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?

Pro-prostitution advocates aren't the target of the threadstarter, though. I have no love for Brooke Magnanti, and I also think her father's prolific use of prostituted women and the fact he would bring prostituted women back to the house to meet his daughter is child abuse.

Your daughter had a point.

Pro-prostitution advocates aren't the target of the threadstarter, though

No I was just putting my own examples of where I disagree with the "you can't blame women for anything because they are oppressed by the patriarchy" extreme and the equally silly, in my view "women deserve it because they are gold digging sluts" stance.

What I find extreme and silly is that we seem to expect no better of grown men than to be led by their dicks.

I find it very weird that people expect us to believe that all women are so morally pure and oriented to the good of others that if they take advantage of sexual power to benefit themselves at the expense of other women, it must be because they are vulnerable or have been socialised to do it.

Do people really believe there are no women who are selfish shits? Why shouldn't there be as many selfish user women as selfish user men?

It's possible to believe there are women who are exploited and vulnerable as well as women who are exploiters. It is even possible to think some women will exploit other women or not care about what their choices do to vulnerable women.

When people say stuff like this, I always wonder if the people saying it actually know any women. I know many who are lovely, and also some who aren't, who would absolutely think that if a pretty young actress wants to get ahead in Hollywood she should screw HW and that if she won't that is her problem.

What I find extreme and silly is that we seem to expect no better of grown men than to be led by their dicks.

It's nothing to do with expecting no better. I expect that whether I think they ought to or not, some people are led by their base desires, for money, sex, power, fame. I'm quite happy to say they should rise above it and they screw over others in their quest for what they want.

But why would I say, Men, don't be led by your dicks, but not, women, don't be led by your desire for cash or fame? Surely if it's ok for women it should also be ok for men?

If pretty women could fuck their way to the top, there would be a whole lot more women at the top by now. There aren't.

If there truly were gaggles of women willing to do as much villainy for fame and fortune as men, Bill Cosby wouldn't have needed to drug women before he raped them and Harvey Weinstein wouldn't have had to physically force himself on women. They did.

To pay someone to let you harm them is absolutely not the same as being paid to be harmed. People who work for less than minimum wage aren't ruining gainful employment for legal workers, the fault lies with the power-holding people who exploit other people for their gain and sent up the system they want because they can.

There are 3.5 billion females on the planet. Suggesting all 3.5 billion of them behave like angels instead of humans before men will consider treating females as humans instead of semen receptacles is misogynistic tosh.

@sillage doesn’t part of treating someone as fully human also encourage if not require treating them as equal moral agents? If trading sexual favours for career advancement is corrupt then aren’t both parties corrupted by participating in the exchange?

That being said I don’t think moral outrage is applied evenly. If we take the young and beautiful woman/ rich older man relationship we have the word gold digger which is an absolute pejorative, whereas none of the words used to describe the man have particularly negative connotations.

So my take is no I don’t think we absolve women who perpetuate corruption and objectification get a morality pass, but then I don’t think they ever had one. Men clearly have and that is what needs to change.

I find it very weird that people expect us to believe that all women are so morally pure and oriented to the good of others that if they take advantage of sexual power to benefit themselves at the expense of other women, it must be because they are vulnerable or have been socialised to do it

Do people really believe there are no women who are selfish shits? Why shouldn't there be as many selfish user women as selfish user men?

It's possible to believe there are women who are exploited and vulnerable as well as women who are exploiters. It is even possible to think some women will exploit other women or not care about what their choices do to vulnerable women

Yes, very well put.

Suggesting all 3.5 billion of them behave like angels instead of humans before men will consider treating females as humans instead of semen receptacles is misogynistic tosh.

But that wasn't really the point I understood the OPs daughter to be making.

What she is saying is that as long as there are some women who are happy to create a sort of sexual blackmarket in the film industry, or in other settings, that will mean that sex is a currency and there will be pressure for all women in that industry to participate in it. Even if everyone behaved there would be pressure, just like there is pressure to do nudity in films. But once that environment exists, where sex is seen as currency, it also tend to create the conditions for people to develop an exploitative attitude and some will.

If we don't think that environment should exist it's at least as much on women to avoid using sex as payment, even if they'd like to, as it is for men. More so in a way since it's not like men can speak for us with words or actions, if we claim something is being done for women as a whole it helps a lot if women actually buy into it. Otherwise why should men care what a few people say?

Interesting, I have to say I'm pretty conflicted.

I guess it's tempting if you have the opportunity to game the system, as it were.
Your not causing the problem, but you are helping it to continue for longer. I like 'double agents for patriarchy' line of Jameela Jamil's.

But I can't help but have a soft spot for the Stormy Daniel's of this world. To have pulled her self up from poverty like that is an achievement and no-one could say that porn/sleeping with rich men is pleasant work. I mean who among us when actually faced with Donald Trump, could actually go through with it? I could even sympathise with Melania if she weren't as racist as her husband.

I agree with pps that it's difficult to defend women who succeed at work via sexual favours. Or women like the Kardashians or Miley Cyrus who were born wealthy, and use sex sells to gain mega wealth and are role models to their very young fans. Though I do believe that the Jenner girls were groomed into that life to a certain extent.

You do have to admire how these pretty young women have sex with old wrinkly men - I find some men of my own age repulsive - so how they stomach these men touching them etc is beyond me.

Anna Nicole Smith was a pretty tragic figure. Yes she it was her choice to marry an 89 year old and parlay that into fame. But she was a very young, a stripper and obviously already very troubled with addiction problems.
The way she became an object of ridicule, the constant battles with her husband's family over the money, her early death. All very sad.

Jesaminecollins agreed.

Is body shaming one way concept for feminists?

Interesting, siring1 can you elaborate?

Why?

If you can read you'll see it.

Men have been sleeping around for years.
Some Women in the last decade seem to have decided they have a right to string free sex, which devalues women as a whole.
Decades ago no man expected sex on a first date.

What I've always found interesting is the narrative that all women apparently have zero agency because we live in a world dominated by men. It effectively infantilises all women because it insinuates that we are completely at the mercy of men changing themselves and the entire system on our behalf.

However, the narrative fails to answer the question of why..... why would men change such a system? It clearly works for them. It makes no sense to dismantle the structures that bring men great benefits and power. Power is very rarely given up willingly. Saying the people at the top of the food chain need to start being nicer to everyone below before things will get better just leaves everyone standing around waiting and hoping for the best.

Should women accept their fate and this 'natural' order of things since they ultimately have no agency or responsibility no matter what they do or the choices they make?

(I prefer to follow a completely different approach and model where women do have various levels of agency and therefore do have various levels of responsibility for their actions and choices.)

Men have been sleeping around for years.

Decades ago no man expected sex on a first date.

That makes no sense. Who were men sleeping around with if no women were having sex with them?

I don't think anyone is shaming women for having good bodies. Or mentioning their specific body parts in a derogatory way. If that was what you were trying to suggest with that very vague comment?

Personally I think 'empowering' naked selfies are a lot less empowering than people think, regardless of the size of the woman taking them.

However, I don't claim to speak for all feminists and there are many different opinions on this thread. I don't think you can extrapolate the views of 1 internet commenter to be those of all feminists.

Btw, I was young and thin with big boobs once.

A father would protect his daughters, and the boys they dated respected the girls.
No sex before marriage for the majority.
There was a lot of sleeping with unhappily married wife's.
Now you see girls out with almost no clothing, drinking and lying in the streets, their self respect in gutter. Who have slept with over 50 men, and seem proud of it.
How can this be progress?

I was talking about the body shaming of men - "fat ugly wrinkly - how could anybody stomach touching them'

I think you know that.

I don't think anyone is shaming women for having good bodies

The poster who mentioned body shaming is presumably referring to this comment

You do have to admire how these pretty young women have sex with old wrinkly men - I find some men of my own age repulsive - so how they stomach these men touching them etc is beyond me