1. IrvingSnodgrass - Feb. 4, 1999 - 8:57 AM PT
In the Slate dialogue Should Women be More Modest, Wendy Shalit, the author of “A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue,” and Cathy Young, the author of “Ceasefire: Why Men and Women Must Join Forces To Achieve True Equality,” discuss an interesting subject: female modesty in today's society.
Are women and men essentially different or are they the same? Would more “female modesty” give women stronger self-esteem and cure many of society's problems? Read the dialogue and tell us what you think.
2. CharlieL - Feb. 4, 1999 - 9:28 AM PT
Only if you believe the problems of society are the fault of to begin with, and that is ludicrous.
Why is Scott Shugar racist for his article about blacks, but these people aren't sexist for saying that a cure to the problems of society can be cured by women changing their behavior independent of any change in men's behavior?
3. CharlieL - Feb. 4, 1999 - 9:28 AM PT
Only if you believe the problems of society are the fault of women to begin with, and that is ludicrous.
Why is Scott Shugar racist for his article about blacks, but these people aren't sexist for saying that a cure to the problems of society can be cured by women changing their behavior independent of any change in men's behavior?
4. cllrdr - Feb. 4, 1999 - 9:32 AM PT
Wendy vs. Cathy is hilarious. What's next? Laura Ingraham vs. Katha Pollitt? It's official: Feminism is now a Cat-Fight.
5. DanDillon - Feb. 4, 1999 - 9:34 AM PT
If I'm not modest, then why should anybody be?
Let immodesty thrive!
6. IrvingSnodgrass - Feb. 4, 1999 - 9:37 AM PT
Chuck:
One of the few things both sides seem to agree on in the dialogue is that a change in behavior by both men and women is needed. Neither side is claiming that women are at fault for anything... quite the opposite, if I read them correctly.
7. cllrdr - Feb. 4, 1999 - 9:40 AM PT
I think Kinsley should get Paula Jones' opinion on this.
Hey -- he knows all her handlers.
8. Jonesatlaw - Feb. 4, 1999 - 10:17 AM PT
Does the thesis seem to assume that male desire is constant and never controlled? Thus, the only effective means of promotion of modesty is a change in women's attitudes and behavior?
How quaintly Victorian. My Edwardian grandmother was more enlightened and insightful.
9. cllrdr - Feb. 4, 1999 - 10:21 AM PT
Yeah! What about female desire? What about Monica?
10. ChristiPeters - Feb. 4, 1999 - 10:24 AM PT
I have been reading the dialogue, but feel that I am missing some points because I have not read either one's publications.
So, do not read the following as a critique or argument with either Cathy Young or Wendy Shalit, but merely my opinion irt some issues.
One: How I dress or behave does not justify disrespect of me or sexual attack on me by any man. I hold the "temptation is no excuse" position. So if we are talking about requiring or urging modesty in the form of dress and behavior we open up several cans of worms. What immediately leaps to my mind is "who decides what is modest" and "are we now going to go back to 'it's her fault because she was immodest"?
Two: I *do* feel that there is less acceptance of a woman's choice to *not* engage in sex outside of marriage. The expectation that dating is a way to find people to jump into bed with is one of the reasons that I am not dating. There are consequences to casual sex beyond the risks of STDs and pregnancy.
One thing I have noticed is that when sex becomes part of the dating relationship, the dates become mostly about finding time and place to get together for sex. If the relationship then progresses to marriage, you may find that you really don't know the person you are marrying. Once you live with someone 24 hours a day, you notice that a small percentage of that time is spent having sex. Issues and behaviors outside of the bedroom become much more important.
Don't get me wrong, sexual compatibility is important in marriage, it is just not the only thing that is important in marriage.
Well, I've got a meeting to go to, so I'll stop here with just one more point. I think rather than focusing on 'women's modesty' perhaps we should strive for respect for each individual as a person.
11. Jenerator - Feb. 4, 1999 - 10:27 AM PT
I think it's good for a woman to dress and behave somewhat modestly. I also think that it's good for a man to respect and desire modesty in women.
12. justlooking - Feb. 4, 1999 - 10:27 AM PT
It seems like the first thing conservative society wants to do is control women's sexuality in every culture. There are different rationales and histories and methods, but IMHO it always comes down to this fear that woman will have wanton sexuality if they're not controlled. Let those who are so eager to control women monitor their own behavior. (And leave us alone.)
13. Jonesatlaw - Feb. 4, 1999 - 10:31 AM PT
The author who waxes nostaglic for legal protection of chastity has a selective memory. Some states, in order to protect maidens, had rather restrictive statutory rape laws presuming that no young woman could legally consent to sex. No consent, therefore rape. However, since the intent of the law was indeed to protect virgins, a viable legal defense was that at the time of intercourse, the young woman had already lost her virginity. Therefore, once one could show that a 13 year old girl was not a virgin, the law provided her no protection. Hardly what I think the author intends.
14. Judithathome - Feb. 4, 1999 - 10:49 AM PT
I think some women today DO dress in provocative ways to attract attention and then cry foul when men respond.
Everything in the media is aimed toward sex...ads on TV and in print, movies, music... we are constantly bombarded with sexual innuendo and promise. Some of the blame for lack of modesty should be laid at the feet of media. What ever happened to mystery and allure? Personally, I would rather discover the secrets of a mans desirability for myself, rather than see him on a 50ft billboard in his BVDs.
15. Msivorytower - Feb. 4, 1999 - 10:49 AM PT
cllrdr reMessage #4
What possessed you to put these two women, and their dialogue, in the feminist camp?
This exchange may be a cat-fight (actually, I'm becoming convinced that the new modern woman has adopted a crippling form of "confrontational assertiveness" as a badge of hipness - a new female version of the classic "fuck you"), but I take exception that it represents the new feminism.
And since when has feminism promoted misogyny?
Btw, reading this exchange is interesting, particularly at how each of the writers talk right past one another. I must say, though, I can't quite figure out why Young objects to Shalit's hypothesis, she seems to be creating straw men in her attack.
16. Msivorytower - Feb. 4, 1999 - 10:51 AM PT
strike that "at" in the first sentence of the last paragraph....
17. Judithathome - Feb. 4, 1999 - 10:55 AM PT
cllrdr:
Read Camille Paglias attack on Shalit and I think you'll get a new perspective on Youngs *objections*. The she-beast mentioned Shalits AGE....it's the typical resentment of the new kitten on the block....(Paglias rant is in Salon at the very end of her Ivory Tower column.)
18. Judithathome - Feb. 4, 1999 - 10:59 AM PT
MsIt:
Sorry, that last bit should've been addressed to you. I have to admit, after reading the first 2 entries on Monday, *cat fight* sprung to mind for me, too....
19. thoughtful - Feb. 4, 1999 - 11:17 AM PT
I recognize the fact that I'm older than many here, but was still a child of the 70s, make love, not war, hip-hugger, bell-bottom, peace signs, love beads, granny glasses era. Girls who slept around a lot were considered sluts and worthy of little respect as they so obviously had such little respect for themselves. Boys who slept around were also not respected as they were users and thus useless. The girl in our high school who "had" to get married was shunned more for stupidity than for being viewed as "evil". We weren't prudes -- only the most religious of us had a steadfast view against premarital sex. But the majority of us took sex seriously -- as something appropriate only for a "serious" relationship.
Seems to me that sleeping around, as we called it, had a whole lot more to do with self respect, or the lack thereof, than anything else. I would suspect that that is still true.
Interestingly, dating around was considered a no-no. If you started seeing someone, that was it until you broke up and became available for someone else. If you weren't seeing someone special, then "dating" really consisted of hanging out in co-ed groups of friends. In my parents' day, dating around was considered appropriate and "necessary" for a gal to get to know several different fellas, keep 'em on a string, until she was ready to choose one in particular.
20. cllrdr - Feb. 4, 1999 - 11:21 AM PT
"I also think that it's good for a man to respect and desire modesty in women."
What about respect for a womn's immodesty, Jen?
Ms. -- You know I don't use (g)'s.
21. Judithathome - Feb. 4, 1999 - 11:37 AM PT
thoughtful:
Well, once again I am forced to admit to being a child of the 50s(!) so that must make me older than you but our memories are strangely not that far removed. In my school, sleeping with anyone, period, was considered quite slutty and anyone unlucky enough to get pregnant was looked on with great scorn...and pity, because they were usually sent off to the Gladney home for "wayward girls". This threat alone was enough to keep us *pure*. Yes, those days are fondly looked on now by conservatives as idyllic but it was mainly terror and ignorance that kept us modest and virginal.
22. Msivorytower - Feb. 4, 1999 - 11:41 AM PT
Judith
Much as it pained me, I read Paglia's column at Salon. The age thing is a definite angle, however, Young isn't even in the (new) feminist camp, so I don't think Paglia's comments relevant to understanding her weird objections.
Btw, on the issue of modesty, this seems very contrived. The notion that if women would only be modest, they'd force men into better behavior. Where's cigarlaw, he advocates something similar about women: that we are the civilizers of men by our actions.
I had a problem with it then, and I continue to have a problem with it now.
23. ChristiPeters - Feb. 4, 1999 - 11:49 AM PT
Judithathome - "I think some women today DO dress in provocative ways to attract attention and then cry foul when men respond."
This is the kind of statement that drives me up the wall. IMO it assumes that men are helpless slaves to their sex drive and incapable of controlling themselves in the face of temptation. Bunk! and rather disparaging of men. If I can teach a breeding stallion to wait until he has permission before mounting the in-season mare in front of him, then intelligent human men can voluntarily control their actions when facing a scantily clad woman.
24. PsychProf - Feb. 4, 1999 - 11:49 AM PT
My sons will not abide a short skirt or visually telling sweater on their mother...what do you make of that?
25. Judithathome - Feb. 4, 1999 - 11:52 AM PT
MsIt:
I come from an era where the onus of making men more civilized was laid at the feet of mothers...this might be true of pre-schoolers but grown men ought to be able to think for themselves. Of course, every mom ought to do her best to raise decently behaved children. Mine did and that's why I still write thank-you notes. But I'm not a believer in tailoring MY behavior to make YOU a better person. (I'm speaking of the editorial *you*, of course!)
26. Msivorytower - Feb. 4, 1999 - 11:54 AM PT
PP
You ask US????
How funny. I've got some standard fizzy-pop comebacks, but I'm sure you can deduce them all by yourself....
My daughter freaked when she saw me get one of those singles clubs advertisements in the mail (singles dating thing).....
What do you make of that?
27. PsychProf - Feb. 4, 1999 - 11:54 AM PT
Christi....don't bet your new house on that one!!
28. PsychProf - Feb. 4, 1999 - 11:57 AM PT
Missie...do it. Don't tell Cal.
29. ChristinO - Feb. 4, 1999 - 12:00 PM PT
I had a difficult time working up much sympathy for either side in this debate. Actually, the "talking past" one another and the snide remarks reminded me more of the Fray only that we usually make better points than either Shalit or Young has.
Moving on.
Irv, you mentioned to Chuck that the argument is that men and women are equally responsible for change and therefore the subject matter is not misogynist, but the very fact that Female Modesty is being discussed rather than Modesty itself seems to scream sexist to me. (My apologies if I've misunderstood you)
Shalit's focus is on women and how they suffer and how they might be able to ease that suffering by a return to more conservative ideals. While she certainly mentions men-----they can't be left out of the equation since we share the same planet-----her focus is on women and women's sexuality as opposed to human sexuality.
Young most likely represents the view I would favor, but so far she hasn't proven to be very articulate. She spends too much time being cute in her insults and waltzing around the real problem with Shalit's ideas.
I find that neither of these women is very precise or clear in her writing and certainly they would both benefit from a class in getting to the freakin' point.
30. Judithathome - Feb. 4, 1999 - 12:00 PM PT
Well, Christi...you hit it on the head when you said "intelligent" human men.
I'm not disparaging men and you can cry bunk all you like but facts are facts. Women dress provocatively....men respond...not always in a genteel fashion.
Congratulations on being able to train a stallion to show restraint. Unfortunately, men are not beasts...tho at times some may act like it.
31. Msivorytower - Feb. 4, 1999 - 12:01 PM PT
hahahaha, you are being sneaky PP.
That wasn't the point of my little digression.
Anyway.....
The modest woman.
32. Msivorytower - Feb. 4, 1999 - 12:05 PM PT
Christin
Yes, my impressions as well. I don't think I'd agree with Young either, she seems to exemplify the new confused conservative woman - self-reliant but loathing of "femaleness". As I said before, a new breed of misogyny, IMO.
33. CalGal - Feb. 4, 1999 - 12:16 PM PT
My sanctions against such activity are self-directed; the Ms may date with my blessings.
But if the Ms finds dates in a singles club I shall consider her an immodest woman.
34. TabouliJones - Feb. 4, 1999 - 12:25 PM PT
Msit is single. Reow. HubaHuba.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Actually, I've been hoping that MsIt would enter the Social Security thread to provide some insight into FTC's Social Security=Ponzi scheme analogy.
35. thomasd - Feb. 4, 1999 - 12:26 PM PT
Re. 6 -
Snirv -
Of course. Men are at fault for everything.
36. ChristinO - Feb. 4, 1999 - 12:31 PM PT
Ms,
You may be right. I know nothing about Young's views other than the little I was able to extract from her messages.
What appeals to me about both of their views (assuming I've arrived at the correct impression) is the idea that it should be okay to not be promiscuous. The only problem with that is that my reaction to it is kind of "Duh, what a talent for stating the obvious." I also am not aware of a significantly increased trend toward stigmatizing abstinence or restraint so it seems a rather moot point.
I think respect for others of any sex is the route to follow. Whether it is a woman or a man who wants to wait isn't relevant to me. We are the final authority on whether or not we participate in something and others should recognize and respect that authority as we should recognize and respect others'.
I have to say that the focus on female virginity set off all kinds of brouhaha from the peanut gallery in my mind. It is the very existence of the hymen that causes much of the problem. Were there no physical way to tell a female virgin from non-virgin many problems would be avoided. Unfortunately that is not the reality and I'm unsure of exactly how to address the issue. While I abhor the references to "honor" and "jewel" and "most precious posession" at the same time I have tender feelings toward virginity both male and female.
Ack! Have to run away for a minute. Probably just as well since I'm beginning to ramble. While I certainly enjoy thinking with my fingers I know that it makes for rather dull and disjointed posting. Be back in a few.
37. ChristiPeters - Feb. 4, 1999 - 12:42 PM PT
PP and Judithathome - So perhaps we should start raising our sons to accept responsibility for their actions.
Perhaps we should raise both our daughters and our sons that 1) The act of intercourse *requires* CONSENT on the part of BOTH individuals and 2)It is *expected* that they have the intelligence and moral strength to refrain forcing intercourse on someone. That the fact that someone is physically aroused is no justification for forcing someone to do something against their will.
Why does that sound so hard? Is the male of our species less capable of being trained/taught than a domestic animal?
(BTW it is not just *I*, specifically, have been able to teach a stallion to respect "no" even when aroused. It has been accepted practice for quite some time, not only in breeding farms, but in show competition.)
38. ChristiPeters - Feb. 4, 1999 - 12:50 PM PT
Having said that, the idea that is is 'ok' for a woman to choose to not be sexually promiscuous appeals to me as well. There is a growing movement in this country to value chastity and virginity before marriage.
There has not been a movement (that I know of) in regards to chastity for an older woman who is no longer a virgin. In fact, I have encountered assumptions that since I was married and thus enjoyed normal sexual relations with my husband, I am some how incapable of abstinence now that I am divorced. The 'once you've had it you can't lkive without it' attitude. Once again Bunk!
Yes, I enjoyed sex while married. Yes, I miss it. Yes, I would like to find a partner and enjoy marriage and sex again. However, yes I *can* do 'without it' because I have made a moral decision to not engage in sex outside the bonds of marriage.
(Just because something is hard to do, that doesn't mean you can't do it! Sheeesh!)
39. PsychProf - Feb. 4, 1999 - 12:53 PM PT
Christi...I don't see anyone supporting rape here. Having said that, it seems interesting to discuss social behavior/mores, sexual message, and female modesty. Men do not always tango alone, no?
40. Judithathome - Feb. 4, 1999 - 12:55 PM PT
Christi:
I certainly wouldn't disagree with you about teaching our sons to take responsibility for their actions. I raised my son that way and he is a decent man with good values and I'm quite confident he would always behave as a gentleman toward everyone.
I wonder if I'm dense but, frankly, I find both Shalit and Young to be confused. Maybe they simply can't disagree without being disagreeable. They both seem.....huffy.
41. PsychProf - Feb. 4, 1999 - 12:59 PM PT
Judith...I hereby retract my "parent" comment and stand forth with my tail between my legs.
42. Judithathome - Feb. 4, 1999 - 1:09 PM PT
Psych:
Well, if you mean when you cast aspersions on my ability to be a good parent, I forgive you and retract my snippy come-back, also.
You previous comment about this being interesting with regards to discussing social/sexual mores...I agree! Being older, I find it a good way to see into the minds of the young because some of what I observe is very disturbing to me...I mean, around me, like the 13 year old next door who is very "loose" and out of control. Of course, I doubt we will be reading many comments here in support of promiscuity but over-all, I think it will illuminating.
43. ChristinO - Feb. 4, 1999 - 1:12 PM PT
Judith,
They are huffy. I don't know that this could be avoided since Shalit the writer is addressing Young the critic who trashed her book. I think it may have been doomed from the start to be more personal than analytical.
Christi,
It is certainly your perrogative as it is anyone's to have sex only if and when it is truly desired. (I distinguish between being sexually aroused and agreeing to have sex since the two do not always walk hand in hand.)
I hesitate to put the focus on marriage as the ultimate "date", however, for several reasons. Firstly not everyone will or wishes to marry and yet if one chooses to have sex outside of marriage that does not mean that one is now "free game". Secondly, if marriage is upheld as the end of the waiting period there is a tendency to marry just to assuage hormones and as you have pointed out a successful marriage is about far more than just sex. There is also the question of the presently illegal homosexual marriage: if you're gay what are you waiting for since you can't marry anyway? Most importantly I think I object to there needing to be any justification for waiting other than "I don't want to."
44. ChristinO - Feb. 4, 1999 - 1:35 PM PT
Judith,
Just so you don't feel unsatisfied I'll weigh in on promiscuity. (pun most assuredly intended)
I don't have a problem with people being promiscuous so long as they are responsible about it. The spread of STDs and the number of unwanted pregnancies is my primary concern.
I suppose that much of this rests on what one considers to be promiscuous. I have a friend who is a serial monogamist, quite a few who would be considered promiscuous by my mother's standards, a couple that I consider promiscuous and then of course we're all promiscuous by my grandmother's standards. I don't think I know any virgins anymore, but I'm 29 so that's not particularly odd. I certainly have friends who are not in the least promiscuous by anyone's standards except of course my grandmother's, but they are not the rule just as my promiscuous friends are not.
I think in the end it comes down to how one feels about one's own sexual activity. Some people do not endanger their self-esteem with casual sex. Others find casual sex empty and humiliating. There really is no norm to aspire to barring the exceptions that prove the rule. The important thing is that we recognize that sexuality is individual and that much harm comes from usurping the individual's authority.
Kee-rist. I sound like that fruity "I'm OK You're OK" book of 70's fame.
45. ChristiPeters - Feb. 4, 1999 - 1:47 PM PT
Whew... sorry I got interrupted by work.
I was going to go on to say that OTOH I know women who feel differently than I do about casual sex and that is fine with me. The point is that I shouldn't need to dress or act a certain way that has been defined as 'modest' in order to be free to choose to have sex or not have sex as I wish.
PP - Message #39 No, no one here is supporting rape, but the author seems to feel women should be 'modest' to protect themselves from men. Once again, the premise seems to be that men can't control themselves and it's up to women to stop them from behaving badly. I resent that.
ChristinO - Message #34 I guess I have failed (once again) to make my point clearly. I am not saying that marriage is, or should be, the ultimate date. I am saying I wish to have dates with men in order to enjoy adult conversations and adult company without feeling either pressured to have sex or even the unspoken expectation that sexual intercourse is the 'normal' culmination (? highpoint? purpose?) of a date.
I am trying to say it should be acceptable not only for a female to choose to maintain her virginity until the 'right' time, but also for an older non-virgin as well. I have encountered the "Well, it's not like you haven't had sex"; and "You were married for 15 years! What's the big deal!" and "How can you live celibate, once you have experienced a normal full sexual relationship? Is something wrong with you?" attitudes. I resent them.
continued...
46. ChristiPeters - Feb. 4, 1999 - 1:48 PM PT
continuing...
I also did not mean to imply that *everyone* should refrain from sex unless they are married. You are quite right that not everyone wishes to marry and I recognise many choices different than mine as being equally moral. I merely was referring to what I perceive as a lack of acceptance for my particular choice.
I also should mention that this choice springs less from any high-minded or religious morality as from my personal distaste for being physically intimate with someone unless I am also intellectually and emotionally intimate with him as well. I associate that kind of state of being (intellectual, emotional, and physical intimacy) as one in which I would also like to have a formal declared lifetime committed partnership - marriage.
(Perhaps my experience is limited.)
47. Msivorytower - Feb. 4, 1999 - 1:49 PM PT
Christin Message #36
Precisely. A big Duh.
I do think peer pressure is as important as ever, though, (perhaps more important) and that young men and women are more vulnerable to it in our current culture where clear public norms are now absent regarding "appropriate" sexual behavior in the young.
That is, the visible influence of religious morals on public life has weakened, but has not been replaced by any clear "secular" standards of behavior.
The latest hypocrisy of Congress and the President (regardless of the impeachability of such actions) does have an impact on young people, whether we admit to that or not. Combine this with the growing voyeuristic appetite toward our entertainment icons, leading us to all know more than we want to know about their sexual behaviors (certainly many of us, at least), and you get all kinds of conflicting "public" messages being sent to younger people.
I also think young people (13-19) "feel" the hypocrisy more emotionally at this age, as well, creating a more cynical, suspicious, insular youth culture as a result.
The upshot of my comments is that I agree with the idea that we need to be clearer to young people (of both sexes) that sexual inactivity (or pickiness) is perfectly fine as an alternative. I also agree completely with this statement:
"Most importantly I think I object to there needing to be any justification for waiting other than "I don't want to.""
And that's what both women seem to be missing from their dialogue.
48. ChristiPeters - Feb. 4, 1999 - 1:51 PM PT
ChristinO - well, ignoring the book for a moment - "I'm OK, You're OK" sounds good to me. It also is rare in that most people seem to feel "I'm OK and you should be like ME"
&:o)
49. Msivorytower - Feb. 4, 1999 - 1:51 PM PT
Christin reMessage #44
"Kee-rist. I sound like that fruity "I'm OK You're OK" book of 70's fame."
Yes, you do......
50. ChristinO - Feb. 4, 1999 - 1:56 PM PT
Christi,
Sorry if I was unclear----I seem to be having a rash of that in the last couple of days----I didn't think your intent was to impose any form of sexual behavior on others. I know that was not your intention and is not your style. My focus was drawn to the institution of marriage and it's position as the ultimate fallback for abstinance not because of your views toward it but simply because you mentioned it.
Ms,
Well, we've solved that one! What's our next task in our on-going quest to save the world?
51. ChristiPeters - Feb. 4, 1999 - 1:57 PM PT
MsIt - I agree with everything in your Message #47
52. ChristinO - Feb. 4, 1999 - 1:59 PM PT
Gaaah! I've never even read it. I HATE it when that happens: I develop a personal philosophy only to find out that somebody beat me to it by 20 years, collected all the royalties and has now been laughed off the planet. Maybe some day I'll catch up.
53. PsychProf - Feb. 4, 1999 - 2:02 PM PT
I love it when modest women act immodestly.
54. Judithathome - Feb. 4, 1999 - 2:03 PM PT
Christi"
Apropos of your last comment: I had a shirt that said "I'm OK, You're SoSo".
I think promiscuity is in the eye of the beholder. It's a label and like all labels, one reads what one wants into it. I agree with you that there's more than a *bad rep* awaiting those who sleep around these days. It is indeed frightening what horror stories circulate... not to mention so many teen pregnancies. I really feel for parents these days, they have so much to worry about every time the kid walks out the door.
55. ChristiPeters - Feb. 4, 1999 - 2:04 PM PT
PP - Oh! You.... You..... You, MAN, you!
(do I really need to add *g*?)
56. Judithathome - Feb. 4, 1999 - 2:05 PM PT
#54 should read "Christin"
57. PsychProf - Feb. 4, 1999 - 2:05 PM PT
Good grief...I don't believe my fingers typed that post...throw me a life presever fraybuds...
58. seadate - Feb. 4, 1999 - 2:05 PM PT
PP - LOL!
59. Jonesatlaw - Feb. 4, 1999 - 2:08 PM PT
Being male, and only having one male child, please forgive my intrusion here. There are some unquestioned assumptions here that cry out for attention.
1. Men in general, and young men in particular will have sex with anyone who will hold still long enough for the act to occur.
2. The loss of one's virginity is of importance only to women.
Am I wrong, or are these taken as true in the discussion?
60. PsychProf - Feb. 4, 1999 - 2:11 PM PT
Jonesie joins PP in water.
61. Msivorytower - Feb. 4, 1999 - 2:11 PM PT
Don't know, Jones, they certainly weren't part of my set of working assumptions.
I do think Shalit's position seems to support those assumptions. I'm not clear how Young comes down on this, though.
62. PsychProf - Feb. 4, 1999 - 2:12 PM PT
PP pleads ignorance, lacking both youth and proper gender.
63. Judithathome - Feb. 4, 1999 - 2:14 PM PT
Okay guys...make fun of those I'm OK, You're OK books of the 70s all you want but Wayne Dyer taught me how to rid myself of unnecessary worry with Your Erroneous Zones. Gave me insight into the futility of worry as an approach to solving problems. People did that a lot in my world back then....
64. ChristinO - Feb. 4, 1999 - 2:18 PM PT
Jones,
I second the Ms. I find neither of those assumptions valid and I think that anyone who does perpetrates an injustice to both men and women. The idea that men have no more sexual values than the average alley cat disparages the vast majority of men and provides a convenient excuse for the few who completely disdain personal responsibility. It also encourages callousness in women toward men as well as allowing a shuffling off of their own responsibility regarding sex.
65. ChristiPeters - Feb. 4, 1999 - 2:34 PM PT
Jones - yes, what ChristinO said Message #64. However, I agree that the Shallit side of the dialogue sounds like she holds these assumptions. That is what prompted my response.
(Catch y'all tomorrow. I'm outta here!)
66. Jonesatlaw - Feb. 4, 1999 - 2:45 PM PT
MsIt, Christin- Thank you. I didn't think that I heard any Fraysters offer such a suggestion, but it does seem to come out in the dialogue. I think I'll offer my two cents, and the message for my son is the same as if I would have a daughter. You are a virgin only once, you will remember your first time for the rest of your life. (assuming that you're conscious) Make sure it's something you'll look back on fondly. From what I know, you won't look back fondly if
1. you're blind drunk/stoned etc, 2. you are with someone you don't respect or know as a person and the same is true for them, 3. You don't protect yourself from disease or unwanted pregnancy,4. you do it because you think that you have to, or because someone else thinks it's time. 5. you shoot your mouth off to anyone about having sex.
I think some modesty in this mode is good, and applies equally well to young men. I am afraid that behind the bragadoccio, they are less emotionally mature than young women of the same age, and can be just as hurt by a bad experience.
67. thomasd - Feb. 4, 1999 - 5:06 PM PT
Re. 21 -
I find it disappointing that concern for the well-being of any out-of-wedlock babies that might result seemed not to be part of the equation among those most directly concerned, even back in the '50's.
68. thomasd - Feb. 4, 1999 - 5:26 PM PT
Merriam-Webster online defines 'modesty' as follows:
"1 : freedom from conceit or vanity
2 : propriety in dress, speech, or conduct"
I don't really think 'modesty' is the most appropriate noun that could be chosen to characterize the subject of discussion in this thread. Perhaps 'self effacement' is a more applicable term.
69. chloel - Feb. 4, 1999 - 5:44 PM PT
If nothing else, the official dialogue shows what depths of dimwittedness can be reached by two women trying to outdistance each other from 'feminism'. Couldn't Slate have found someone willing to say 'Yup, I'm a feminist, and this is what most feminists mean?' (me! me! me!)
Even assuming that they read nothing less illustrated than Time Magazine, they should have remembered Nicole Hollander's response to the sexual revolution: a man saying, "A truly liberated women would say Yes! Yes! again Yes!" and the woman responding "Or maybe You must be kidding, or Ick."
On the generational question - my mother came of age in the early '60s, and I in the mid-'80s, and one of the things that surprised her about my peer groups - pleasantly - was how little social pressure there was to be Dating or Attached or On Third Base, let alone Virginal or Not Virginal. Of course, the kids I hung out with in high-school were also feminists, or at least dealt with what we thought it was, not their own images.
Jonesatlaw, that's a really nice lecture in Message #66, it's almost not even a lecture.
70. Msivorytower - Feb. 4, 1999 - 5:46 PM PT
Jones
Good advice to any young person.
ThomasD
I'm not sure what your point is in Message #68. The concept of modesty is used as the framework for Shalit's hypothesis. If you disagree that she's really talking about modesty, why? What does self-effacement add to the discussion? And why do you think it fits better?
71. thomasd - Feb. 4, 1999 - 5:52 PM PT
Re. 70 -
MSIT -
I think 'female modesty' in this context of discussion is an outmoded term, with connotations that are largely left over from when most women had significantly fewer life choices and options than they do now.
72. darkviolet - Feb. 4, 1999 - 5:53 PM PT
Female modesty is all in the eye of the beholder, anyway. One of the most conservative women I work with likes to wear a popular style of pants called leggings (basically heavy tights) with a tunic-type shirt or sweater. It's a little more casual and revealing that what I usually wear to work, too much like workout clothes, but I didn't think much of it. Until I overheard what some of the men were saying about her clothes, or more precisely about the shape of parts of her body I don't think she really wanted them to notice so well. Now I have to smile every time I see someone dressed that way, which is quite often.
73. darkviolet - Feb. 4, 1999 - 5:55 PM PT
She must have looked at herself in the mirror and thought, "No one is going to be rude enough stare at my crotch." Wrong.
74. CIGARLAW - Feb. 4, 1999 - 5:56 PM PT
the hand that rocks the cradle moves the world. civilization was created by women and women are its keepers. if it was left to men, we would still be running around in africa eating raw meat and farting at meals. if you like the world the way it is, it is okay with us. if women don't like it, they will have to lead the way to change.
75. ChristinO - Feb. 4, 1999 - 5:57 PM PT
Chloel,
We appear to be of an age and from your posts in the past I believe we tend to fall along similar political lines. Your description of the lack of pressure you experienced during your coming of age years gels with my own recollections.
I was aware, however, that it was different for different groups outside my own. I went to an "inner city school" (in a city as small as Raleigh that mainly means we had the highest proportion of non-white and poor students) but it also happened to be the Magnet school so there was quite a bit of separation along class and race lines.
76. lemwalker - Feb. 4, 1999 - 5:57 PM PT
The difference in genders is that a purse will hold more guilt than a wallet.
77. darkviolet - Feb. 4, 1999 - 6:11 PM PT
I didn't bother to read the dialog. It sounds like I didn't miss much.
Any idiot should be able to figure out that their attire and grooming influences the way people react to them.
So what? Use it and enjoy it.
78. aldavis - Feb. 4, 1999 - 6:57 PM PT
I hesitate to make any comments in this thread, but as obviously the oldest speaker, let me make a couple of observations. Someone said above that men are not animals. Wrong! If you ladies knew how men talked about women you would hardly believe it.
Also, in case there are any virgins listening, do not believe jonesatlaw. You probably will not remember your first sexual encounter unless you spend a lot of time dwelling on it, and you shouldn't. Sex is great, but unless it has a bi-product, it is really not that big a deal.
And if you can be promiscuous with no bad consequences, have at it.
I think women should be more modest than men and it seems to this old gent that many are trying to out gross us, a heavy duty indeed. Paglia does a pretty good job of it, however.
79. thomasd - Feb. 4, 1999 - 7:02 PM PT
Well, I'm not really an expert on gross-outs, but if the ladies want to be sure that they're *not* modest, they can pick up some pointers from the Fugs and Frank Zappa, who don't need them any more.
80. darkviolet - Feb. 4, 1999 - 7:06 PM PT
aldavis -
"...it seems to this old gent that many are trying to out gross us..."
Are you talking about the huge increase in the amount of advertising of feminine hygine products that seems to have happend in the last decade? I don't know what the hell the story is with that. I have absolutely no idea why there was suddenly such a huge demand for competing yeast infection products or why people aren't just asking their doctors what to do about it. It's very strange.
81. aldavis - Feb. 4, 1999 - 7:17 PM PT
darkviolet
When ever I see those ads I know I've stayed up too long.
But honestly, that's not exactly what I had in mind. To be very honest, it is more the behavior of media women than real women. In spite of the fact that I am of a different generation, I consider myself a feminist. That is, I want to see every woman rise to her full potential. My daughter for a while drove a bus. She thought she could drive a logging truck. I wish she had been given the chance.
But men and women are quite different creatures. Anyone who has to do with small children can attest to that. Not all are ready to admit that.
Let me put it this way. Someone once said that if sportsmanship leaves golf, it is gone. Well, if modest behavior, manners and restraint and all that implies, leave women, it is gone.
82. Gildori - Feb. 4, 1999 - 7:38 PM PT
To rid our society of prejudice, both against women and men, we need to educate our children in the "human first, girl/boy second" philosophy. I have tried to raise my daughters that way, yet the 7-year-old is the only girl in her jukido class, and the 15-year-old the only girl who plays (stand-up) bass in the orchestra. In school, kids are still taught to [toe/tow?] the line, fit the mold, and play nice. Girls who partake of some what should be androgynous activities are "spunky," "unusual," "spirited". Yet, when they finally graduate from college, they are supposed to take on the business world as though born to it?
I am not as downhearted as I may sound about it -- I believe it's kind of like recycling -- you have to learn it as a child to really "live" it. I will continue to encourage my children to find their bliss wherever it may lie.
83. cllrdr - Feb. 4, 1999 - 7:39 PM PT
74. CIGARLAW - Feb. 4, 1999 - 5:56 PM PT
the hand that rocks the cradle moves the world. civilization was created by women and women are its keepers. if it was left to men, we would still be running around in africa eating raw meat and farting at meals. if you like the world the way it is, it is okay with us. if women don't like it, they will have to lead the way to change.
That's a delightfully old-fashioned position, cigar. But it does nothing to explain Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, Marie Antoinette, Emma Goldman, Ava Gardner, Lucianne Goldberg, Arianna Huffington, or Anna Nicole Smith.
84. CIGARLAW - Feb. 4, 1999 - 9:36 PM PT
cllrdr: of course women can be as crude, vicious, ill mannered and power mad as men if that is what they want. the fact that a lot of women want to be does not speak well for the future of civilization.
of course you forgot madonna.
85. darkviolet - Feb. 4, 1999 - 9:56 PM PT
Gildori -
There is a sexual aspect of gender specific behavior that may surprise you in your daughters and their friends in the future, no matter how "human first" they have been raised. The contrast between genders drives hetrosexual lust, and will continue to motivate people to assume gender specific roles, regardless of what they think they should do.
86. sswillinger - Feb. 4, 1999 - 11:10 PM PT
Are men and women different?
Of course...that's what inspired poets and still inspires those with poetry in their hearts. Does that limit a woman's ability to do the same things as a man? By no means.
Perhaps the greatest strides in equality are in the area of sports. While, there's definitely still a gap between men's and women's sports, it is refreshing to see that a girl, or woman, can be an athlete and still be feminine. Why should one preclude the other. I hope that this trend will continue.
87. resonance - Feb. 5, 1999 - 12:28 AM PT
Oh, my. Where did they dredge up these two losers?
I'll take "Who Is, and Is Not, a Feminist, and Other Politically-Minded Poseur Proxy Arguments for $400, Alex."
Laertes:
'For Hamlet, and the trifling of his favor,
Hold it a fashion and a toy in blood,
A violet in the youth of primy nature,
forward, not permanent, sweet not lasting,
The perfume and suppliance of a minute --
No more...
...Then weigh what loss your honor may sustain
If with too credent ear you list his songs,
Or lose your heart, or your chaste treasure open
to his unmast'red importunity.
Fear it, Ophelia, fear it, my dear sister,
And keep you in the rear of your affection,
Out of the shot and danger of desire.
The chariest maid is prodigal enough
If she unmask her beauty to the moon.
Virtue itself scapes not calumnious strokes.
The canker galls the infants of the spring
Too oft before their buttons be disclos'd,
And in the morn and liquid dew of youth
Contagious blastments are most imminent.
Be wary, then, best safety lies in fear:
Youth to itself rebels, though none else near.'
Ophelia:
'I shall the effect of this good lesson keep
as watchman to my heart. But, good my brother,
Do not, as some ungracious pastors do,
Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven,
Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine,
Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads,
and reaks not his own rede.'
88. resonance - Feb. 5, 1999 - 1:18 AM PT
I think it's sort of passe to either insist that a woman ought to be some kind of sexual goalie when faced with the lupine predation of helplessly priapic young men, or that women ought to be as free as they wish to be and that it's an insult to all women to expect them to be modest. But we really can't expect to make a good argument out of the psychopolitikal crap these two blithering idiots have forked up for us. It's like they're building entire arguments on archetypes and stereotypes, and are more concerned with scoring points and discrediting each other than treating with truth. What they say is aimed at each other, not at understanding the topic.
It's about appealing to emotion rather than intellect, moreover -- if the arguments of either person have swayed you, I fear you've just been rhetorically victimized.
To put it another way -- if women ought or ought not to be concerned with modesty, then such imperatives definitely do not spring from the arguments of either one of these 'authorities'.
If women ought to be concerned with modesty, I believe, then they ought to be concerned with it for individual reasons, not because the latest power struggle between various 'feminists' concerns the issue of modesty and responsibility, and they should adopt one position or the other.
Arguing that modern social consciousness is betraying young women by encouraging them to be sexually open, if not promiscuous --betraying them because the word is full of dark alleys and smoky bars and intoxicants and men with erections who don't stop when you say 'no' and won't respect you the next day -- is fallacious. It's abject Paglia-think. It's dumb.
89. resonance - Feb. 5, 1999 - 1:33 AM PT
It's fallacious simply because our social consciousness is also very mindful of the dangers associated with being sexually active. Women, and men, are bombarded with images of sexuality and sexual release. Being 'sexy' is a very very close second to being rich in our society, and maybe even edges it out, in the host of needs which media instills in our society.
But so is the flip side -- being a 'slut', getting pregnant with someone who won't support you, getting AIDS, losing the respect of others. The reason this Pagliaesque argument is dumb is that our society offers both points of view -- that sex is fun, fulfilling, and to be desired, and that promiscuity is degrading and unfulfilling -- and to insist that society betrays young women by not giving them reasons to be modest is to ignore the very prominent, second, point of view.
And it is prominent. There isn't a single person here who hasn't seen that form of social ostracism in real life, I'd wager. And it's all over the big and little screen -- the Catty Slut and the Dumped, Hysterical Chick are almost as prevalent a cliche as is the Hero. And when was the last time that the Hero ended up with the sleazy cheerleader? The down-side to promiscuity is well-known. It colors everyone's thinking. And the Paglia argument ignores that, in its haste to take a politically motivated shot at its opposition.
Why should enforced 'modesty' be an answer to this? I should think the example of Victorian England answers that.
90. resonance - Feb. 5, 1999 - 1:39 AM PT
And even leaving the Victorian example alone for the moment, we can come up with another good reason why we shouldn't just enforce, or at least heavily suggest, modesty... or why we shouldn't do the opposite and say that modesty is bad.
The real question here, implicit in the polarity between Polonius and Hamlet, upon which Ophelia is transfixed, is whether we should teach people to think for themselves.
We don't do that if we either insist that women should be modest or that women shouldn't be expected to be modest -- because we in essence are telling people that they aren't fit to make their own decisions, if we do that. I would humbly submit that it's a grievous lack of self-responsibility and independent thinking which *leads* so many people to either cloister themselves or else end up whoring about -- men or women -- and when they regret their decisions, in this day and age, with these two prominent schools of thought being pushed upon them, they are still taught that it shouldn't have been their decision in the first place, one way or the other.
Maybe that's the problem in the first place -- the fact that society looks to authorities for their cues as to how to order their personal lives, and thinks for themselves second. Maybe it might work better the other way around.
That rot about the teenage girl who wished her parents were more strict -- that's what's wrong. She blames her father if she and her boyfriend are having sex, not herself or her boyfriend, whom she even seems to exculpate. Like, she's helpless and along for the ride. Society has taught her that it's all right for her to be upset with her parents, not herself, and dialogues like the one Slate is posting are a part of that teaching process. Telling her that she ought to be modest isn't going to solve her problems, because it's just going to set her up for the next situation where she has a decision to make and no one is making it for her. Society can't hold her hand forever.
91. Mrtoner - Feb. 5, 1999 - 5:05 AM PT
Most of the comments in this thread are more weighty (and more interesting) than is the lost exchange between the two "ad femenem" debaters whose fruitless arguments gave rise to these remarks.
Letter-exchanges of this sort are of greater interest to the public when they
involve subject matter well-known to all. I realize that I could go read the
book under discussion, but, having first read the rants of its author and
the equally inept responses of her critic, my only reaction is, "I'll
wait for the made-for-television movie version."
92. resonance - Feb. 5, 1999 - 5:22 AM PT
It is such utterly supreme irony that someone can actually mention the name Ophelia in an argument saying that forcing modesty upon young women will make them happier and their lives less complex. You know, Ophelia, bloop bloop gurgle, float? Yes, being a pawn is really very satisfying, so I see.
Despite the pointlessness of the debate, Susan Young really does seem to be beating the rhetorical snot out of this Wendy Shalit loser.
93. Msivorytower - Feb. 5, 1999 - 6:13 AM PT
Res
I take exception to your placing this debate as between two "feminists". These two both sprout clap-trap, and as others noted, and you yourself, they are simply engaged in a conservative cat-fight.
I liked your comments, they mesh well with the discussion that occurred in the prior 50+ posts. ChristinO and I made a similar set of conclusions from the dialogue, although not as literarily made as yours.
94. ChristiPeters - Feb. 5, 1999 - 6:42 AM PT
"...we really can't expect to make a good argument out of the psychopolitikal crap these two blithering idiots have forked up for us. It's like they're building entire arguments on archetypes and stereotypes, and are more concerned with scoring points and discrediting each other than treating with truth."
YES!
95. seadate - Feb. 5, 1999 - 7:18 AM PT
It's the Spring of 1957 and Bobby goes to pick up his date. He's a pretty hip guy with his own car. When he goes to the front door, the girl's father answers and invites him in.
"Carrie's not ready yet, so why don't you have a seat?," he says. "That's cool" says Bobby. Carrie's father asks Bobby what they're planning to do.
Bobby replies politely that they will probably just go to the soda shop or a movie.
Carrie's father responds "why don't you two go out and screw? I hear all the kids are doing it." Naturally, this comes as a quite a surprise to Bobby-so he asks Carrie's Dad to repeat it.
"Yeah," says Carries father, "Carrie really likes to screw; she'll screw all night if we let her!" Well, this just made Bobby's eyes light up, and his plan for the evening was beginning to look pretty good.
A few minutes later, Carrie comes downstairs in her little poodle skirt and announces that she's ready to go. Almost breathless with anticipation, Bobby escorts his date out the front door.
About 20 minutes later, Carrie rushes back into the house, slams the door behind her, and screams at her father: "DAMMIT DADDY! IT'S CALLED THE TWIST!!!"
96. thoughtful - Feb. 5, 1999 - 9:36 AM PT
I typically don't read Slate -- just pop in here when I can. But this time, I decided to actually read the dialog. If this is what Slate has to offer, then I'm glad I don't bother. The ideas and discussions here far exceed those of Y&S. (I'm being polite to refer to the dialog as including ideas or discussions). In fact, reading the dialog, I almost thought I was in the "worst" of the Fray.
M. Kinsley, delete the dialog and post Res' remarks instead -- far more reasonable, insightful, intelligent, comprehensible and to the point.
97. msivorytower - Feb. 5, 1999 - 9:42 AM PT
Thoughtful
I've been hanging out at Salon the last few days, tP has a thread going there, and I must say, comparing the state of these two mags now as opposed to even a year ago shows that Slate has squandered its opportunity to shine.
Salon has a more interesting TOC, and more thought provoking commentary on just about anything than Slate does.
Hell's bells, I don't know what Kinsley has been trying to do with this mag lately.
98. thoughtful - Feb. 5, 1999 - 9:54 AM PT
Egad! You don't suppose Kinsley has been replaced by Blaise, do you?
99. bloodnfire - Feb. 5, 1999 - 12:41 PM PT
ChristiPeters. Your Message #38 You have always sounded like a wonderful woman to me, and this post of yours continues the impression. I believe that there is a "Mr. Wonderful" out there who might almost be worthy of your kind of grace, and who, at this very moment, is being groomed just for you. Let us know when he arrives.
100. Judithathome - Feb. 5, 1999 - 1:51 PM PT
I agree that resonance made more sense in his posts than Shalit & Young made all week in their mutual screed. I'm glad he mentioned the oddity of citing Ophelia...I wonder if these 2 were paid for this exercise?