Feminists, Please Explain to me this.

[Tuskenjaar]

Note: I am not trolling, I am just asking a question

I have read that in the victorian era, women were required to have their skirts cover more of their bodies as they got older to prevent sexual immorality. but the feminists community calls this sexist because it impacts the free wills of women. in modern day culture, women are depicted in the media as showing more and more skin, as in the case of the MTV spring breaks. Feminists call this sexist because it over sexualizes women, the exact opposite of the victorian case. wouldn't stopping this be limiting women's free will to show skin, what you were campaigning for in the victorian age? I asked a feminist neighbor of mine this, and she couldn't explain. so, women not having free will to do what they want is sexist, but women having free will to do what they want is also sexist. ??? Please explain this to me, any feminists on the forums, because it seems really hypocritical to me.

[Dumb Ideologies]

In both cases it's about societal pressure for women to present themselves in a rather extreme way whereas men get given a (comparatively) free hand.

[Katganistan]

You cannot see that being FORCED to wear long skirts or be called a whore in the 19th century might have been a tad sexist? It put all the fault for sex on the woman -- a man seeing her ankles would be inflamed with lust and couldn't be blamed for what happened next.

You cannot see that being depicted only as showing as much skin as possible in the 20th and 21st centuries might be objectifying women? That it becomes more important than her ideas, her causes, her intelligence?



Is it difficult also to understand the change from winter to spring, day to night, and year to year? Raw to cooked?

[Ngelmish]

It's the male gaze and a question of coercion. If we live in a society that inherently sexualizes women and attributes value to them on that basis, then it's a little hard to throw around phrases like 'free will' when it comes to these kinds of choices. Mind you, a significant number of third wave feminists would certainly argue that that's not a meaningful distinction.

[Ovisterra]

In both cases it's about societal pressure for women to present themselves in a rather extreme way whereas men get given a (comparatively) free hand.

^this

Basically, the Feminists would like if women weren't encouraged to dress in any particular way, and so could do what they liked without coming under pressure.

[Tuskenjaar]

In both cases it's about societal pressure for women to present themselves in a rather extreme way whereas men get given a (comparatively) free hand.

So you are saying that in the case of the victorian era, women were pressured to not be sexualized in public, but in the modern days, it is about how women are pressured for the exact opposite. ok

[Ryadn]

The media--largely run by men--telling women what is acceptable dress and what will make them moral/desirable/proper is sexist. Women choosing for themselves what they want to wear--whether it's floor-length skirts, string bikinis or jeans and t-shirts--is the exercise of free will.

It's really not difficult to understand. Telling all women they have to be homemakers is sexist. What if I want to be a scientist? Telling all women they have to be scientists is sexist. What if I want to be a baker? Choosing your own profession is an exercise of free will.

[Tuskenjaar]

In both cases it's about societal pressure for women to present themselves in a rather extreme way whereas men get given a (comparatively) free hand.

^this

Basically, the Feminists would like if women weren't encouraged to dress in any particular way, and so could do what they liked without coming under pressure.

So its more of a pressure thing, not a free will thing.

[Ceannairceach]

In the Victorian era, it was forced upon women, but the same rules weren't, as I recall, forced upon men. Hence, it was sexist. The modern day problem, the showing of skin, is a entirely different problem; It makes women out to be items to a point of viewing them only as sex objects, as shown in television and movie productions such as Girls Gone Wild, which is what feminists are against. I'm sure very few feminists have a problem with women wearing what they want when they want, but most would have a problem with forced clothing restrictions and the viewing of women as sex toys.

[Ryadn]

In the Victorian era, it was forced upon women, but the same rules weren't, as I recall, forced upon men. Hence, it was sexist. The modern day problem, the showing of skin, is a entirely different problem; It makes women out to be items to a point of viewing them only as sex objects, as shown in television and movie productions such as Girls Gone Wild, which is what feminists are against. I'm sure very few feminists have a problem with women wearing what they want when they want, but most would have a problem with forced clothing restrictions and the viewing of women as sex toys.

There's not really much difference between the two eras. Women have always been treated as sex objects; today the media just glorifies that, whereas in earlier eras they vilified it.

[Geniasis]

In both cases it's about societal pressure for women to present themselves in a rather extreme way whereas men get given a (comparatively) free hand.

So you are saying that in the case of the victorian era, women were pressured to not be sexualized in public, but in the modern days, it is about how women are pressured for the exact opposite. ok

Right. See, it's not actually about the skirts or the skin. It's about society telling women that they have to be something, where we men have much more leeway on that.

Also, I'm not sure why exactly, but this topic got me totally thinking about the Madonna/Whore complex.

[Tuskenjaar]

In the Victorian era, it was forced upon women, but the same rules weren't, as I recall, forced upon men. Hence, it was sexist. The modern day problem, the showing of skin, is a entirely different problem; It makes women out to be items to a point of viewing them only as sex objects, as shown in television and movie productions such as Girls Gone Wild, which is what feminists are against. I'm sure very few feminists have a problem with women wearing what they want when they want, but most would have a problem with forced clothing restrictions and the viewing of women as sex toys.

I agree, women shouldn't be seen as objects, but some women actually sign up for the girls gone wild things, that's what confuses me. They might be pressured into this by society were women are more sexualized, as in the case of women in the olden days being pressured into long skirts or else being called whores, where if women do not show skin nowadays they are called prudes.

[Ovisterra]

^this

Basically, the Feminists would like if women weren't encouraged to dress in any particular way, and so could do what they liked without coming under pressure.

So its more of a pressure thing, not a free will thing.

In the 19th century it was a free will issue. Now it's a mix of a pressure issue and a respect issue

[Parhe]

In both cases it's about societal pressure for women to present themselves in a rather extreme way whereas men get given a (comparatively) free hand.

Maybe in the earlier case. But modern day, women on TV are shown in multiple ways, some dressed very loosely, some very conservatively, and many thing in between. I also do not see the great majority of women on TV dressing in such a way.
I don't see how women are forced to dress so extremely when now a days, when men and women on TV are shown wearing just about anything.

[Dumb Ideologies]

In both cases it's about societal pressure for women to present themselves in a rather extreme way whereas men get given a (comparatively) free hand.

Maybe in the earlier case. But modern day, women on TV are shown in multiple ways, some dressed very loosely, some very conservatively, and many thing in between. I also do not see the great majority of women on TV dressing in such a way.
I don't see how women are forced to dress so extremely when now a days, when men and women on TV are shown wearing just about anything.

Advertising is one of the main problem areas. And it's particularly bad with things targeted towards young people. Older women are then marginalized in a lot of places in the media because they don't have the right 'appeal'. Sexualized and then thrown on the scrapheap and made invisible. It's not as simple as it was in the Victorian era, that I'll concede. That was a quick 'first response' answer for other folks to build upon, not intended as a final word...

[Jinos]

Women will say anything to play the victim. Contradictions be damned.

That is what this whole "objectification" shtick is about, making womyn women the victims to validate either A) Personal beauty insecurity. And/Or B) Man-hate.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Women will say anything to play the victim. Contradictions be damned.

That is what this whole "objectification" shtick is about, making womyn women the victims to validate either A) Personal beauty insecurity. And/Or B) Man-hate.

Not sure if serious?

[Aeronos]

You cannot see that being FORCED to wear long skirts or be called a whore in the 19th century might have been a tad sexist? It put all the fault for sex on the woman -- a man seeing her ankles would be inflamed with lust and couldn't be blamed for what happened next.

You cannot see that being depicted only as showing as much skin as possible in the 20th and 21st centuries might be objectifying women? That it becomes more important than her ideas, her causes, her intelligence?

^ this. It's rejection of the idea that females are simply objects of attraction to males, which pervades society so much. We want to be able to dress however we like without being forced a certain way by society. And the same should go with males too, as notwithstanding there is a compulsion for males to be a certain way for society too, it's just less so because society is generally more patriarchal than matriarchal.

[Norstal]

In the Victorian era, it was forced upon women, but the same rules weren't, as I recall, forced upon men. Hence, it was sexist. The modern day problem, the showing of skin, is a entirely different problem; It makes women out to be items to a point of viewing them only as sex objects, as shown in television and movie productions such as Girls Gone Wild, which is what feminists are against. I'm sure very few feminists have a problem with women wearing what they want when they want, but most would have a problem with forced clothing restrictions and the viewing of women as sex toys.

I agree, women shouldn't be seen as objects, but some women actually sign up for the girls gone wild things, that's what confuses me. They might be pressured into this by society were women are more sexualized, as in the case of women in the olden days being pressured into long skirts or else being called whores, where if women do not show skin nowadays they are called prudes.

Men also goes into gay porn too, just for money. The difference is that men don't get objectified or rather, not as objectified as women. It's not hypocritical or anything. Why wouldn't they be able to get into porn?

Women should be able to act out in porn and not get objectified. I think it's possible. After all, porn are just movies with lots of sex.

[Parhe]

Maybe in the earlier case. But modern day, women on TV are shown in multiple ways, some dressed very loosely, some very conservatively, and many thing in between. I also do not see the great majority of women on TV dressing in such a way.
I don't see how women are forced to dress so extremely when now a days, when men and women on TV are shown wearing just about anything.

Advertising is one of the main problem areas. And it's particularly bad with things targeted towards young people. Older women are then marginalized in a lot of places in the media because they don't have the right 'appeal'. Sexualized and then thrown on the scrapheap and made invisible. It's not as simple as it was in the Victorian era, that I'll concede. That was a quick 'first response' answer for other folks to build upon, not intended as a final word...

I do support the claim of old women, as they are one of the groups most marginalized. And I do notice what you mean about on advertisement, it is much more prevalent in things such as shows and news. But, unlike some others I personally know, I believe this problem has a lot of fault in both men and women, as women usually by choice(I am not sure, maybe some are forced to or something?) choose to dress in such ways, which I find really crude.

[Greater Cabinda]

Meh. I tend to ignore feminists who still conform to traditional gender views.

[The Congregationists]

I can't really speak to this from a "feminist" perspective, because I'm neither female nor explicitly "feminist" in my thinking. What the matter comes down to, I think, is that excessive aversion to something and an excessive fascination with something are two sides of the same coin. Whether the men of the victorian age fearing female sexuality and thus making women conceal it (you see this in the Islamic world today) OR the men of the post sexual revoluation era being obsessed with female sexuality and thus encouraging them to reveal as much of it as possible, you still have a mind that's hung up on and pre-occupied with sexual matters. These men then project these hang-ups onto those who "have" the sexuality they're so preoccupied with in the form of behavioral and moral codes.

[Norstal]

Maybe in the earlier case. But modern day, women on TV are shown in multiple ways, some dressed very loosely, some very conservatively, and many thing in between. I also do not see the great majority of women on TV dressing in such a way.
I don't see how women are forced to dress so extremely when now a days, when men and women on TV are shown wearing just about anything.

Advertising is one of the main problem areas. And it's particularly bad with things targeted towards young people. Older women are then marginalized in a lot of places in the media because they don't have the right 'appeal'. Sexualized and then thrown on the scrapheap and made invisible. It's not as simple as it was in the Victorian era, that I'll concede. That was a quick 'first response' answer for other folks to build upon, not intended as a final word...

Well there are always those arthritis commercials and other nonesuch.

[Jinos]

^ this. It's rejection of the idea that females are simply objects of attraction to males, which pervades society so much. We want to be able to dress however we like without being forced a certain way by society. And the same should go with males too, as notwithstanding there is a compulsion for males to be a certain way for society too, it's just less so because society is generally more patriarchal than matriarchal.

Bullshit.

Women are totally free to dress however they like. Wear long skirts, short pants, danty tank tops, or leather jackets. Women are often "encouraged" to express themselves however they please, in a feminine OR masculine manner and that they have no obligation to dress however men want them too.

Meanwhile, if a man should EVER try clothing that is remotely considered feminine, such as a skirt, they will be labeled by women and men alike as less then a "True" man, whatever the fuck that is. Even being remotely emasculate will get you called a "Sissy"

[Dumb Ideologies]

Advertising is one of the main problem areas. And it's particularly bad with things targeted towards young people. Older women are then marginalized in a lot of places in the media because they don't have the right 'appeal'. Sexualized and then thrown on the scrapheap and made invisible. It's not as simple as it was in the Victorian era, that I'll concede. That was a quick 'first response' answer for other folks to build upon, not intended as a final word...

I do support the claim of old women, as they are one of the groups most marginalized. And I do notice what you mean about on advertisement, it is much more prevalent in things such as shows and news. But, unlike some others I personally know, I believe this problem has a lot of fault in both men and women, as women usually by choice(I am not sure, maybe some are forced to or something?) choose to dress in such ways, which I find really crude.

It's difficult. When people actively buy into an image sold to them it's a really tricky business to work out whether to regard it as free choice and expression or the product of ideology. A bit of both, certainly, but the proportions? Hard to be objective on these things.