While it does not make sense, it does, unfortunately exist. And I will add that you don't get an "unaltered" boy. In the eyes of his peers, you get an "improved" boy.

    It is a strange state of affairs.

  • Marion

    Interestingly enough, the feminists over 30 that I know are all happily married and have kids.

  • Joe Blow

    Once again, those crazy hypersexualizing Americans are destroying the sistahood, the flower of Canadian womanhood, the Palinesque, cleavage showing Mamma Grizzlies of the wild Canadian frontier. And desperately manning the barricades are the bustier ripping, mega female of woman's liberation. The battle is won, American culture has penetrated every aspect of Canadian life. So get over it! (p.s. any puns are unintentional)

  • DenisPakkala

    I'm hoping that Macleans doesn't just become another feminist bullhorn spouting cherry picked statistics and issues with the glass ceiling, while completely ignoring the glass basement that men are stuck in.

    IMO, feminists have destroyed expectations of traditional relationships and men are unwilling to commit because of inequality in relationships and the destructive bias of family law. Now, women have to compete even more for men and that means sex and sexuality.

  • Steyn Fan

    There is sooo much blame to go around:

    Feminazis for the breakdown of the family
    Deadbeat dads for the breakdown of the family
    Rap culture for promoting the coarse sexualization of women
    Liberals for funding the illegitimate / babymomma lifestyle
    School systems for their how-to approach to sex ed
    The rest of decent society for allowing it all to happen

  • carol hellman

    So because her mother has a PhD in education she's smart? I wonder how many people know

    1. There are more PhDs awarded in education than any other field
    2. More than 85% of all of the PhDs in education worldwide are awarded at U.S. universities.

    The education PhD is the easiest PhD to get. Look it up.

  • MissT

    Err….when we "aren't" being lynched, that is.

  • gitarfan

    So a bunch of overbearing hyper-partisan parents are mad their children aren't behaving the way the parent wants. Welcome to parenthood.

  • Gaunilon

    That is a very interesting contribution. Thanks!

  • Kate

    I agree with you, but with a heavy heart. What a twisted way to earn assurance of ones "sexiness".

  • kate

    I don't buy this…the information I have is that a lot of the girls engaging in this behavior are the unattractive ones who are desperate for male attention…the boys don't care about looks, but about the pleasure. She is just a tool for orgasm and nothing more.

  • TeeTime

    If this "sentiment exists amongst many" these women/girls are massively misinformed.
    A man can orgasm with a women he despises, he can orgasm with an ugly woman while he closes his eyes and fantasizes of a Playboy model or whatever turns him on – it rarely is the woman he is with!
    He is using her mouth as an instrument for his pleasure.
    If she is receiving any kind of empowering feeling because of this…?! How incredibly misguided, deluded, and ultimately sad.

  • Kate

    Wait a minute… where are the Daddies in all of this? You fail to acknowledge the incredibly important role of fathers in the upbringing of their daughters.
    I agree with you mostly; but it's terribly unfair to exclude fathers from this resonsibility.

  • Kate

    Are you serious?

  • badcrow

    If you deny this historical truth, you are intellectually incapable of pursuing this dialogue.

  • marlene

    I completely agree with the "Where are all the Daddies in all of this?". I have yet to hear about the father's role in the raising of a daughter and the importance he plays in demonstrating a healthy male role model. Today it's much easier to find these male role models on TV or the internet instead of at home.

  • marlene

    It's sad that your perspective of feminism is completely extreme and stereotypical of the themes men have projected in attempts to discredit the feminist movement. Here's a little education…Feminism is not about women "want[ing] to be the man" or whining. It's about empowering women, reducing opression, and allowing women to have choices in society. It's about breaking social sterotypes that you very clearly hold and project.

  • Stella

    I think it's the media giving messages to young men and women about sex that portrays one group as sluts and the others as dupes. Kids are smarter than that, but it's important that positive adults around them (both men and women) encourage them to think criticially about what they see on tv versus real life.

  • Blacktop

    JoeC. No, depraved is pretyy good.

  • kyle

    this is sad, what do these girls think they are proving by acting like s*anks

  • Blacktop

    Not everything has to be backed up by Statistics Canada, learned one.

  • Blacktop

    I think Kate has something. Jewish people only recognize the female line; Once it was the same in Scotland.
    As my instructor in genealogy said, "Only the mother really knows who the father is."

  • Kate E

    To say that women "since the dawn of mankind…have known this (sexual) power and weilded it skillfully and unmercifully" is obtuse to the extreem. And to insist that history has shown women to be the sexual aggressors, and have used their powers "as much as possible in every setting" is absolutey rediculous.

  • http://mach1231.tripod.com Max

    Self esteem issues should always be considered irrespective of gender. When a teen suffers from this, it could be an imbalance in the parenting work load. No wonder the focus time and time again is girls and women. And again, women complaining. Oh and as usual worried and fretting……self-absorbed, self – consumed…self self self

  • ruckus

    democracy and capitalism opened the doors for the individual hundreds of years ago and technology (practical application of science) has ripped the doors off the hinges. but rather than view the tools of technology (including the media, birth control, money, social networking) as complementary goods to human potential ie. hammer and nail, most people view them as substitute goods ie. nail and screw. with that individual empowerment comes a responsibility that few of us are good at managing. and there doesnt seem to be much teaching of it going on. technology, media, money…theyre all tools that are useful if used responsibly. they can either reinforce self image or they can tear it down. might be best to teach that to your kids. then the rest of the small stuff will disappear.

  • theintellectual

    BRING ON THE BLAME!!!! WOOOOO!!!!

  • Phil King

    To me the entire article appears to be one big exercise in defending the confirmation bias of a generation that doesn't know the war in won.

    We have equality.

    What people do with that is their business.

    Every generation thinks the latest generation is headed for ruin, and honestly it's getting a bit cliche.

    "…The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers…" ~ Attributed to Socrates by Plato.

  • Robert

    As they say, "the battle of the sexes will never be won, there is too much fraternizing with the enemy " and it will continue on in this way through parent to child until we stop trying to encase our children in the beliefs of what they should be and allow them to be the best of the human animal we all are.
    Allowing ourself the permission, if you will, to raise the level of being human but not at the expense of driving to extinction the animal in us all. Those smiles that weaves a web to catch you, those casual caresses up against your leg to comfort you, that beast of us all, that in a breathless moment, will jump across the great divide of any mindless adventure to defend and protect our mindful journey together.

  • Yasmeen Ghebari

    This article was highly interesting to me because of my involvement in it. Being 18 years old I am bombarded with both sides of this controversy every single day, but I am smart enough to not let it effect me as it does with some of these girls you speak about. Teenage girls are highly impressionable and obviously are following the trend, whether that trend be approved of or not. But the difference for me is that these girls LET themselves follow that trend, and their parents do the same.

  • Yasmeen Ghebari

    Another quote that caught my eye was when Olivia could not come up with a female role model who wasn't famous primarily for her looks or style, stating that it was "next to impossible." That is a clear vision of what this girl spends her time doing, obviously reading magazines and watching tv. Had she done some reading I feel that an answer might have followed along the lines of Margaret Atwood or JK Rowling. Those would be my answers, anyway.

  • Read it again

    Men completely missing the point. ZZZZZ

  • WEndy

    Con't
    I agree. Feminist gains are minimal. But this is not necessarily because of some underlying agenda; rather, it is an agenda that has been coopted by larger patriarchal forces in society which try to dismantle its more radical elements even as it accomodates the less threatening ones. (e.g. now you can wear whatever you want to work and can take your bikini off and go topless and this is touted as feminist "empowement." These actions are tolerated because they do not challenge the existing power structure in any way. So again, as seductive as it is, we must get away from blaming women for their own problems and look at the bigger picture ie. How might a male controlled media might have something to do with the way that feminism has been portrayed? To what extent to you think these powerful men who make billions on the backs of women (including pornography and the sex trade) really want to show pictures of emanipated young women?

From Macleans