is this for real?

I would like to know what these women aim to do when they turn 40?

Is feminism all about manipulating men?

Seem a waste of talent to create a career teaching teens how to exploit their bodies, would be much more relevant to teach them how to cope with life as adults; like realizing they are not mere toys.

Walrus article

I'd be interested in Jessalynn's view of the amateur porn world, as described by Hal Niedzviecki in "The Other Porn Addiction: Why are ordinary women exposing themselves online?" in the April issue of The Walrus. How does this fit into a modern definition of feminism?

Pretty transparent....

...in his attempts to couch fulfillment of his own sexual fantasies in terms of your empowerment and self-esteem.

Good for you that you lost the loser.

Some men seem to want to appropriate the sexuality of confident, independent heterosexual women. It's not that different than old-style pre-feminism objectification...it still involves missing or denying the personhood and independence of the objectified individual.

where's the other side of the story

I'd like to hear the boyfriend's side of the story. It's entirely possible it's more nuanced than presented,

Boots are made for walking

Good read Jessalynn and very good move on the boyfriend.

I think feminism may finally be getting closer to that place where a woman can safely chose to do what she wants or needs to do, without having to answer to a patriarchal, or in the early days of feminism, matriarchal view regarding what is the 'right thing'.

That might be the 'nuance' your old boyfriend (and the 'Stump' - how appropriate) was missing: a woman deciding to use her 'feminine wiles' is one thing, being told she must use her 'feminine wiles' is completely something else.

stump

I doubt it. Most men, and I include myself, have some modest-to-considerable difficulty separating fantasy from reality, and we push that fantasy into areas it doesn't belong - with fast cars at high speeds, boo-rah at football games, and women whose objectification is our only aim.

It's not bad - we're pretty wired that way, given how the world expects us to grow up - but it's part of the unexamined life that's not worth living. Enjoy fantasy, but don't expect the world to conform to it.

Note: none of this says either Jessalynn or Barbie Doll can't enjoy their sexuality any way they choose.

Empowerment & self-esteem

Interesting that, though 'slippery,' 'empowerment'--along with 'self-esteem'--seems to be a term which is generally seen as an undiluted good. To question the value of either term, or the qualities assumed to go along with them, is perhaps akin to casting aspersions on 'mom & apple pie.'

It seems to me that one cannot escape an essential dilemma unless one does question them. To 'think about how we really should define self esteem -- and the empowerment it is said to provide' is to begin.

Unfortunately, the rest of the article doesn't really question the value of either: only how best to measure them.

I do believe that self-esteem & empowerment are linked. They are part of a familiar social pattern which allows us to 'feel good about ourselves' if we value ourselves highly. Esteem, in our culture, is usually reserved for those of high status. To be accused of having low self-esteem is to be accused of having low status--of being 'a loser.' This is an insult designed to undermine self-confidence. Presumably one must then feel bad unless one can assert one's status, thereby being once again 'empowered.'

I suppose it is clear by now that 'self-esteem' is a pet peeve. I long for some witty writer to expose the narcissism inherent in our culture, and make a distinction between reasonable self-respect based on reality and what used to be called, pejoratively, 'self-pride.' Perhaps a futile wish, as we are supposed to 'believe in ourselves' as if we were gods--or even God, as we are assured we can 'create our own reality.'

Forgive me, but I fear that unless we can see through our own desire for self-importance, we really do not deserve to esteem ourselves highly.

politics, no doubt

If men want to objectify women, that's one thing - and perhaps, as zalm says, men are hardwired for it. For women to give in to objectification is, well - to allow someone else to define what should be a personal ideal. There are men who like to street race and women who (apparently) like to dance on bars...why should I or Jessalyn or any other woman be evaluated in terms of those who like to dance on bars? After all, men who don't engage in street racing might object to being measured by that criterion of manhood.

For me, feminism has always been about men and woman defining themselves for themselves, regardless of whatever gender construct is currently fashionable. One does suspect that the ability to pole dance may pale in a few years time, at least as measured against the accomplishments of graduate school. But in any event, the act of being able to freely choose is the root of self esteem ( as opposed to self pride). If the choice comes at a high price - like the end of a relationship - then we are not at that point of free choice.

Oy vey...

I liked your story and found it to be a sign of hope that those who have a sense of modesty and/or restraint need not be considered uptight or prudish or, indeed, lacking in self-esteem.

I am a man who goes out of his way to avoid people who act trashy. (Who knows? Maybe I'm lacking in self-esteem?) I just don't appreciate having crude, garish, and/or vulgar, uh..."stuff" shoved in my face at every turn.

IMO, this low culture does not - and can not - fully engage the imagination. Why not? Because such behaviour does not understand at all how powerful absence, or silence, can be. They don't understand the need to "give it a rest"...

On a side note, I take exception to one of your comments:

" Who wins in this brave new world of Cosmo-style feminism? Men certainly do. "Empowered" women dancing on bars -- what's not to like? "

As women once said to men, speak for yourself.

Alas, this kind of banal generalization reveals more about you than it does about men (even if some agree with you).

I suspect there are far more men who agree with your dislike of trashy behaviour than you might expect...

As a 70s-era feminist ...

... I admit to being somewhat flummoxed by Madonna, Lady Gaga and their ilk. I remember way back in the day, an acquaintance used to get all upset that men stared at her when she wore "provocative" clothing. My thoughts, which I kept to myself, were: So don't reveal so much flesh!
I guess the line now is, there's no such thing as "provacative," and men are supposed to be responsible for their reactions. Let us hope that is at least starting to be the case.
As for me, old-fashioned prude that I am, I don't think women need to flaunt it, even if we've got it. I would hate it if men were attracted to me simply because I wasn't wearing panties. That's not the kind of male-female relationship I want.
It's an interesting discussion, though, and one I'm sure will continue into the next 356 generations, should the planet survive that long.

raunch feminism

Oh please, your boyfriend's erroneous notion of "sexual self-esteem" is more accurately about women being sexually suckered.

This “new” version of so-called raunch feminism – launched by Madonna many years prior to Lady Gaga's derivative performances – has always been more about getting a man's attention rather than a woman truly empowering herself.

And hey, that's alright with me if that's what a woman truly wants to do, but women let's be honest, please don't try to justify or aggrandize your attention seeking behavior as being some new brand of feminism. It's not new and it's definitely not feminism.

When women respect their bodies and themselves, while enjoying their own sexuality and pursuing their own goals and dreams, that’s when we as women are truly empowered.

The world keeps getting more confident

The entire ploy of raunch culture generally involves high levels of marketing aimed at women buying everything from brazillians to strippercize classes,to shirts that don't fit. The marketing is perfect: praise the women who are willing to go for it as somehow more liberated than those who don't - pressure even feminists have to answer for every minute choice they make in their relationships and t-shirts.

Generally women working to liberate themselves and other women aren't getting paid scads of money to do things that women have been paid to do for centuries: be sex objects.

I agree - in the heart of every 'liberated' cosmo girl is an insecure person seeking instructions on the most basic elements of life - like making out. It's almost pathetic to think of grown adults consulting magazines for tips on this stuff, men included. Get some real practise people - on a real person you had to use some know how to meet!

The corporate smear on 'confidence' and so called liberated sexuality is doing nothing more than robbing people of their own sexual creativity and mystery. There's a lot of conformity out there and a lot of products 'helping' people preted they are having a good time. This applies to men as much as women - with women consuming cosmo... and men suppossedly consuming the women who do...

In the end, power trips sell. Good on lady gaga for getting people to pay more money by regurgitating tired stereotypes of women. It's amazing she can say it all with a straight face.

But the real questions is: if people do have sexual confidence, why do women have to put themselves in roles where they seem to be 100% sexual, down the point of learning to strip? Doesn't a man have the confidence to get to know a woman and find out for himself how she feels? Most do, some wish for ga ga.

One thing is for sure: it would be my worst nightmare if the man I loved spent his spare time learning how to dance around a pole. Go fishing for the love of god!!! And dammit! Don't wax your chest!!!

Turning role expectations on their head generally leads to reveal how horrifying they are. I'm pretty glad Bob Dylan didn't have to work as go-go dancer first. Do we even have to think about this one?? What about Dave Matthews?

These charades have everything to do with marketing and absolutely nothing to do with confidence, except on the part of those making a buck off of the madness.

Excellent Read

Ms. Keller provides some excellent insight into the ongoing struggle between those who support gender equality and chauvinists. Male chauvinists, like their cousins racism and class superiority, have great persuasive power with some (mostly men) but no logical foundation.

We used to see more critical discussion like this. I will always remember the impact and brilliance of Ms. Magazine in the 1970's. Great to see women authors returning to the pivotal foundations of equality, which are inextricably linked with views on sexual conduct by women.

And good on Ms. Keller for getting rid of the -ex. Looking forward to more of her work!

Reconsideration

Hi Jessalynn,

I agree with most of what you write, but it seemed to me that your ex was not referring to your antipathy towards revealing clothing was the issue at hand. It seemed more he considered your comment against that woman to indicate self-esteem problems. You did cut her down for the clothing she was wearing, and that's not cool.

It does seem that your writing in this article has an aggressive and hostile tone toward women who dress a certain way. It sounded a lot like you were dismissive and caricaturing of some of the women who participate in certain behaviours. You go deeper than that, but the hostility does suggest to me, I would say that this could very well be a self-esteem issue.

For what reason does a woman who dresses in a certain way deserve hostility or aggression? None. Ever.

One could empathise with them and disagree with their choices, but fundamentally they should not face disrespect, hostility or aggression for it. Whether or not a woman behaves in a certain way that is contrary to a political or moral framework is irrelevant.

Personally, I think if the women's movement is going to go anywhere and really gain political power, it's going to need solidarity among all women, no matter how they behave, dress, and think.