FEMALES NOT ALLOWED IN OLYMPICS SKI JUMPING ! ! !

[The Rover]

Women Not Allowed in Olympics Ski Jumping

January 6, 2008

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080105/...women_ski_jumps

Sat Jan 5, 5:55 PM By Jim Morris, The Canadian Press

WHISTLER, B.C. - The federal and provincial government, along with Vancouver Olympic organizers, should push the International Olympic Committee to change it’s discriminatory policy of not allowing women ski jumpers to compete at the 2010 Winter Games, says the president of Women’s Ski Jumping USA.

Deedee Corradini, who was the mayor of Salt Lake City when that city won the right to host the 2002 Winter Games, noted $580 million of Canadian taxpayers money has helped the Vancouver Olympic Games Organizing Committee (VANOC) build Olympic facilities.

“My understanding is it’s against federal and provincial law in Canada to spend government money on facilities that discriminate,” Corradini told a news conference Saturday at the Canadian ski jumping championships.

“To have a men’s only sign on these ski jumps seems to be discriminatory and contrary to Canada’s own human rights act.”

The IOC voted against allowing women ski jumping in Vancouver, arguing the sport is not developed enough and that it doesn’t meet the basic criteria for inclusion.

Corradini said statistics show there are more women ski jumpers in the world than female athletes in other Winter Olympic sports. The first women’s world championships will be held next year and there will be four world junior championship before 2010.

“Our hope is that VANOC and the federal government and the provincial government could all get together,” she said. “The facts are there. (Maybe) the IOC misunderstood the facts.

“If they could be convinced how the sport has grown, maybe we could persuade them that (women jumpers) will be ready in 2010.”

Corradini said Canada can take a lead role in getting women’s ski jumping in the Olympics.

“I think Canada is the key as a host country,” she said. “The U.S. can’t do it, other countries around the world can’t make this change. It has to be Canada because you are hosting the Games.”

Harry Bains, a member of the B.C. legislature and the provincial NDP’s Olympic critic, said keeping women ski jumpers out of the Games goes against Canadian values of equality and inclusion.

“I think it’s high time all levels of government and VANOC gets serious about this issue and brings the equality back,” said Bains, who joined Corradini in front of the ski jump hill that will be used for the 2010 Games.

David Emerson, Canada’s federal minister responsible for the 2010 Games, said it’s “extremely disappointing” women are not being allowed to ski jump at the Olympics.

“Ski jumping is an important sport and we’re investing a lot in jumping and training facilities in Canada and to not have women able to participate on the same basis as men, to me, I just don’t think it’s right,” he told reporters at Vancouver International Airport before leaving on a trade mission to Asia.

Emerson said he’ll be discussing the issue with Helena Guergis, the minister of state for sport, when he returns from his trip in two weeks.

John Heilig, VANOC’s manager for ski jumping and Nordic combined, said if the IOC accepted women ski jumping the event could be accommodated in the Vancouver Games schedule.

“VANOC has said if women’s ski jumping was accepted, then we would provide what they require,” said Heilig. “This is an IOC decision.”

Heilig, the father of four daughters, said he personally supports women ski jumpers.

“I love to see the women out here,” he said. “I think women’s jumping is an exceptional part of ski jumping.”

A group of Canadian women ski jumpers have filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Right Commission, arguing the Olympic movement is discriminating against them.

That complaint was heard last September and a decision is expected soon.

“We’re very hopeful,” said Sarah Lynch, the mother of ski jumper Zoya Lynch.

“As a parent, as a female, as a Canadian, it really is discrimination. There is no reason why it should not be in there.”

While Corradini and members of the Canadian ski team are vocal in their dissent, the United States Ski and Snowboard Association is taking a more diplomatic tact.

The association is the governing body for ski sports in the U.S., including jumping. Tom Kelly, vice-president of communication, refused to say if he thought women were being discriminated against.

“We have great respect for the process the IOC has for bringing the sport into the Olympics,” he said in a telephone interview. “We were disappointed when the IOC made it’s decision (on 2010.)

“We are very optimistic for 2014. The first world championships will be held next year and that is a critical event in the growth of the sport. When we get to the world championships, and the world sees what these women can do, that is a great message to send to the IOC.”

Ron Read, high performance director for the Canadian Ski Jumping Association, said he believes women ski jumping is just as competitive as other women’s sports at the Olympics.

“If you took all 13 of the Winter Olympic sports, I believe women’s ski jumping would be in the top half for numbers, for a competitive field,” he said.

Corradini, whose father was born in Ontario, said there are 135 active women ski jumpers from 16 countries. This compares with 34 women from 10 nations in snowboard cross, 30 women from 11 nations in skier cross and 26 women from 13 nations in bobsled.

Zoya Lynch didn’t want to get into finger point at other sports.

“If they can get in, good for them,” said the 16-year-old from Calgary. “It’s not about the competition between the sports. It’s about gender equality and that kind of stuff.”

[zepyep]

Hi all,Rover,

Thanks for the post.

To paraphrase Harriet Johnson: " The fact that you have sent them here just goes to prove that you are the leading a**holes in sports !

Which is hard to believe but so true,.....

KB

[LadyRaven]

They should be, women can do all the things men can, sometimes better!

Stupid Patriarchal society!

[Gainsbarre]

They should be, women can do all the things men can, sometimes better!

That's very true.

Men are better artists/composers than women, because women talk more, but women are better actors than men because they understand feelings better.

[LadyRaven]

That's very true.

Men are better artists/composers than women, because women talk more, but women are better actors than men because they understand feelings better.

Other way around for me. I hardly talk at all and I'd pass out if I had to act being filmed or in front of people. What about Georgia O'Keef, or Frieda Kalo? Women artists get less notice in our society because of unconsious sexism.

[Gainsbarre]

Women artists get less notice in our society because of unconsious sexism.

I don't think it's sexism...

Because if it was simply just sexism, then people like Jane Austin, Charlotte and Emily Brontë, Mary Shelley, Virginia Woolf, they wouldn't be as celebrated as they are.

Women made a great impact in literature, and it's an impact that's been well recognised, however they've seem to have made little impact in art and music

Like I said, I think if it was just sexism, then it would be the same with literature.

Unconscious sexism does happen in sport, though. For example, Women's cricket

[LadyRaven]

I don't think it's sexism...

Because if it was simply just sexism, then people like Jane Austin, Charlotte and Emily Brontë, Mary Shelley, Virginia Woolf, they wouldn't be as celebrated as they are.

Women made a great impact in literature, and it's an impact that's been well recognised, however they've seem to have made little impact in art and music

Like I said, I think if it was just sexism, then it would be the same with literature.

Unconscious sexism does happen in sport, though. For example, Women's cricket

You should start doing some reading. There'e been a lot of research that shows males and females are no different except physically (obviously) when they are children. They can learn to do things just the same (excluding a few physical activities) it's gender roles that children are taught that shows them how to act. Do you think so many girls would like pink if they weren't subjected to so much of it as small children? Same thing with interests in ballet, clothing, hair, baby dolls, even mannerisms. Look at how many girls act stupid because society values ditzy, flirty, pretty, unintellegent girls- which leads to a whole different thing called the male gaze.

You should read The Gender Knot by Allan Johnson. I took an interest in women's issues awhile back after going into a male dominated major at university- and guess what I'm doing better than many of the males in my major classes.

[Gainsbarre]

You should start doing some reading. There'e been a lot of research that shows males and females are no different except physically (obviously) when they are children. They can learn to do things just the same (excluding a few physical activities) it's gender roles that children are taught that shows them how to act. Do you think so many girls would like pink if they weren't subjected to so much of it as small children? Same thing with interests in ballet, clothing, hair, baby dolls, even mannerisms. Look at how many girls act stupid because society values ditzy, flirty, pretty, unintellegent girls- which leads to a whole different thing called the male gaze.

Oh of course, men and women have the same mental capabilities. That goes without argument.

I think my point is though, that the lack of recognition for women involved in music and art in the previous 2 centuries is not because of sexism today, and sexism in assessing their work today, but quite possibly that women back then maybe did not have the same access to art and music that maybe they had in literature, therefore preventing them from making an impact in those fields.

[LadyRaven]

Oh of course, men and women have the same mental capabilities. That goes without argument.

I think my point is though, that the lack of recognition for women involved in music and art in the previous 2 centuries is not because of sexism today, and sexism in assessing their work today, but quite possibly that women back then maybe did not have the same access to art and music that maybe they had in literature, therefore preventing them from making an impact in those fields.

They didn't have access to much of any thing until the last century. They were viewed as their husbands property who had to serve this every need. It's still going on today which many people don't believe, women still make less money than men, get stuck with crappy jobs like retail and clerical work and still face much critism from men and male dominated media.

The thing is today women can be better or equal to men in almost anything they want. It might take more work because of misogynists in the world. It's only matter of time before we seem women in the arts rivaling and passing men by in some cases.

[Gainsbarre]

The thing is today women can be better or equal to men in almost anything they want. It might take more work because of misogynists in the world. It's only matter of time before we seem women in the arts rivaling and passing men by in some cases.

But aren't you really contributing to the sexism by saying: "women can be better or equal to men in almost anything they want"

I would've thought an unsexist answer would be: women and men are both capable of the same achievements.

[Gainsbarre]

The thing is today women can be better or equal to men in almost anything they want. It might take more work because of misogynists in the world. It's only matter of time before we seem women in the arts rivaling and passing men by in some cases.

And just on another point I want to seek further clarification from you...

You said in your earlier post that research shows there's no mental difference between men and women, only in physicalities. So that would mean men and women have the same capabilities in intellectual fields...

If you say that or agree to that, why then did you say: "It's only matter of time before we seem women in the arts rivaling and passing men by in some cases." If there is no intellectual difference between men and women, why then would women be rivaling and then passing by men?

[LadyRaven]

But aren't you really contributing to the sexism by saying: "women can be better or equal to men in almost anything they want"

I would've thought an unsexist answer would be: women and men are both capable of the same achievements.

True, but there's are times when women can pass men in somethings and men can pass women in others. American football is one thing women couldn't really do, while men really can't do the balance beam ect. For the most part women and men are equal and what it comes down to is women should be able to do ski jumping, they need their own team, just like they have their own teams for so many other things.

[Gainsbarre]

I just want to ask your opinion on something else, again artistically related (I confess I'm a shocker for not keeping threads on track)

But I bought a book the other day called "Songwriters on Songwriting" and its a very thick book from the 90's filled with interviews with people like Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Frank Zappa etc. And there's 63 interviews in the book, 52 of them with men, and only 11 with women, why do you think there's such a disparity?

[LadyRaven]

I just want to ask your opinion on something else, again artistically related (I confess I'm a shocker for not keeping threads on track)

But I bought a book the other day called "Songwriters on Songwriting" and its a very thick book from the 90's filled with interviews with people like Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Frank Zappa etc. And there's 63 interviews in the book, 52 of them with men, and only 11 with women, why do you think there's such a disparity?

Well you need to look at the women who are most recognized in the music industry, esp today. A good portion of the really well known one's are just tits and ass who shake themsleves on stage- another product of male gaze. There are also many talented women musians that are over looked or at least that's how it seems to me- Janis Jopplin, Joni Mitchell, Dusty Springfield, Joan Baeze, Grace Slick, Dianna Ross. There's some out there, I just think that many girls were discouraged from making music to get married and have a family, esp thirty and fourty years ago. Today the music industry is a mess and most of the well known female musicians just sing songs written for them and shake their ass. There are very talented women out there they're just simply being overlooked.

[Gainsbarre]

There are very talented women out there they're just simply being overlooked.

Is that a direct result of sexism?

[SunChild]

I just want to ask your opinion on something else, again artistically related (I confess I'm a shocker for not keeping threads on track)

But I bought a book the other day called "Songwriters on Songwriting" and its a very thick book from the 90's filled with interviews with people like Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Frank Zappa etc. And there's 63 interviews in the book, 52 of them with men, and only 11 with women, why do you think there's such a disparity?

Gainesbarre, who edited the book, a man or a woman?

A lot of the disparity comes from how women's social roles curtail their freedoms to pursue certain things. Most women in the world are still the work horses, the raisers of children, the house keepers, almost always low paid or unpaid. Doesn't leave a lot of time and energy for following one's muse.

Girls tend to be better with language earlier than boys, so it's not a lack of inclination or affinity. It's that their voices are silenced in other ways.

(Hope you guys don't mind me jumping in, this is one of my favorite topics of discussion. Seems appropriate given the state of US politics right now, too. Wonder when we'll be able to accept a 30 minute speech from a female politician talking about the history of female slavery and oppression?)

[Gainsbarre]

A lot of the disparity comes from how women's social roles curtail their freedoms to pursue certain things. Most women in the world are still the work horses, the raisers of children, the house keepers, almost always low paid or unpaid. Doesn't leave a lot of time and energy for following one's muse.

Well, I think LadyRaven had a point with the aspect that musical people who established their careers 40 years ago were in a different time of sexual politics and roles for women.

However, I'm not convinced with her 'Male gaze' argument. To me, it sounds like an academic theory used to justify different schools in Post-Feminism.

I think to say that women's role in society today is constructed through male sexual objectification, as argued through the 'male gaze', indicates a theory that comes from the antiquated notion of male sexual authority.

This notion that a woman is controlled in society by the 'male gaze' promulgates that men still have the sexual balance of power...

Now, surely, in 21st Century America, you don't honestly believe that is the case, do you?

Women will always be sexually attractive to men, and men will always be sexually attractive to women. It is a necessary biological programming designed to ensure that man and woman will want to procreate and produce off-spring.

Now because of the natural development of the sexual act, and how it is carried out, this has lead to all sorts of social nonsense relating to sexual politics, that because a man inserts into a woman that he is the agressor, she is the victim, he is the active, she is the passive. This has lead to a continuing false notion of sexual power positions, and that one can dominate the other.

Now if Feminism is about equality between the sexes, then sex needs to be looked at as an equal meeting. Not something the guy has a right to do to the girl, and not something that the girl is having done to her.

Now the idea of a 'male gaze' that restricts women goes back to these sexual power positions: it's only men who sexually objectify women, it's only men who want to have sex, men encroach on the rights of women because they only want to have sex with them. That the body shape, behaviour and outward appearance of women is soley due to a man's sexual expectation of them.

The male desire for female 'beauty'has been around since day dot. It is quite onbiously reflected in art. But what we can see from art is that women's body shapes have changed. The sexual ideal has changed. So who 'decided' on the change? Just men?

Now, for those of us who live in the real world, things are a bit different.

Now men don't have any more sexual expectations on women, than women do on men. And the idea of female presentation boiling down to a single sexual ideal does not happen, as everybody is individual, and everybody in daily life has many varied likes and dislikes about the opposite sex.

So it's not the average Joe or Jane who lives down the road that is setting the female/male sexual template.

It always comes back to the media. This 'male gaze' argument comes back to female representation in the media...

But the media is not the template for society either, the media simply reflects the society we live in...

The thing people have to understand about the media is that it is a business, and businesses make money by giving people what they want. A Business won't try to sell you something that you're not likely to buy. They lose money that way.

Magazines, newspapers, TV, advertising agencies, they do a lot of research into what people want and how they want it. They know what sells and what doesn't sell. Therefore when they put a programme on the air or a magazine on the stand, it is meeting a sales formula.

The media gives us clues as to what sort of society we are. It's not being dictated to us, because we are the ones consuming it, this is what we want to read and see. You can tell by watching TV that its still mostly women who do the house cleaning because 99% of house cleaning products are advertised to women. Their market research has told them that it's women who buy their products, so it's women they'll advertise to. The Beer commercials are still aimed at men, because that's who buys it, according to their research.

Media reflects the morality of the society that's consuming it.

Now women cannot blame their body image/public behaviour purely on the 'male gaze' and the sexual expectations of men through media representation: because men don't consume all of the media. Women are half the consumers. Therefore the social representation of women in the media is partly caused by other women.

Women buy more Britney Spears albums than men. Women buy more magazines with the front page articles of Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton.

Some women look to Paris and Lindsay as role models. Because they're famous and being chased by paparazzi. They're famous because the paparazzi who chase them know they'll get paid a lot of money for their photographs. Magazines pay the paparazzi a lot of money for Paris and Lindsay photos because they know they'll sell a lot of magazines if Paris and Lindsay are on the front in some embarrasing pose. People buy the magazines because that's the sort of article that makes them buy magazines.

It's a vicious cycle.

So in a way, i don't particularly blame the media. If plus-size models and sexually unnattractive men and women sold heaps of magazines, and records and TV shows and all that jazz, then believe me, our airwaves and newspaper stands would be full of them.

Society as a whole creates it's gender expectations and body images. Not just men, but the whole of society.

[SunChild]

That was a wonderful, thoughtful post! If you don't mind, I'm going to take it bit by bit. There's so much, I can't cover it all, but I really enjoyed reading that and thinking about it.

" This notion that a woman is controlled in society by the 'male gaze' promulgates that men still have the sexual balance of power...

Now, surely, in 21st Century America, you don't honestly believe that is the case, do you? "

Unfortunately, yes, I do. I think it's getting better, but it's by no means gone. I also think the female gaze is getting to be more influential back. (Look at all the women here!)

I think you'd have to be a woman to get the full impact. Unless you've felt that gaze on you, either for good or ill, every day for most of your life, it's hard to appreciate the impact. Not saying it's all bad, it has its good moments, just that it exists.

Here's the difference. I was in a women's studies class - you're right, it is an academic feminist construct, but that doesn't mean it's invalid - and they asked the men how they felt walking to their cars in the dark after school. They all looked kind of confused - why, is it some kind of issue? Every woman said she felt afraid, every night, to some degree. And I assure you they weren't (aren't) afraid of rampaging dykes... Just watch the news, local or national, and note how often violence against women is reported.

Not that it's some vast patriarchal consipiracy, mind. Just that, men still do have most of the outward power. They remain the most involved at the top in military, in business and politics, even as you point out, in art, music, and literature. At the same time, men tend to be more stimulated by the visual than women (generally speaking). Put the two things together and real power does reside with the male gaze.

As for women as sexualized objects, well, overall women make more money than men at only two things: modelling, and prostitution. That should tell you something.

"Now if Feminism is about equality between the sexes, then sex needs to be looked at as an equal meeting. Not something the guy has a right to do to the girl, and not something that the girl is having done to her."

Yes indeed! As soon as people stop judging sexually active women as cheap sluts, I'll believe we've gotten there. (Hell, just start a thread about Band Aids on this forum, you'll see... and women will do it as much as men, to prove that they at least are "good" girls.)

"So it's not the average Joe or Jane who lives down the road that is setting the female/male sexual template."

You can say that again...

"It always comes back to the media. This 'male gaze' argument comes back to female representation in the media..."

Well, partly. Which begs the question, what's up with this pre-pubescent boy standard for women's beauty? Do you all really want physically weak skinny chicks with large (fake) boobs and naked pubes? If not, stop buying the beer they sell with that image. (Yeah, like that's going to happen... )

I agree, it's a symbiotic relationship.

"The thing people have to understand about the media is that it is a business, and businesses make money by giving people what they want. A Business won't try to sell you something that you're not likely to buy. They lose money that way."

Advertising works, else they wouldn't spend billions on it. But they don't give people what they really want, they try to sell them substitutes. The thing to do is go past the product and straight to the things they use to sell them: love, sex, warmth, happiness.

("And she's buying a stairway to heaven" indeed...)

"Women buy more Britney Spears albums than men. Women buy more magazines with the front page articles of Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton."

Well, I'll grant you that. Alot of these are young women who think that's the sort of thing young men would like them to emulate. Young men in turn think that's the sort of thing they should want from young women. And round and round we go.

But men buy more Playboys and Hustlers, etc., right?

Had to edit this to add, hey, man - turn on, tune in, drop out!

[Suz]

There are some awesome posts in here, and here I am thinking about Madonna Because when she got famous, I thought, "Crap. Take us back 30 years, why don't you." It seemed stupid and campy. But now I think the way she did things with that angry kind of sexuality might actually have been necessary at the time. Though I don't personally relate to it, and I'm not even a fan, she really did take everything middle America was afraid of and shove it in their faces. "Like a Prayer" is still one of my favorite songs, and the video perfectly and beautifully demonstrates my point.

When I think about what she did, it seems that nobody really took that ball and ran with it. The dumbasses like Britney Spears never got it. They only saw the camped up sexuality, not the passion or anger behind it. Interesting. I realize I'm only talking about a small section of the famous females in music, here, but these are the thoughts that occured to me while I was reading the posts.

[Gainsbarre]

That was a wonderful, thoughtful post! If you don't mind, I'm going to take it bit by bit. There's so much, I can't cover it all, but I really enjoyed reading that and thinking about it.

I think you'd have to be a woman to get the full impact. Unless you've felt that gaze on you, either for good or ill, every day for most of your life, it's hard to appreciate the impact. Not saying it's all bad, it has its good moments, just that it exists.

Here's the difference. I was in a women's studies class - you're right, it is an academic feminist construct, but that doesn't mean it's invalid - and they asked the men how they felt walking to their cars in the dark after school. They all looked kind of confused - why, is it some kind of issue? Every woman said she felt afraid, every night, to some degree. And I assure you they weren't (aren't) afraid of rampaging dykes... Just watch the news, local or national, and note how often violence against women is reported.

As for women as sexualized objects, well, overall women make more money than men at only two things: modelling, and prostitution. That should tell you something.

Yes indeed! As soon as people stop judging sexually active women as cheap sluts, I'll believe we've gotten there. (Hell, just start a thread about Band Aids on this forum, you'll see... and women will do it as much as men, to prove that they at least are "good" girls.)

what's up with this pre-pubescent boy standard for women's beauty? Do you all really want physically weak skinny chicks with large (fake) boobs and naked pubes? If not, stop buying the beer they sell with that image. (Yeah, like that's going to happen... )

Alot of these are young women who think that's the sort of thing young men would like them to emulate. Young men in turn think that's the sort of thing they should want from young women. And round and round we go.

Ha, I tell you, I have felt some sort of 'gaze' but I don't think it was sexual objectification in my case!

But you're correct, there are some sexual issues still at large, as it were, in the example you put forward of sexually active women being regarded as sluts. And that is a real problem.

And it leads to somewhat of an interesting connumdrum when you have people like Paris Hilton, and in the old days Madonna, being regarded as sluts because they were sexual or represented themselves in a sexualised way.

Now, a large section of society, including a lot of women, regarded their actions, because they were sexualised, as being unpleasant and eroding the respect of women.

This is where the catch-22 comes in.

If a woman is sexual, and projects a sexualised image, then she's called a slut, or people have no respect for her, or they say she's just being a part of the male-orientated meat market, reducing the status and image of women.

So if a woman wants to be respected and uphold a positive image of women, then she is forced to avoid anything sexual. Now that's not exactly freedom is it? If a woman cannot express her sexuality...

So when I see Women like Barbara Walters or Oprah Winfrey projecting this image of respectable women, and wishing other women would do the same, I can understand why they're doing it, but by the same token I can also see how that results in them having to avoid any expression of sexuality.

But then Women like Madonna and Paris, perhaps they're pushing the boundaries? In some ways they could be saying "damn your respect that comes with conditions. This is how we want to live and express ourselves, get used to it" that is setting a new template for female expression. I think the wild behaviour of Britney and Lindsay is also setting a template too though, but that's another argument.

And an interesting little story: apparently, Paris Hilton wanted to get breast implants, but her father advised her against it because it would cheapen her image. Interesting how he didn't address her personal/public acceptance anxieties, and just looked at it purely from a business/marketing point of view.

[SunChild]

There are some awesome posts in here, and here I am thinking about Madonna Because when she got famous, I thought, "Crap. Take us back 30 years, why don't you." It seemed stupid and campy. But now I think the way she did things with that angry kind of sexuality might actually have been necessary at the time. Though I don't personally relate to it, and I'm not even a fan, she really did take everything middle America was afraid of and shove it in their faces. "Like a Prayer" is still one of my favorite songs, and the video perfectly and beautifully demonstrates my point.

When I think about what she did, it seems that nobody really took that ball and ran with it. The dumbasses like Britney Spears never got it. They only saw the camped up sexuality, not the passion or anger behind it. Interesting. I realize I'm only talking about a small section of the famous females in music, here, but these are the thoughts that occured to me while I was reading the posts.

"Take us back 30 years why don't you" - exactly how I felt at the time, too!

You're right to think of Madonna, she's a good example for all of this. And you're right on about what she was trying to achieve. Also, about how someone like Britney Spears just took the worst of it, to exploit it. Well, obviously she's been exploited nearly to death by the media in return. Truly ugly... makes me wonder, would the media do such a thing to a silly male pop star?

Ha, I tell you, I have felt some sort of 'gaze' but I don't think it was sexual objectification in my case!

But you're correct, there are some sexual issues still at large, as it were, in the example you put forward of sexually active women being regarded as sluts. And that is a real problem.

And it leads to somewhat of an interesting connumdrum when you have people like Paris Hilton, and in the old days Madonna, being regarded as sluts because they were sexual or represented themselves in a sexualised way.

Now, a large section of society, including a lot of women, regarded their actions, because they were sexualised, as being unpleasant and eroding the respect of women.

This is where the catch-22 comes in.

If a woman is sexual, and projects a sexualised image, then she's called a slut, or people have no respect for her, or they say she's just being a part of the male-orientated meat market, reducing the status and image of women.

So if a woman wants to be respected and uphold a positive image of women, then she is forced to avoid anything sexual. Now that's not exactly freedom is it? If a woman cannot express her sexuality...

So when I see Women like Barbara Walters or Oprah Winfrey projecting this image of respectable women, and wishing other women would do the same, I can understand why they're doing it, but by the same token I can also see how that results in them having to avoid any expression of sexuality.

But then Women like Madonna and Paris, perhaps they're pushing the boundaries? In some ways they could be saying "damn your respect that comes with conditions. This is how we want to live and express ourselves, get used to it" that is setting a new template for female expression. I think the wild behaviour of Britney and Lindsay is also setting a template too though, but that's another argument.

And an interesting little story: apparently, Paris Hilton wanted to get breast implants, but her father advised her against it because it would cheapen her image. Interesting how he didn't address her personal/public acceptance anxieties, and just looked at it purely from a business/marketing point of view.

You've said a mouthful, again. That accounts for the calculated look in Ms. Hilton's eyes, doesn't it? She's a multi-millionaire based on selling herself as a sexualized object, as you say, vs. Oprah, who just doesn't express too much sexuality at all. You sum up the conundrum for women quite nicely.

May I recommend a book by Germaine Greer, called "The Female Eunuch"? One of those books that started the academic feminist movement in the 70s.

No wonder we love Zeppelin, huh? There's an implicit celebration of the sexual in their music, which often just moves past all this.

[Wesley]

"It always comes back to the media. This 'male gaze' argument comes back to female representation in the media..."

Well, partly. Which begs the question, what's up with this pre-pubescent boy standard for women's beauty? Do you all really want physically weak skinny chicks with large (fake) boobs and naked pubes? If not, stop buying the beer they sell with that image. (Yeah, like that's going to happen... )

Had to edit this to add, hey, man - turn on, tune in, drop out!

What's that all about?

[Gainsbarre]

.

May I recommend a book by Germaine Greer, called "The Female Eunuch"? One of those books that started the academic feminist movement in the 70s.

My Dear, I'm Australian, of course I know Germaine Greer

Germaine actually cops a lot of negative shit back here in Australia these days, mostly from the tabloid press for her outspokeness. Especially, God forbid, when she wasn't that crazy about Steve Irwin.

The thing I have to say about Germaine, and Gloria Steinem, is that you can't have it both ways. People may bitch about their outspokeness today, however it's that very same quality in both those women that gave them the courage to speak their minds back in the 60's, when Women just didn't say those sorts of things...

Germaine may say some outrageous things today, BUT, she had to be opinionated and not give a toss what people thought of her, to be able to get up there in the 60's and argue for women the way that she did. It's a personality trait that made feminism a real achievement back then, but it's a personality trait that i sense a lot of people wished would now disappear

[Suz]

And this leads to a problem I've been having, but haven't found anyone to share it with: I have realized that there is a disticnt generation gap between the boomers and gen x (me). The fact is that the women before me really know what it's like to experience a lot of sexsim, whereas my mom raised me to believe that shit was pretty much over (god bless her). So I'm not sure if I properly recognized it when/if it was happening. I just said, "Hey! Quit being an asshole!"

I am feeling torn about this, for a number of reasons: for one, I support Obama which has led my mother to quit speaking to me. For another, though I am eternally grateful to the generation before me, I am really getting sick of some of their patronizing ways. No offense to anyone here, as it doesn't apply to anyone I've met in here. What I mean is that some of them are still acting like they have to prove everything, when people my age (almost 38) and younger just don't feel as much of a need. We are just "Doing our own thing, " like we were raised to!!! There are some women older than me that I would really like to say to, "Calm the fuck down! Come to your own party and enjoy it!" It's an uncomfortable topic for me, because they did so damn much so the rest of us wouldn't have to suffer. But I feel it needed to be said.

[zero]

if they were making this decision based inferiority, they would count men out on ski jumping and running. men's upper legs are up to 50% weaker than a female's.