"Normal" sexuality?

[redqueen]

How can we pretend to know what such a thing would look like, when in every country, women are a minority group. The closest women come to equality is in the Scandinavian countries.

When the sexual cues are tailored to appeal to the dominant group, and the minority group is raised in this environment, most of them adopting the dominant message, and conforming to society's 'default', how can we possibly think there's any way to know what 'normal' is?

To label the individuals of a minority who conform to the dominant group's message as 'normal' and label any individuals of a minority who reject that message and seek to find a message more inclusive of the minority group's experiences and needs as 'abnormal' is to further entrench the disenfranchisement of the minority group.

Until we stop pretending that sexism doesn't matter as much as racism or homophobia, and start paying serious attention to the lessons we're teaching our children when we ignore (that means accept) sexism and misogyny, we will never know what 'normal' is.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. Women aren't a minority. Full stop. n/t

[FreakinDJ]

2. Except in China

and in that case this forum would be named "The MaoUnderground"

[redqueen]

3. In the context of sociological discussions, the word 'minority' does not refer to numbers.

It refers to the status of being other than the dominant group.

You're welcome.

[LoZoccolo]

6. "In the context of sociological discussions, the word 'minority' does not refer to numbers."

[jorno67]

35. I grew up in a house hold where the bumper sticker that read

"If Mamma ain't happy, nobody's happy" was more fact than folksy saying.
And taking a look at my life today:
My boss is female - I actually took less money to work for her a second time in my career.
My wife - she is the boss at home and of course if she ain't happy...
My oldest daughter - 12 yrs old straight A's student who is artistic, athletic, caring, intellectual, and all around awesome.
My youngest daughter - 7 yrs old also straight A's - tough as nails and cute as a button. Great imagination!!! tends to pick on her older brother though.
close friends and coworkers all in the entertainment industry - They all work hard, play hard, and don't take no crap from anyone.

So in my world women are not minorities.
I am sorry that you have had other experiences.

[redqueen]

37. I have news for you. "Your" world is not THE world...

and the conditions there do not change anything about the world as it exists outside your experience.

[jorno67]

39. well thank you for the update

I was not claiming that my world was THE world! Although my experiences are vast and diverse I do realize that your world is awfully unjust and unfair.
But then again "THE world" does include "my world".

[redqueen]

41. You're still not getting it.

This isn't about "my world". This is about sociological conditions. Macro level. Not individuals, groups.

Does that help clear it up for you?

[MrCoffee]

49. But what then is the individual within the society to do?

At what level does societal change have to take place in order to alter the conditions set down by the majority?

What is the going rate for a sociology tutor? You should send me a bill.

[redqueen]

53. Well what do we do about racism?

We just don't accept it. We don't treat it as a big joke, and laugh it off, and encourage others to just let it go cause it's all a big funny joke. We try to see the effects of that kind of marginalization, and work to rectify the situation.

And ha, I am definitely not qualified to be billing anyone for that.

[MrCoffee]

69. This is what you're up against

I like to think that, personally, I try to model my behavior in ways that are empowering and equal, but when pressed, I don't even know how to think about these things.

This thread (and the whole discussion, starting with Prostitution is Violence) has been eye-opening, that's for sure.

[redqueen]

75. Well... you gotta start somewhere.

[jorno67]

51. I've been through this stuff with you before...

You make a claim
I state that my experiences are different
you tell me I'm wrong
I fire back with a somewhat snarky response supporting my position
You tell me that I don't get it and make vast general/condemning statement
I suggest that I do get it and that maybe your position could be flawed
You take one last shot and say that you hope I enjoy my "male privilege"

I then stop responding to your posts for a while but then after several "every man is misogynist" type threads, I forget and try one more time...I'm such a dumb guy.

[redqueen]

54. Do you even understand what 'macro level' means?

[jorno67]

56. yep - I sure do.

Thanks for checking.
My point doesn't fit into your point - therefore I am wrong.
I'm going to go converse with people who listen.

Take care and good luck!

[redqueen]

64. Your point was about micro level anecdotes.

As such, it isn't germane to this discussion.

Good luck to you too.

[Kellerfeller]

73. It is a bunch of micro-levels

And even at the macro-level, women are the majority in colleges and in getting degrees. (in the US)

They are also the majority of the workforce.

Edit: typo

[mistertrickster]

130. I totally agree.

These discussions are like watching Greek tragedy: you know what is going to happen in the end, snotty demeaning personal attacks going to posters' (unknowable) motives.

The Rad Fem position is rife with contradictions:

* your (male) personal experience means nothing, but a bogus e-mail by a supposed frat boy is proof positive.

* personal anecdotes that support the Rad Fem position are proof positive, but any that refute that position simply reflect and reiterate a male-dominant world-view.

* men's magazines like "Playboy" reinforce the male-dominant view that women are just objectivized sex toys for men; women's magazines like "Cosmo" (or all the rest) that show a cheese-cake cover of a rail-thin model are not to blame--women have been co-opted by this phallo-centric dominate male gaze. You can't blame the victims, after all . . .

* making blanket statements about women is "prejudiced and sexist," but making blanket statements about men (they perpetuate a rape culture and objectivize women) is exactly what Rad Fems do.

* women are a discriminated-against minority. If you point out that women get more college degrees http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72, live longer, and generally score higher on measures of "happiness," you're hi-jacking the issue to make it about men.

* rape is not about sex--it's about violence toward the "other." However, lusting after women leads to rape. Visual imagery of men and women having sex (pornography) which men look at for a sexual titillation also leads to rape. So . . . rape is not about sex, until it is.

Basically the Rad Fem position boils down to this: any argument--no matter how bogus--that shows men dominate women for their (men's) benefit is true; any evidence--no matter how well it's gathered and analyzed--that runs contrary to this is false.

Pointing this out makes one a sexist pig who has a giant ego and doesn't care about people and wants to perpetuate misogyny, or something along those lines.

My position boils down to this: there clearly IS discrimination against women in our society that still exists despite the major advances (just as discrimination against races and sexual-orientation still exist). There is too much sex crime against women and girls--everyone knows someone who's been abused and-or raped. That's an obvious given.

But in seeking to eliminate that discrimination and that abuse, one does not have the right to be sloppy and illogical in using evidence and argument.

[jorno67]

143. well said!

[lumberjack_jeff]

95. Inconveniently, "The" dictionary is "the dictionary".

words mean things, and in the words of Inigo Montoya "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

Women are not minorities, even if you like the sound of it.

[hunter]

84. I live in a family of very formidible women.

But I also know some of the circumstances that made them that way.

An upper class white male in the USA can follow many easy pathways to success.

Everyone else has to fight and there are many aspects of our society that tear the poor, minorities, and women down.

[arely staircase]

132. then why did i never hear aparthied era s. african blacks called a "minority"?

but rather the "oppressed black majority" and their nemesis - the "ruling white minority"?

i think the answer is because blacks were the majority AND the oppressed group.

are you saying that the use of the word "minority" to describe an oppressed majority is common practice among sociologists? because i find that hard to believe.

[ZombieHorde]

59. Minority rights. nt

[KamaAina]

79. So why are they treated like one. Question mark.

[lumberjack_jeff]

94. By whom? The OP?

One could as easily make the case that the 99% ers are a minority.

Sadly, dictionaries don't allow this kind of linguistic malpractice.

[KamaAina]

129. By society

strictly speaking, not a minority but an oppressed group.

[loyalsister]

98. Numerically in the context of the institutional power structure:

Women certainly are in the minority.

Women hold 90, or 16.8%, of the 535 seats in the 112th US Congress
17, or 17.0%, of the 100 seats in the Senate and
73, or 16.8%, of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives.

If women had power that matches the numbers, we would have had subsidized child care and universal health care long ago.

[lumberjack_jeff]

103. Then boys are a minority.

Surely the dominance by women of their institutional power structure is worth mention.

[loyalsister]

109. compared to?

girl children, men, women, adults of both sexes?

[Major Nikon]

127. No, males can't ever be in the minority because they are the dominate group

Therefore this classifies them as oppressors rather than the oppressed by default.

[LoZoccolo]

4. Women are not a minority in the United States of America.

The numbers say that there were 155.6 million females and 151.4 million male in 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_population

[redqueen]

5. FFS... really?

[Gormy Cuss]

9. No, women are not a numerical minority. They are however a nondominant group in our culture.

So now that the OP has clarified what she meant, why not have a discussion based on that?

[Harmony Blue]

68. But that is no longer true

Most Feminists can't accept that they are victorious for the most part in spreading their message, and they have nothing left to project their energy to. So they are now focusing on stripping the freedom women finally have achieved...how quixotic that is from my view. Other than the Fundamental Christians in the United States, women are going to college at a pace outstripping males, increases in pay, more wealth and higher management positions (especially when we move on from the Baby Boomer phase).

The fashion industry employs skinny female models because they need to sell clothes to women while the porn industry uses curvy women for the most part to sell to men. Sasha Gray for example doesn't fit the prototype of curvy, so she made her living in the Porn industry doing outrageous acts to make up for that shortcoming, but it was a calculated business decision not "forced" upon her. She also chose to walk away, and is free to pursue whatever she wants. Some feminists can't accept women that are empowered with choice.

[Gormy Cuss]

71. Increases, yes. Equality, no.

That's why feminists are still talking about it.

[Major Nikon]

128. That worm is turning

In the last 20 years or so, many feminists are now choosing to disassociate themselves from 2nd wave feminists who they saw as only concerned with the issues of upper middle class white women. So many of those older ideas are rapidly falling out of favor.

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. Because the issue being discussed requires accepting the false premise.

Normal sexuality is whatever the participants accept.

Absent an acceptance of the OP's belief that "normality" is defined by the actual minority of men the entire discussion is without merit.

[JustAnotherGen]

24. But we make less money than men

On the dollar. And men are getting back into the workforce post layoff/recession at a faster rate than women.

So they have ALL the power and financial weight - so women are the minority.

[Lance_Boyle]

32. Men were hit much harder by the recent recession than women.

Should the jobs those men lost be given to women, just because?

[redqueen]

46. Ah yes, as always, but what about the men?!

Men get lion's share of new jobs, women suffer most from public sector layoffs
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/09/1052996/-Men-get-lions-share-of-new-jobs,-women-suffer-most-from-public-sectorlayoffs

Remember all the what-does-it-mean-what-can-be-done-about-it hand-wringing over the "mancession," the fact men had lost a much higher percentage of jobs in the recession than women? And that women were rapidly heading toward parity in numbers in the labor market? Well, it's over. In fact, it's been over for quite some time.

<snip>

The same thing happened after the 2001 recession. Men lost a higher proportion of jobs than women, but as the economy improved, they bridged the very temporary gender gap that the downturn had produced.

Equal Rights for Women? Survey Says: Yes, but ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/world/01iht-poll.html?pagewanted=all

Likewise, a strong core in several countries said men had more right to a job than women. More than 50 percent in 10 of the 22 countries said that when jobs are scarce, they should go to men. “If we think that it’s a growable pie, equality is fine,” Professor Ibarra commented. “If we think it’s a limited pie, it’s not.”

[lumberjack_jeff]

99. Well that's the thing. Equality is a math term, and it requires values on both sides to evaluate.

To prove a belief that social inequality exists REQUIRES evaluating the treatment of the benchmark group.

And you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. In December, the unemployment rate for women was 6.8%. The unemployment rate for men was 7.1%. 910,000 more men are unemployed than women.

Unsurprisingly, the income of these unemployed guys aren't factored into the slanted, biased and deterministic studies from such groups as AAUW designed to find inequality to justify their fundraising efforts.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

[seabeyond]

7. equality is in the Scandinavian countries. ... i dont know that i necessarily believe that.

after doing all the research i did on girl with a tatto, all i listened to and read, i may not agree they are so far out there. certainly in some areas they overshadow america. and in some areas america is better than they are.

it is truly interesting and an eye opening dynamic.

just as we had been told over and over and over how sexually progressive europe was. i believe it. assumed it. until polenski, dsk, burescoleni?, and so many other recent events that taught me they are much more sexist and a patriarchal community than this puritan america.

[redqueen]

8. I was being generous.

Those are definitely the countries that are closest to achieving true equality. It sounds hyperbolic to say they're not enfranchised anywhere on earth, but that is the case according to sociologists.

[MrCoffee]

10. So is all sexuality abnormal?

You know I think the world of you, but I really don't understand what you're saying. If we can't define "normal" sexuality (because, as you say, it's all abnormal due to cultural conditioning), how can we even use terms like "normal" and "abnormal" when we can't even define the terms in the first place?

[RadiationTherapy]

13. There is no normal/abnormal. Just society as a fluid, dynamic collection of behavior and preference.

[MrCoffee]

15. I should learn to read...starting with redqueen's 3rd paragraph

I get it now...duh.

[redqueen]

14. We can use the term, but we just have to be careful about the context.

If we're using it to mean 'in line with the dominant message of society' (e.g. it was normal to be a racist at the time) then that's fair. If we're using it to portray people who disagree with the dominant message as being wrong (e.g. a group of people said racism was wrong thinking they were right, and all the normal people were wrong) that's where it gets touchy.

[MrCoffee]

16. Thank you

My reading comprehension isn't quite there yet this morning. I'll shut my trap now and wait for my brain to catch up.

[redqueen]

19. Ha, no... it was a good question!

The word is fair enough in some uses, not so much in others.

I'm about to grab some more coffee myself.

Also, Thierry was SO not offside. Just so you know.

[RadiationTherapy]

11. Society and the power dynamics therein are fluid and able to be shaped. You have

as much right as anyone to exert effort to re-shape society. I applaud you and am here with you.

[redqueen]

43. Thank you.

[Harmony Blue]

12. The reason why most people tune out Feminists

is because hyperbole is used, or information that is no longer relevant. Women are no longer considered a minority in terms of population and ability to make money in the United States of America.

There are now more women graduating with degrees under the age of 25 then men in the United States. The only lagging point is how much women are underpaid compared to men for the same position. But that shift will happen as well given the rate of women obtaining degrees compared to men will eventually reach equilibrium. We may even reach a point where women make more then men, and that is highly likely if women continued to outpace men in academic excellence.

[redqueen]

17. Still with the numerical minority nonsense? Really?

Ability to make money? So ... because women can now legally work, everything's equal?

Women are still a minority group, and we still have a very long way to go before we can start pretending that we aren't raised to conform to the dominant group's message. I'm sorry that you don't see that, but that is the case.

[niyad]

21. no, the reason people tune out the feminists is because they are speaking hard truths--and sometimes

those hard truths have the ring of hyperbole, because people simply don't want to admit those truths.

just because more women are going to college does NOT mean that they are getting the same amount of money, or working in what have been traditionally male-dominated fields. you admitted that yourself.

but the use of the word hyperbole was something that those of us who have been fighting these battles for a long time recognize for what it is.

[Whisp]

22. women are getting better education compared to the past, of course.

but those campuses they study at are not as safe as they are for men as campus rape is all too common. If women can't study in safety, no matter if the demographics put them at a slight head count above males, they still are the minority in power and equality. But of course only 'hyperbolic feminists' see it in this distorted way.

[Tumbulu]

25. people tune out feminists because of 24/7 hate radio

vaccinating them against the tiniest bit of sensitivity to all issues that require nuance.

[JustAnotherGen]

27. True

The only lagging point is how much women are underpaid compared to men for the same position.


Not True To Date: We may even reach a point where women make more then men, and that is highly likely if women continued to outpace men in academic excellence.


The Personal:
I had the man with less education working for me making 11K more a year. It was his first 'marketing' job (previously he did something like IT support) and I inherited him. Did I hold him accountable? Nope. I held the man I reported into and the twinkie HR admin accountable for that mistake. But was it a mistake? Nope. Happens all the time around here . . . I'm just the rare woman to point out it 'looks bad' - Black Female Manager making less than a white male employee . .. you don't want me running to Black Enterprise or Working Woman Magazine with this do you (we get accolades from them each year).


The High Level:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/09/education-five-times-more-important-gender-income/42253/
This is happening, in part, because college degrees are seen as more important for the career success of women than they are for men. More than three-fourths of American say that women need to go to college in order to succeed, while only 68 percent thought the same for men, the same Pew study found.

Smart women know that they need a Masters Decree in Biochemistry to be an Assistant Manager at Burger King. Her 10th grade drop out male counterpart gets handed the General Managers positoin and more money on a silver platter.

[Major Nikon]

47. Believe it or not even feminists tune out other feminists

The suggestion that all feminists speak with one voice is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst. There are a lot of different types of feminists with many different ideas and many of those ideas directly contradict each other. Some here on DU promote the most radical of all feminist ideas as if all feminists believe in them and that the debate on these subjects is over. When you stop to analyze those ideas and see where they come from, you find out that many of them come from feminists who have no sociological or psychological backgrounds whatsoever and instead of writing peer reviewed papers to establish their credibility instead wrote books intended for the consumption of those who had just as little formal education or experience in such matters. Personally I lost respect for many of these feminists when they crawled in bed with social conservatives like Ed Meese.

[MattBaggins]

78. Your flippant method of dismissing "feminists"

has nothing to do with the case at point.

Should women tolerate the hyper-sexualized image that many feel is thrust upon them?

Why are you discussing apples when the OP is talking about oranges?

[Major Nikon]

126. You said "thrust upon them"

Having read some of what Andrea Dworkin wrote, I find that rather funny.

[HopeHoops]

18. We all have our own personal definitions of normal and of perverted.

It really shocks me that so many wingnut "normal sex" people get caught in acts that THEY refer to as "perverted".

[redqueen]

20. Sexuality is a minefield, it's true.

I'm not trying to demonize anything people do. I just want there to be a much more comprehensive understanding of the factors that play a part in society. What people enjoy is what they enjoy and as long as it's consensual and involves adults, whatever.

However, ignoring the fact that we do exist in a male-dominated culture, and sexual cues are tailored to meet the needs of that dominant group, is dangerous IMO. To me that comes too close to writing women off, because it ignores the fact that we do grow up absorbing the dominant message (not just in this but in many contexts).

[HopeHoops]

33. My dear redqueen. Have thee not met perverted women? I cerntainly have.

Fortunately I found one in '84 that is quite compatible with my own personal perversions. You have to find your comfort zone.

[redqueen]

38. Again, this isn't about individuals. This is macro level.

On the macro level, we all grow up in a male-dominated society, in which sexual cues are tailored to meet the needs and desires of the dominant group.

[HopeHoops]

40. You haven't met my wife.

Not that I'm complaining, mind you.

[arely staircase]

44. "I'm not trying to demonize anything people do...as long as it's consensual and involves adults.."

Really? I thought you were for pohibition of prostitution?

[redqueen]

48. It's too bad you didn't understand what I was saying.

Nuance: It's important.

[arely staircase]

50. nuance is one thing, self-contradiction is another

you cannot simultaniously hold the position that what consenting adults do is their business alone and then say you are for criminalizing one adult paying another adult for sex.

[niyad]

23. it is only perverted when OTHER people (meaning dems, libs, etc.,) do it. witness diaper dave,

wide stance larry, etc.

[HopeHoops]

29. Well in my definition, both of those fall into the "perverted" category.

[Hatchling]

26. K&R

I appreciate the work you are doing on this topic. Raising conciousness is a thankless job. Thank you.

[redqueen]

30. I'd like to say it's my pleasure but it's really kinda depressing to be honest.

But it's necessary, so it's worth it. Thanks for your post.

[Fawke Em]

31. It's sad that she's having to raise this kind of conciousness on a liberal

talk-board.

But I'm K'ing and R'ing along with you.

[redqueen]

42. It is sad, but not surprising.

Thanks for the rec.

[Whisp]

28. it's normal for women to be raped, compared to men, statistically.

Putting it that way is a bit shocking but it is the truth. There are two kinds of 'normal' - the fantasy normal and the realistic one.

The fantasy normals say that women like to be sexualized and reduced to their private parts, that women are these mysterious creatures that even Stephen Hawkings can't figure out.

The realistic normal is that we have not come all that long a way, baby. Not compared to the majority in power all through the centuries that are still hard at work to make us less than we are.

[redqueen]

36. I like that term for it... "fantasy normals".

Yes, because most women absorb the message that their paramount value is in their looks, it's "fantasy normal" for most women to conform to the ideal set by men, and approve of the 'positive' feedback on their appearance. Therefore it's OK to treat women like sex objects, they're doing it to themselves / choosing it for themselves, and everything's fine.

That women everywhere are praised and criticized based on their looks first and foremost (the head of the IMF was first evaluated on her fashion sense and footwear... not in People but in some major business magazine or paper, I forget the details but I can dig them up) is inescapable and inexcusable.

[AngryAmish]

34. Normal people don't think that way

(runs, hides)

[DisgustipatedinCA]

45. I'm being serious with this question: why do we need to define what "normal sexuality" is?

I think I agree with your OP to an extent--men are still the dominant group in the US, although things have changed radically over the last hundred years. So I can understand that any attempt to define normal sexuality would be tinted by the fact that men in this country are still afforded better and unequal rights than women, in some cases. But this is trifling compared to the way religion warps the view of what "normal sexuality" should be. Various religions have, since the dawn of religion, tried to control what sort of sex people have, when they have it, and the various qualities and settings that should, in the church's view, define normal sexuality. Choose any religion, tell me about how they feel about sex, and I'll show you a religion whose proclamations and prohibitions I'll continue to ignore.

What practical application is there for a nation deciding what normal sexuality is? We have the freedom here to choose our own sexual preferences--even if those choices bring derision and condemnation from various groups. I don't envision that there will ever be a time when we as a nation have some common view of what defines normal sexuality, and by contrast, what defines abnormal sexuality. So again I ask, beyond the already-codified confines of laws that protect against rape, pedophilia, and the like, what is the value in coming to some consensus on what normal sexuality is? Can't people just have the sexual makeup they're already possessed of, without having to conform to what someone else's idea of normal is?

thank you.

[redqueen]

52. Well this was prompted by someone who implied in another thread...

that anyone who disagreed about issues of sexuality was wrong, and all the 'normal' people were right.

However to answer your question, it's exceedingly important when deciding where to draw the lines about consent and willing participation, when you are indoctrinating half the population to absorb what the dominant group finds appealing.

We are bombarded with messages that show distorted images of sexuality and gender. Both men and women. This is causing obvious problems but for some reason most people seem to want to ignore it.

It isn't healthy, it isn't right, and we need to stop pretending it doesn't matter. We've probably destroyed the environment beyond repair at this point, and our political and economic systems are barely managing to function. The least we could do is put an effort into treating each other as human beings worthy of consideration.

To me, as long as people pretend that sexism and misogyny are acceptable, we're damning ourselves to a lower quality of life than we deserve.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

55. Thank you.

I didn't realize this was another one-thread-to-another chase.

"However to answer your question, it's exceedingly important when deciding where to draw the lines about consent and willing participation, when you are indoctrinating half the population to absorb what the dominant group finds appealing."

I take this to mean that you think we should have different/new laws enacted that deal with sexual norms? Under a certain age, one cannot legally give consent, and sex with an underage person is illegal, already covered. Beyond that, I still don't understand why, or where, we need to draw lines. If someone doesn't want to have sex, they shouldn't. If someone is being forced into sex, that's illegal, already covered. If you're talking about legislation to govern and control sexual behavior, I think we have enough on the books already, and I disagree. If you're talking about something other than lawmaking, I'd be interested in knowing what it is you're referring to. Nonetheless, thanks for answering my question.

[redqueen]

60. No, god no... this isn't about laws.

This isn't about prostitution.

This is about the very basic idea that dismissing a minority group's opinion about the issues they face because 'normal' people disagree (in this case matters of sexuality, but it really applies to any situation where a minority group attempts to change the status quo) is not fair or right.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

62. Cool. Again, thank you.

And I agree with you, now that I think I have a complete picture of what you're talking about.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. since you're posting a call-out thread, go whole hog & give a link

so people can figure out what, specifically, you're talking about.

Just a thought.

[treestar]

82. True. It would differ for each person, and be what makes them happy

Though it risks unhappiness for others who want it to be different. Which to me explains why the right wing wants it all defined, with pre-decided rules.

[Demonaut]

57. sexism will stop once sex does not sell, and I don't mean prostitution

I mean all the "hot" chicks/dudes marketing, skinny young, muscular/young hype
so when you talk sexism it's more than treating women like meat, that is the lowest part of it

but it'll never end, you have lipstick? your lips aint that red, you have heels? you're not that tall, breast implants or a push up bra?
your boobs arent that big, etc

[redqueen]

61. Yes, we're barely making baby steps on this issue.

We're still so saturated with it, and so few people even see that there's any problem with it at all.

[Major Nikon]

139. If we were all robots we wouldn't have to wipe our asses out once per day

What you're really saying is that if humans weren't human, we could get rid of all of the so-called problems with humanity.

The reason sexuality is used in marketing is because typically people are buying an image of what they'd like to be, which has very little to do with reality. Sure it would be nice to envision some type of utopian society where people are valued solely based on their minds and not their bodies, but that's not reality and it's not what humans are. People have expectations based on appearances. Maybe that's not fair, but it is what it is. You might as well ask people to stop marketing food on the basis of taste and smell.

[Demonaut]

145. no, I stated that it's not going to end and agree with your

premise

cant defeat the biological

[The Straight Story]

58. So what do you consider normal sex? (nt)

[redqueen]

63. This is a macro level discussion.

The point is to try to reach a point where the sexes are equal (where all people are equal, really).

While dominant groups are able to causally dismiss minority groups' opinions because 'normal' people agree that the status quo is great, progress is impossible.

[The Straight Story]

87. "dismiss minority groups' opinions"

So, is someone speaking for all women in this? If a woman says X is fine in regards to sex, is she 'wrong' in some way? Is she just too dumb to know better because she is not capable of making her own decisions because others are more in the know than she is?

Just not sure who the arbitrator is on such things.

[ZombieHorde]

66. I think I would define "normal sexuality"

as the desire to love and be loved.

"When the sexual cues are tailored to appeal to the dominant group, and the minority group is raised in this environment, most of them adopting the dominant message, and conforming to society's 'default', how can we possibly think there's any way to know what 'normal' is?"

Excellent point.

[redqueen]

74. Ah but love is not sex.

Sex can be a very important part of romantic love, but the insistence that it is an absolute necessity in every loving romantic relationship is an accurate assertion.

Thanks for getting it... but you would.

[msongs]

67. the OP could ask women why they put up with the situation and what are they

going to do to change it

[redqueen]

76. I could, but I didn't.

This was more a discussion than a question and answer thread.

Whatever people of either sex want to do about it is up to them. I'll repeat what I told MrCoffee upthread, and just ask that people consider treating sexism as they treat racism and misogyny.

It's not ok, it's not a big joke, and it shouldn't be ignored.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. "normal" is a label, an artificial construct.

the larger problem, as I see it, is people have these pet ideas in their heads and they start thinking that they exist out in the real world. Then they get mad when the jagged, complex, fractal shapes of real-reality won't fit into their neat, euclidian-shaped label categories.

Particularly when people get overly enamored with one particular lens via which to view the world- be it dialectical materialism, dworkin-mackinnon feminism, fundamentalist religion, what-have-you...

The map is not the territory, the menu is not the meal; it's at best a representation, or a pointer to the real thing.

[MountainMama]

86. Ding, ding, ding....

We have a winner. "Normal" is what we tell ourselves it is or we let society make it seem so.

It would be great if everyone had a live and let live attitude towards sex and sexuality, but because of religious influence, IMO, it's gotten all twisted. I blame antiquated views of female sexuality on religion too. I don't know how society gets past that; it's been ingrained for hundreds of years and continues to be.

I'll never forget a message board discussion I read once. Someone challenged the people against homosexuality to make an argument that did NOT include any religious reasoning. No one could do it.

[Nye Bevan]

72. Given that (1) women outnumber men, and (2) women have the vote,

how can women possibly be considered a minority?

[redqueen]

77. You have got to be flipping kidding me.

[Zorra]

89. rq, maybe the problem is, lot of people, not just men, don't/can't understand how

women, black folks, and other minorities as well, still are not equal, and would not be equal even if they were numerically equal in numbers of bodies.

I'm sure you know, as I do, some conservative women who are clueless as to their inequality as well.

Clearly, the more progressive thinking posters on this board understand our position maybe as well as we do. They have the ability to empathize, and be objective in their perspective about the conditions of others. They very easily "get it" when facts are presented.

As truth is gathered, they rearrange. Conservatives, however, have a hard time adapting, and often do not want to adapt, preferring to hold on to their long standing dearly held views rather than acknowledge fact.

I can almost guarantee you, not a single poster at FR understands how women can be unequal even though they are close to numerically equal in numbers of bodies.

IMO, this is primarily the result of some degree of conservative predisposition in most people who cannot, or will not, recognize the inequality of others.

Here is some research that backs up this probability:

Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.

The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote.

Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism - an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).

Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

[lumberjack_jeff]

97. Using "minority" to describe the majority diminshes the struggle that actual minorities face. n/t

[Zorra]

100. Uh-huh. Obviously, you are a white American male.

I am a multiethnic lgbt female. With dark skin.

Since, from your experienced perspective, you seem to have a profound understanding of the plight of women and other minorities, could you please explain to me how women describing themselves as a minority diminishes the struggle that other minorities face?

I'd really like to know; this gathering personal inner conflict over which minority I am and which of these minorities takes precedence over others is tearing me to pieces.

Maybe you can enlighten me, and put my poor little mind at ease?

Thanks so much!

[lumberjack_jeff]

102. I'm not overly concerned about putting "your poor little mind at ease"

Actual minorities have faced persecution from time immemorial at the hands of the majority. Read about the Jews, gays, american indians or american blacks. In the absence of constitutional protection, their fundamental human rights exist at the pleasure of the majority.

White women are THE biggest voting bloc in this country, and social policy reflects it.

The guys who get 40% of the college educations, who experience 92% of workplace fatalities, who endure 95% of military casualties, who suffer more unemployment and less medical care and who benefit comparatively trivially from social programs, don't meet monthly at the he-man woman-haters club to keep you in your perceived place.

One last thing. I'm sick of "white american male" being used as an insult.

[redqueen]

111. Maybe this will help you to understand

minority (sociology)

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/384500/minority

minority, a culturally, ethnically, or racially distinct group that coexists with but is subordinate to a more dominant group. As the term is used in the social sciences, this subordinancy is the chief defining characteristic of a minority group. As such, minority status does not necessarily correlate to population. In some cases one or more so-called minority groups may have a population many times the size of the dominating group, as was the case in South Africa under apartheid (c. 1950–91).

[lumberjack_jeff]

113. Did you seriously just say that women in the US are like blacks in apartheid SA?

Women are not subordinate in this country in any meaningful way.

[redqueen]

115. LOL, you go right on believing that...

while women who run for office are treated like they're competing in a beauty pageant. While female managers are paid less than the men who work for them, who also happen to lave less education.

Cause that stuff sure isn't 'meaningful'. Not while you have MRA bullcrap to whine about.

Yeah, I bet you will, too.

[lumberjack_jeff]

119. If women can't get elected in this country, they should ask the dominant voting bloc why not.

Women are most of the voters. We have the government you elect.

[redqueen]

120. Right. Environment and the dominant message are meaningless concepts.

You're a true man of genius, you are.

[lumberjack_jeff]

121. Rendered meaningless by your malpractice with them, yes. n/t

[woolldog]

112. Thanks for posting that jeff. nt

[redqueen]

114. Yes, thanks, I've almost got a full MRA bingo card!

[woolldog]

117. Not sure what that means. nt

[redqueen]

122. It means nice sig, be proud. (nt)

[woolldog]

123. Oh. Thanks. nt

[Zorra]

133. LOL! I was only pointing out what is totally obvious.

You are a straight white American male that has never experienced what it is like to be less than equal to others on any type of longer term basis.

This is transparent; and is readily apparent from your posts.

Sorry you took it as an insult.

I'm also sorry that you cannot comprehend how women can be considered a minority. A large number of men, white male American men included, including the majority of the progressive/liberal guys here at DU, clearly understand how and why women are a minority.

As a matter of fact, this was written by such a progressive/liberal man. -

(one last shot at it before I give up)

What is a Minority Group?

A subordinate group whose members have significantly less control or power over their lives than members of a dominant or majority group

Not limited to mathematical minority: example women, Blacks in South Africa, Blacks in Mississippi and South Carolina in the 1920's.

Interchangeable with subordinate group

A group that experiences a narrowing of opportunities (success, education, wealth, etc) that is disproportionately low compared to their numbers in the society

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/minor01.htm

[lumberjack_jeff]

134. you are not subordinate.

[Zorra]

137. Let's try this:

Given a relatively equal population of males and females in the US:

Why do you think only 16% of the Senate is comprised of women?

Why do you think only 17% of the House is comprised of women?

Why have we never had a woman President?

Why are the wages of full time working women only 3/4 of that of full time working men?

Why do women comprise only 1.9% of the CEO's of the top 2000 companies?

Or only 2.6% of the CEO's of Fortune 500 companies?

Etc?

We're still subordinate, we're still not equal.

It's just much less pronounced than it used to be.

[Major Nikon]

138. It's not as easy as pointing to the numbers and saying discrimination is the only answer

You have to consider sociological differences and many other variables before you can adequately draw those conclusions. The questions you are asking do not have easy answers.

Asian men earn more than white men. Do you think that white men are being discriminated against on the basis of wage? I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion.
http://www.8asians.com/2010/08/01/asian-men-have-the-highest-salary/

A NBER study found that when you look at both men and women who have never been married and never had children, the wage gap actually favored women in the 35-43 age group. That same study suggest that the actual wage gap that exists is much smaller than you would think simply looking at the numbers once sociological factors come into play.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w11240.pdf

[lumberjack_jeff]

144. AAUW themselves say (in the fine print) after correcting for work hours and experience...

... that before the recession, and not factoring in the disproportionate impact unemployment has on men, the "pay gap" is about 5-7%.

Men and women doing the same jobs, with the same experience level are paid within a range that can be explained away by factoring in women's unwillingness to negotiate for salary.

[redqueen]

110. I think that is it exactly.

I don't know how many people are just incapable of ever getting it, but there's no point trying to reach them.

My focus is on those who just need a little more information in order to get it.

[Zorra]

135. There doesn't seem to be any other rational explanation.

It's kind of like showing Obama's birth certificate to a birther. They won't accept the fact that Obama was born in the US, and continue to insist that Obama was born in Kenya. Obama himself, and his mother also, could tell them that he was born in Hawaii, and they still disregard all and cling to their belief. No matter which clear, immutable arguments/facts you present, they will continue to hold to their position despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[lumberjack_jeff]

96. The dictionary is apparently a tool of the vast patriarchal conspiracy. n/t

[yellowcanine]

80. "Normal" is a perfectly fine word. It is a statistical term meaning "within the norm," the norm

usually being the mean plus or minus 2 standard deviations. The problem is that "abnormal" has become a pejorative as has deviation. We readily accept the use of the word norm or similar words when we are referring to any other kind of biological variation, such as height or limb length or shoe size. I don't know what the answer is other than to just choose not to characterize the differences and just accommodate them as we do with clothing sizes. So we have medium, small, extra small, large, extra large and there are usually no value judgments made.

[redqueen]

81. Context. See post #14, or paragraph 3 in the OP. (nt)

[yellowcanine]

93. It was an observation, not a specific response/critique of the OP.

[redqueen]

101. Ok.

With as many people are saying that since there are more women than men, that women aren't a minority group, and other such ignorant statements, it's getting hard to tell who's trying to try to claim what.

[unionworks]

83. Ever hear of Lola Montez?

Just curious to hear your take on the role of courteseans and power. That aside, I agree with you that all forms of slavery are odious. From Wiki -

A courtesan was originally a female courtier, which means a person who attends the court of a monarch or other powerful person.[1]

In feudal society, the court was the centre of government as well as the residence of the monarch, and social and political life were often completely mixed together. Prior to the Renaissance, courtesans served to convey information untrusted to servants to visiting dignitaries. In Renaissance Europe, courtiers played an extremely important role in upper-class society. As it was customary during this time for royal couples to lead separate lives — commonly marrying simply to preserve bloodlines and to secure political alliances — men and women would often seek gratification and companionship from people living at court. In fact, the verb "to court" originally meant "to be or reside at court", and later came to mean "to behave as a courtier" and then "to pay amorous attention to somebody".[2] The most intimate companion of a ruler was called the favourite.

In Renaissance usage, the Italian word "cortigiana", feminine of "cortigiano" (courtier) came to refer to "the ruler's mistress", and then to a well-educated and independent woman of free morals, eventually a trained artisan of dance and singing, especially one associated with wealthy, powerful, or upper-class men who provided luxuries and status in exchange for companionship.[3] The word was borrowed by English from Italian through the French form "courtisane" during the 16th century, especially associated to the meaning of "court-mistress" and "prostitute".[1]

[redqueen]

105. You want me to comment on the 'power' that hot women have

to barter on their looks and sexuality.

Really?

[unionworks]

116. So "hot" women

Can't have "power"? Lola ruled Bavaria through the use of her mind. She used her looks and talent as a tool. Same with Cleopatra. I apologize for asking you to go outside the bounds of your narrative. And I will abstain from further comment, not out of spite but because I understand aand respect where you are coming from. I'm sure someone of your intelligence knows what I'm getting at, and I defer to your wishes for justice and equality. All slavery is odious.

[redqueen]

118. And you obviously know what I'm getting at as well.

Which is not that "hot" women can't have power.

Consider, if you will, how many female rulers there have been. And yet still, somehow, no equality for women.

That says a lot. Even at their most powerful, the changes necessary to society that are needed in order to raise women up to the level men have always enjoyed have not occurred.

Those are changes individuals have to make. Sadly, most just do not want to.

[unionworks]

124. In Pagan Ireland

Women were treated as equals. If you ever get time, read up on the relationship between Irish warrior king Chuchulain and Morrigan, the Phantom Queen. Chuchulains fatal mistake was refusing her sovereignity.

[redqueen]

125. Oh yes... that was one time they were.

The exceptions to the rule are nice to remember. We should try harder to return to such a state. And try to avoid returning to situations like the one we see all over the world today.

[mistertrickster]

131. See, that's what I'm talking about.

The sloppy argument that is politically correct but bears no scrutiny to actual fact.

Prime Ministers Golda Meir, Margret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Angela Merkle . . . what do they have in common?

None of them are the least bit "hot."

On edit--and on the other hand, Benazir Bhutto, totally hot.

[redqueen]

142. Did you miss the word 'courtesan'?

Context: It is important.

[unionworks]

85. "Some people

...mistake us for whores... we are stong independent women...

[unionworks]

88. Bad Lola Montez!

Definitely not "Normal"...

"Some months later, Lola resumed her dancing in Munich, but the theater manager took one look at her performance and fired her on the spot, claiming that her work was appallingly bad. Infuriated, Lola went directly to the palace to appeal her case to the King. Still in costume, she charged right into the astounded King Ludwig's private study, demanding "justice." Taken aback, the King attempted, clumsily, to be urbane and sophisticated as he inquired if her lovely figure was a work of nature or of art. Obviously, he really didn't know what to say, and finding herself in control of the situation, Lola snatched a pair of scissors from his desk and slit the front of her dress to the waist, thrusting her dazzling bosom into the King's face. Before she left the palace she received a substantial engagement at the Munich Theater. The manager was fired.

Ludwig fell desperately in love with Lola. He gave her an ample allowance directly from the public treasury. He built her a splendid little palace, and he himself designed a marble fountain for it which sprayed perfumed water in an arched plume. Ludwig was an aged and fading man, and Lola easily began to rule his kingdom for him, as well as his imagination. She took exuberant control and made enemies fast, frequently cracking the whip - literally.

She harassed the Jesuits and introduced Napoleonic law. Her "rule" was strikingly liberal, to the dismay of the archconservative Austrian Prince Metternich, who ruled Europe between the two Napoleons. Sensing disaster in Bavaria, Metternich offered Lola the equivalent of $250,000 if she would go away quietly. She threw it in his emissary's face."

[Betty Karlson]

90. Important note:

in NO COUNTRY in the world are heterosexual men in the majority. NONE.

Therefore, they are in no position to tell the rest what "normal" is, because minority opinions are never the norm, unless enforced in reprehensible ways.

[redqueen]

106. Indeed... and those actual statistical minority opinions

are indeed enforced and reinforced in reprehensible ways, both overt and insidious.

[felix_numinous]

91. When it comes to the current dominant culture

women often are treated like a minority. What I have noticed is that increased sexism, racism and homophobia--and violence in general-- seem to go hand in hand with a depressed economy. Education loses funding and ignorance abounds.....

Our country, along with too many others, has a paradigm of power that is dominating/hierarchic.. so the result of this is a culture that slips into abusing power, on every level, schools, neighborhoods, in the home, and in films, games and in how stories are framed.

Why,(since the 70s?) has TV been dominated by police/detective/murder mysteries? Why are we seeing so much horror,violence, gore, torture--depicting the many forms of abusing power? When I was a teenager and learned about the Roman Colloseum, it was so obvious that it was evidence of a culture in decline. Presenting gratuitous violence as entertainment, but here we are.

I absolutely am not entertained by watching women being chased in terror, thrown around, then reading it is happening in society and no one calls this out.

I would love to see more peaceful solutions, more advanced social skills, more respect and more discussions on how to handle all the stressed and dysfunctional behaviors we have to face in today's world. Thank you redqueen for bringing this one to light.

[redqueen]

107. I agree, however we don't all agree on which behaviors are dysfunctional.

Or perhaps which of those dysfunctional behaviors are bad enough for people to want to change.

They're the water we metaphorical fish have been swimming in all our lives, and most can't even see it, and even once they do see it most don't think there's any problem with it.

[Withywindle]

92. Thank you so much for making this important point.

We are not, and never have been, in a position to know what is "normal" or "natural" (another word that gets abused an awful lot). We are all products of our cultural conditioning.

Anyone who's seriously studied anthropology or history knows that most things we take for granted as "normal" in our culture have been very radically different in other cultures and other times, and that MOST CERTAINLY includes hot-button issues like sexuality and gender roles. Is one culture more "normal" or "natural" than another? We have no rubric to measure that by, really, because it's not possible for us to get a perspective that's independent of acculturation at all.

Nobody had ever seen the entire Earth all at once until the space exploration programs allowed us to leave it for a little while, to look back and see the big picture. The means to do this culturally have yet to be invented.

And that being the case, why not envision the culture we WANT and make it possible? We do know that culture is very malleable - the one we have wasn't handed down on high from "God" or "nature," it was made by people. And people can change it.

Thinking about it on a personal level, as a lot of people have done in this thread, is all well and good, but it's not really what this thread is about, if I'm reading you correctly. It's about systemic, large-scale, longterm ways of thinking that have shaped our culture into what it is today--and how to change those things that need changing. But then, I also think the Second Wave feminists were definitely right about at least one thing: the personal really IS political.

[redqueen]

108. You are reading me 100% correctly.

Absolutely and completely.

[Withywindle]

140. I'm glad, thank you!

I know we've clashed before and we don't always agree on what is or is not exploitative of women.

I just want to say, I completely respect and admire the heavy lifting you've been doing on these threads. Goddess bless you. I cannot believe some of the willfully ignorant things coming up lately here, and it is really painful. There are way too many people (not gonna presume gender here) who have obviously never read any kind of Feminism 101 stuff.


And yes, this being a board that claims to be liberal/progressive, I do NOT think it's too much to ask that everyone take 20 minutes out of their lives to read some goddamn Wikipedia pages about the history of the women's movement. Of course you can't base a revolution on that, but it would make a lot of people posting here sound a lot less stupid if they were willing to spend a day or two reviewing the easily-available decades of political theory, and maybe even giving it a little bit of serious thought, before taking over the board with dick jokes.

[redqueen]

141. It shows how bad the problem really is.

Someone complained in H&M about the juvenile attitudes that are being displayed in here over this subject (obviously I've ruffled quite a few feathers).

[Odin2005]

136. K&R