Rich men / beautiful women

[Tararhu2]

Probably feminism 101 ... I’m trying talk to my daughter about feminism. She’s 17 and thinks she’s 27. Won’t listen to me. So We’ve been talking about Harvey Weinstein....I think her views are a bit misogynist. She says something like:

‘for every woman he abused there must have been at least one other one who slept with him willingly to get ahead.’

She then said ‘until very women stop using their beauty to get ahead they will always be objectified and creeps like Harvey will have the chance to thrive. Rape os never ok and never justifiable. However, the sense of entitlement rich men have over beautiful women and subsequent opportunities for abuse are in part caused by women. Until women stop objectifying themselves we cannot expect equality. Women who marry far less attractive, older richer men for money are traitors to us all. They perpetuate the Beauty/power exchange and let us all down.’

Isn’t this victim blaming at its best? Or am I just old fashioned to think that wearing a short skirt doesn’t mean your asking for it. How do I explain it to her?

Your daughter has a point. I don't think she's saying it's acceptable to rape, just that some know they can use their looks to get ahead.

Isn’t this victim blaming at its best? Or am I just old fashioned to think that wearing a short skirt doesn’t mean your asking for it. How do I explain it to her?

Well for starters your précis isn't what she said. She is talking about complicity - the Miley Cyruses, the Beyoncés, the Nikki Minajes, the Sun's Page 3 women- all the women who had a choice but chose to go ahead and be complicit. It's nothing to do with wearing a short skirt and assumptions being made

Until women stop objectifying themselves we cannot expect equality. Women who marry far less attractive, older richer men for money are traitors to us all. They perpetuate the Beauty/power exchange and let us all down

I couldn't agree more with this! Your daughter is right

Surely the daughter and mum are talking about two different things? Marrying a rich old bloke for his money is a form of prostitution, whereas the actions of Weinstein et al are rape.
We can argue that the bulk of prostitution is also rape, in that it is coerced/trafficked rather than truly consensual, but the women who marry for money are usually making a cynical but free choice.
That shouldn’t in any way be taken as a green light for all fat rich old men to sexually assault any woman they fancy!

She has a point and sounds like she's thinking about things - at 17 you are just working stuff out. If she said, 'And so I too am going to act like XXX because that's the only way to get ahead' then that's not great. But that's not my feeling that's what she's saying. And great you two are able to talk about this stuff.

Marrying a rich old bloke for his money is a form of prostitution

But how often does this really happen in such a cold- blooded, calculating fashion?

I think there may well be far more going on in these relationships- e.g emotional security rather than financial, having more trust in an older man, companionship, being with a man who is well past behaving like a lad. I'm not keen on yet another "marriage is just like prostitution" thread.

I don't think for one minute for example that Carherine Zeta-Jones or Debbie McGhee married their much older husbands for money.

I think you are asking the wrong question. REally, who GAS if it fits into some predetermined definition of what a feminist is supposed to think? Why should she or you care about that?

The question is, does what she is saying make sense? Can she support her thoughts? Is it true?

I think she's right. Women are no more likely to be morally pure than men, many are selfish and will do all kinds of things to get what they want. And for some reason many want to get ahead in the film industry, they are even willing to go on idiotic reality tv programs and embarrass themselves to do so, or screw over other people including other women.

So were there women in Hollywood willing to screw HW to get a movie break? You bet, just like many are willing to take off all their clothes and mimic sex to get a role. There probably doesn't seem like a huge difference between those two things to many people, anyway.

And this creates a bigger problem for women as a whole, because it means that whole industry has a particular environment. If you are an actress who isn't willing to do nudity, the fact is that you may find it hard to get an entry point into the industry. And if you aren't willing to screw a guy like HW, the same. There is really very little doubt that men in that position have women willing to have sex with them for roles even if the men don't ask them to.

So yeah, women making certain personal choices affects the larger environment for all, it's not just down to men. Personally I find it offensive that somehow we are supposed to ignore the active contribution of women (not all women of course...) and pretend only men use sex for their own selfish ends. I think you should be pleased your daughter doesn't try and maintain the cognitive dissonance required to support that view.

But also, I can't see how you would equate what she is saying to saying women who wear short skirts deserve to be raped.

i guess women need to stop thinking that men are so easily swayed by sex that some women can take advantage of the men who think with their "little head" vs the head on their shoulders.
and some women dress the part well with full intentions of entrapment.
you're daughters way of thinking seems accurate.

Doesn’t the whole rich man/trophy wife thing go back to the fact men are far more able to have money/power independently in our society whilst women are valued for their looks and traditionally marry with gaining financial security in mind.

I actually think she has a point. We're not all just hapless victims and anything we have to do with men where they take advantage of their power (not meaning rape btw, meaning sleeping with people to get something, make up, dressing to please men etc) isn't just automatically the man's fault.

Women also need to step up and stop being complicit. I used to be all about the long blonde hair, tons of makeup, sleeping with men because it made me feel better etc. I was still a feminist and I was definitely still outspoken etc but I was desperate for male approval. Once I got over that, I felt so much better about myself. I think we need to teach women that they don't need the approval of men, not just say "poor victims".

Dh said something similar. I said that woman are in a mans world and for some they may feel using their looks and beauty is the only way they can get ahead. For others they have been raised in this mans world and been told that their worth is their beauty and the goal is to bag a rich man. We still tell little girls that prince charming will come and whisk her away, not she can be her own prince charming and rescue herself - or that the real dragon is prince charming.

We are playing their game, you can't blame woman who want to play by their rules.

solonley I agree to an extent but I also think that if you wear a ton of make up, short skirts, heels etc. and then go "it's feminism!!!" you're deluding yourself.

But if you look at some famous women, they definitely become more successful once they take half their clothes off aand writhe about in videos. It's sad that it's necessary.

She has a point. When I was a teenager I had a few friends (female AND male) who were sleeping with rich older men for money. My friends very much saw the men as the victims.

I agree to an extent but I also think that if you wear a ton of make up, short skirts, heels etc. and then go "it's feminism!!!" you're deluding yourself.

Oh it's not feminism, but the world we live in has been structured so men get power and money and woman need to be desirable to men if they want a share in that.

Some people don't care for the greater good and just want the easy route to a better life for themselves. I can't really blame the women for that. If it were easier for woman to become rich and successful from non sexual means then less woman would probably use their looks to get ahead.

solonely I do agree somewhat but that's what you see a lot of women say to justify it.

I don't really think we need to do those things to get ahead, except in very limited areas, mainly entertainment.

People always have a choice. Just hop on the casting couch and the part's yours.

But wouldn't it be nice to live in a world without casting couches?

Apparently also (I've heard this; I've no direct experience) many female students deliberately get into the sex industry in order to pay their tuition fees. It's horrible that they feel this is the only way to get an education, but it's their considered decision and not the fault of the rich men they target.
I agree with your daughter. I don't think it's blaming the victim. Women who do this are not victims at all.

We do need to be aware how patriarchal structures socialise women. The heteronormative ideal is that we pair up with a sexually dominant ‘protector’ male. We still praise girls for being ‘pretty’ and we still have embedded expectations about how women will dress and how they will groom. Women who refuse to do these things are seen as odd and threatening to the patriarchy.

I think your daughter is perhaps overstating the ‘choices’ involved.

In the HW case, he appears to be incredibly predatory- it wasn’t just one encounter: he chased women down it is alleged and isolated them in locked rooms.

Lamahaha , students who take up prostitution to finance their studies are making a choice, and a very poor one. There are always alternative student jobs, just not such highly paid ones.
Both my DDs went through uni. Neither would have demeaned themselves, and been so anti feminist and pro patriarchy, as to take such a “job”.
They slogged honestly at bar work, flyering for the Festival, waitressing, tutoring - all of which jobs were available in abundance.
Students who engage in prostitution are complicit with patriarchy, and help to reinforce rich old men’s view that women are objects they can buy - or in HW’s case, (allegedly) use for free and without consent.

@Babdoc I completely agree. My daughter had part time jobs from the time she was 16 and all through Uni, mostly waitressing. She worked at Nandos most of those years, and even after Uni when she couldn't get a job with her degree.
You don't have to turn to prostitution and claim it as empowering. But many do.

until very women stop using their beauty to get ahead they will always be objectified and creeps like Harvey will have the chance to thrive.

That does not sound misogynistic to me, it sounds like feminism. If you go down the route that anything a woman does is empowering and feminist then feminism doesn't mean anything.

That doesn't mean you are wrong about how power distorts people's choices, but I think you should listen to her as well as argue for empathy.

I don't really think we need to do those things to get ahead, except in very limited areas, mainly entertainment.

I think alot of the time it depends on where you came from and what advantages you have. I bet Angelina Jolie never had do anything to earn a part because of who her dad is. But Anna Nicole Smith would probably have been working in a shop at best if she hadn't used her sexuality.

until very women stop using their beauty to get ahead they will always be objectified

This is a complex issue not least because good looking people do get ahead. It is hard to separate deliberately using beauty and finding yourself in a situation because you are beautiful. There have been numerous studies suggesting being good looking is advantageous in career terms for women and men alike.

It is also difficult to separate a reasonable desire for financial security from 'being a gold-digger' (I hate the term but am struggling to express what I mean). Mostly it is men who hold the wealth so the dynamic tends to be wealthy man/good looking woman but it does happen the other way round on accession. Financial security is highly seductive to many people.

I am very loathe to suggest that all women in find themselves with a wealthy older man deliberately, consciously, knowingly set out on that path. Life tends to be more complex. Not saying it never happens, just that it is wrong to make assumptions about people when you aren't fully aware of their history so using the word 'traitor' seems a little over the top to me. But 17 is young, at that age we are barely beginning to figure out the inconsistencies of the adult world.

It's not just young beautiful women targeting rich older men. Some older women are quite willing to marry a man they don't love/respect in exchange for financial security.

In my family, my elderly uncle used to be in tears to my father on the phone when the 'caring widow' he married turned into a harridan; she made that last years of his life a complete misery. And an aunt, widowed in her 50s, married an elderly trusting bachelor and worked her way through all his cash, belittling him as she went. A friend's father remarried in haste in his 60s and his new wife attacked him with scissors once she had the ring on her finger.

I have warned my husband (in his 60s) that if I pop my clogs, I wish him well in any future relationship - but he'd be a complete fool to get married again, as it's all too easy for a lonely well-off older man to be groomed.

We should recognise that some women, young and old, can be duplicitous bastards too.