In her Wall Street Journal article "Why Do We Let Them Dress Like That?" Jennifer Moses argues that the reason we mothers let our daughters "dress like prostitutes" is largely due to our own sexual regrets. She goes on to speculate that mothers who came of age in what she considers a post-feminist society were perhaps too free with their sexual experimenting.
As a part of the solution to this problem, she subtly advocates abstinence until marriage.
While it seems that Moses' heart is in the right place -- wanting to be protective of our daughters -- I respectfully disagree with her thinking. In fact, I think the real problem is that dressing provocatively is one of the only outlets we allow our daughters to express their sexuality. If, instead, we supported them in gradually assimilating an understanding of their natural sexuality as they grow, they wouldn't need to identify with it primarily through superficial packaging, like the mini-dresses and perilously high heels Moses refers to.
What I believe would help, because hundreds of women in my study and 25 years of clinical practice have taught me so, is affording our daughters and ourselves much more of a right to our own authentic sexuality -- not the cartoonish MTV kind, but the kind where we respect ourselves enough to listen to what our bodies and hearts feel is right for us.
In my book on how a daughter's sexual sense of herself is shaped by her mother's, in quote after quote, women reveal how their mothers unintentionally let them down by leaving them in the dark to learn about sexuality all on their own. They talk about the shame and guilt this created in them and the many ways this inhibited their development of self-worth, not only with regard to their sexuality, but in all areas of their lives.
We aren't living in a post-feminist society; we still live in a world in which female sexuality as women and girls truly experience it is denied, while ridiculously inauthentic and pornographic images of sexuality are constantly splashed in our faces.
Regret over being sexual isn't the issue. The cultural shame and guilt projected onto us for being sexual under any circumstances is what needs to be addressed.
Forcing a moral divide in the way we sexually categorize girls and women as good or bad harms us all. Whether we're abstinent or sexually engaged, none of us should be limited to derogatory pigeonholing like that.
Moses unfortunately reinforces that divide. The language she chooses to put in her article is not generous to sexually active girls or women, as she pits them against the virtues of virginity or marital sex. Those who test the limits of society's tolerance are called out as "skanky," "prostitutes," "good-time girls" and the "campus mattress." And she closes with this sentence: "We wouldn't dream of dropping our daughters off at college and saying: 'Study hard and floss every night, honey -- and for heaven's sake, get laid!'"
There's so much more to our sexual identities than getting laid or refraining from having sex.
When the time comes to drop my daughter off at college, I'll want her to stretch her mind in her classes, build new friendships and further her understanding of herself -- her sexuality included.
Becca Stevens: Sin, Redemption and the Path of Healing
Meg Wolitzer: Literary Adventures In Bed: From Productive To Deadly (PHOTOS)
as some rapper put it. All the mass media owners care about is how much money they can make. and too many of the socalled "artists" are mindless shock jocks. It's easier and more profitably to sell sex and violence and exploitation than real art. "Charlie's Angels" sells a whole lot better than Masterpiece Theater. Madonna or GAGA sells a lot better than Bach.
Guess we have three choices-1. take over, execute all the trashmasters and mandate REAL ART like Shakespere and Beethoven (ya sure, you betcha) 2. educate the American sheeple to have some TASTE (even less likely) 3. Join the Amish and live without the corrupt mass media. Hmmm..
Come to think of it thats pretty much what i've done. I finally aquired a TV- it was given to me. But all i've ever used it for is watching the occasional movie and (mostly) for playing classical CD's. Dont know if kids would tolerate such an un-hip lifestyle; they might run away and join the Crips just so they could have their Facebook and thier Lady ga ga, or who ever it is this month...
Life has nothing to do with competition (except with self) and comparisons. Margaret Thatcher didn't agree that her womanness took her to the UK PMship. She dwelled on merit and track record behind her. She was, simply put, the most qualified person to ascend to that position. That is the truth. All other "beliefs" that prevail (and have existed before) are myths that must be confronted.
Male or female statuses are accidents of birth, right there with ethnicity or features. They are not only non requested but can be overcome. The ultimate victory lies with imparting a good self image to the next generations, right from home. The need for mentorship cannot be overstated. Therein lies victory for any human being, not just females.
The article provokes debate. More though should be done, even exceeding the author's solid suggestions.
I think her statement is overly analytic and I argue the reasons are largely based on external circumstances.
Peer pressure, the fast forward fashion industry and the bombardment of product placement all play very clear roles in inundating our daughters with a “prostitute couture” belief.
Girls, I don't think, want to doll it up at ten and eleven and really look to the parent for boundaries. As this statement is met with gasps of “have you ever gone shopping with a ten or eleven year old?” indicates is that the child controls the parent and acts in ways she knows will trigger an immediate response and the parent will give in to her demands.
That’s an entirely different issue. Additional factors in allowing our daughters “prostitute couture” include our own de-sensitivity to the fast forward fashion industry who’s hoping to secure brand loyalty at a very early age, product placement from store windows to magazine kiosks and our own inability to put the brakes on. Public protests over sultry/edgy depictions have caused public outrage in the past that have resulted in the pulling of ads.
If one wants to stop Abercrombie & Fitch or other “prostitute couture” children/adolescents clothing designers don’t reinvent the wheel revert to the tried and true methods: Stage a public protest or modernized build a Facebook watchdog page.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was keynote speaker at the 5th Global Colloquium of University Presidents around the world on Gender Equality and Women Empowerment, as hosted by UPENN President Amy Gutmann. UN Undersecretary General and UN Women Director Michelle Bachelet also attended. Ban Ki-moon said that he is working for the increase of women workers in the United Nations to about 40% specially in middle management. Indeed, women workers, with their Ethics of Care, work best in post-disaster and post conflict situations like in Japan, Africa and the Middle East. Shall we, women, join and support the UN Academic Impact that has just been established recently?
We have both the feminine and the masculine natures in us.
Therein lives the beauty and completeness of who we are.
This is a good article, and I agree with its basic premise. I wrote about this subject a lot in college in-fact and tend to think that its one of those areas in society that is so murky that it often just is ignored all together.
One thing that I notice though in this article and in general is that whenever the subject of sexuality comes up it is often heavy on the female side. Men's sexuality is often only brought up as an illustration of "evil misogynistic men out to objectify women". the reason this is a problem is because sexuality is two sided. there are men and women, and together they create human sexuality. to ignore one side makes it quite difficult to adequately discuss the other side.
in the post feminist movement era I believe men are often very confused about their place in society . they are handed contradiction after contradiction growing up and are objectified in equal but different ways. and boys, I don't think are given nearly as much parental counseling on the subject.
if you do what is talked about in this article... without addressing male sexuality as well... don't you think you might be creating woman who could potentially just be easier pray for males who's sexual mindset hasn't been furthered in the same way???
If one considers sexuality only as a reproductive function of human existence, then the mating rituals are reduced to mechanics.
The other facets to consider would be male/male, female/female sexuality.
How did David love Jonathan when he said?: " I am distressed over you, my brother Jonathan. Very pleasant were you to me. More wonderful was your love to me than the love from women." (2nd Samuel 1:26)
there are many levels to human sexuality and relationships.
Men have effectively been silenced in the age female independence. Anytime a man speaks from his own perspective, if it rubs against the grains of the new feminist ideal, it is seen as archaic or misogynistic.
And just as the article points out that girls feel their only way to express their sexuality is through superficial ways, so is the reality of men.
I feel that in many respects we went to an extreme to move past the problems of the past by trying to throw away everything male about being male.
I'm not saying that woman are now on top of the world, and poor me for being a man. not at all. I'm just saying that in the effort to empower and liberate woman we might have missed the mark in a few aspects, over shot, or just plain got some things wrong among all the great accomplishments as well.
After all... is the aim of feminism to eliminate masculinity? or is to allow both feminine and masculine aspects of human existence flourish in a fair, balanced, respectful and positive way which appreciating the differences between men and women?
if it is due to nature or nurture. But in 40+ years of liking women I have noticed that the guys who DO objectify women, the guys whose goal is to get sex, get a whole hell of a lot more of it than those of us who are interested in women as whole persons.
Whether due to a kindly nature, timidity, or some warped byproduct of growing up Catholic, i have allways been willing to treat women as freinds. The results is, they almost allways call me when they need a shoulder to cry on, or they need somethin fixed. But someone else gets their hearts ( and bodies)
I am highly intelligent (MS degree) tolerably good looking, no major bad habits, been gainfully employed untill recently. But I am pushing 60 and never married. Cant help wondering if "nice guys finsh last" isnt largely true in the love/sex/reproduction game. Maybe women subconsciously prefer macho men, hairy chests and big muscles, because it would have been pro-survival back in the Ice Age, and the genes coding for that preference got passed on?
this is extremely true, at least from a subjective, personal experience perspective.
I have a similar story. when I was younger I was more reckless and cavalier with women. saw them more as things and I had greater success. as I got older I started to see them as equals, treated them with respect etc... and I have now gone over a year without a 2nd date.
I don't think its black and white and I know there are a lot of different reasons and aspects for the way things play out but I also don't think its an uncommon story.
how does feminism play into it? what is the female perspective? I think these are all legitimate questions and discussions.
Just fantastic!