Secular Feminists: It Is Okay To Be A Slut But Not Dress Slutty For Halloween or for Companies to Sell Slutty Costumes -huh? Also: Wrong for men to objectify women but okay for women to objectify men -say what?
I’m a little confused by the double standards on display on secular feminist sites.
As you know, I regularly vent or discuss here on my blog about contradictions, idiocy, double standards, and hypocrisy among social conservatives (of which I am one) and Christians regarding sex, and occasionally, about gender roles.
I would hope that the Non Christian, liberal gals would be a little more consistent on topics, but they are not.
Sometimes I drop by left- of- center, or feminist sites. For the past few months, I’ve taken to visiting sites such as “Jezebel,” which is left wing and feminist.
Other than their boorish temper tantrums against right wing people, they sometimes provide interesting entertainment stories or cute pet stories and videos, which is why I bother to visit at all.
The Jezebel site uses a phrase called “slut shaming” (i.e., criticizing women for being sexual and having sex), a practice with which they disagree.
The writers at Jezebel regularly feature stories lambasting Republicans or Christians for trying to limit abortion or tax payer funds being spent for birth control, and generally show contempt towards female conservatives, such as…
(Link): Conservative ‘Chicks’ Finally Explain, Like, The Rules of Feminism
(editorial about how right wing women are trying to take back the word or concept of “feminism”)
Excerpt:
- Here’s what the Chicks on the Right say feminism is [what it should be]:
1 “latchkey kids” who were “not coddled”
2 earning money “at a young age”
3 accepting of “consequences” for actions
I happen to agree with point 3 on that list and have no idea why the hell liberals are so hostile to the concept of actions having consequences – because they sure as hell do.
And recall, the same feminists who run that site do support consequences for actions, if it favors a position they support; see this previous post on this blog for an example of their hypocrisy:
(Link): Inconsistency on Feminist Site – Choices Have Consequences
The list goes on to contain several other points I don’t necessarily agree with. Also, it should be mentioned, several of the other bulleted points are misrepresentations and parodies of conservative views by the liberal, secular feminist crank who wrote the list.
The writers at Jezebel are against anyone judging or condemning a woman for that woman’s sexual choices and sexual behavior, even if that includes pre-marital sex or promiscuity (this is where the aformentioned “slut shaming” phrase comes in).
The writers and regular visitors of Jezebel also seem to be against anyone attempting to judge women based solely, or primarily upon, a woman’s looks, or trying to dictate what female beauty is.
For example:
(Link): Will Women Ever Have the Freedom to Be Ugly? – from Jezebel,
and
(Link): Poll Finds that Women Are Happiest at Size 12 (Because Cheese Probably) – from Jezebel , which contains this paragraph:
- by Lindy West
It’s a shame, of course, that so many women derive their self-esteem from a construct as subjective and normative as what’s “considered sexier.” Feeling sexually attractive is great—if you’re into sexual attractiveness—but basing all of your self-worth on external validation is a pretty huge gamble…
Bear in mind, I am only using “Jezebel” as an example: there are people at other sites around the internet (such as the commentators and writers at Huffington Post and elsewhere) who hold the same views on these subjects.
The individuals at this site (Jezebel) who say pop singer Robin Thicke is a sexist jerkwad for objectifying women
((Link): Robin Thicke Truly Out Sleazes Himself This Time,
which cites examples by the Jezebel author of what she feels are sexist comments by Thicke)….
… is the very same site that….
1. Is fine with Objectifying Men
(their editorial below comes complete with an artsy, black and white shot of the beefy, hunky, muscular actor shirtless):
(Link): This Is Jamie Dornan, Your Scorching Hot New Christian Grey
Why is it wrong for Robin Thicke to objectify women, but it’s acceptable for heterosexual women to objectify actors such as Jamie Dornan?
It’s a site that complains about people judging or condemning women for their sexual choices, but..
2. Rails against companies making “slutty” women costumes (this is the second or third editorial I’ve seen at their site in the past month alone that is opposed to sexy costumes for adult women):
(Link): Student Petitions Slutoween Store to Carry a Few Non-Slutty Costumes
Here is where I am totally lost at point 2, the objection to stores selling slutty costumes for women.
Okay, this is a site that is opposed to anyone judging a woman for being a slut and having sex all over the place, and they feel a woman should be able to screw around as much as any man, and not be penalized or judged in any form.
The site does quote the woman (teen?) who is petitioning the costume site as saying she is personally not against women dressing slutty but wants there to be non-slutty costumes available.
Okay, all well and good, but I can tell you based on the Jezebel site ethos (I’ve visited their site enough to have a feel of the place), that they themselves are not always consistent about this.
They will quote the teen girl on that point in that one particular story, but it looks like most of the writers on that site, when they themselves tackle these sorts of topics alone, complain about companies trying to sexualize women and girls by selling and marketing sexy costumes to females.
Since Jezebel-type feminists support women acting like sluts and living slutty lifestyles, why do they oppose a grown woman wanting to buy and wear a slutty costume, or companies providing this merchandise?
What if I, a grown woman, want to buy and wear the sexy army girl costume on that page? Are they saying I am a slut if I do that? Doesn’t that go against their “women should be allowed to live as sluts” attitude?
Or, are they only against a woman looking like a slut but not behaving like one?
Or, are they only against a store trying to make a profit off women wanting to dress slutty?
Should sluts of the Jezbel-supported variety learn to sew to make their own sexy sailor and army costumes?
How can a site composed of women who support women being sluts be against slutty female costumes, or against females having sexually themed merchandise made and sold for them?
Here are a few other pages from Jezebel, where they are upset that manufacturers/ advertisers are sexualizing girls or women:
(Link): Celebrate Slutoween With the Daily Show’s Giant Vagina Costume
Excerpt:
- by Isha Aran
Last night on the Daily Show, Senior Women’s Issues Correspondent Kristen Schaal had some choice words about the steady trend of overtly sexy Halloween costumes and women’s progress. She also rolled out her new 2014 line of sexy costumes for men and women, and well, let’s just say, GIANT VAGINA ALERT.
Jezebel writers were not fine with Disney sexualizing a female movie character:
(Link): Disney Pulls Sexy Merida Makeover After Public Backlash
- by Tracie Egan Morrissey
In an effort to let Disney know how uncool it was for them to sexualize a character—the first (and only) female lead in a Pixar movie—that was originally intended to be a role model for little girls, a petition on Change.org (now at nearly 200,000 signatures) was started to appeal to CEO Bob Iger to revert her image…
And while it’s good news that integrity of the Merida character has been saved, the same can’t be said for the other 10 ladies in the Disney Princess lineup, who have all been victims of the same kind of redesign involving lots of makeup, hair extensions, plumped-up lips, breast implants, Restylane cheek injections, and an inordinate amount of glitter. In short: they look like Real Housewives.
So… this site is all for women being huge sluts and sexualizing themselves, but is totally opposed to advertisers, manufacturers, and toy makers and anyone else sexualizing and objectifying women. This makes no sense.
Jezebel writers did not support the “Feelin’ Thorny” shirts:
(Link): Portland Women’s Soccer Team Pulls ‘Feelin’ Thorny?’ T-Shirts After Outcries of Sexism
Excerpts:
-
The Portland Thorns, a professional women’s soccer team fighting for market share in a city where the official pastime is food truck scavenger hunting, caused quite a Facebook kerfuffle among soccer fans who thought punny new fan t-shirts emblazoned with “Feelin’ Thorny?” were, oh, what’s the word…sexist. In response to a groundswell of criticism, Mike Golub, the chief operating officer of the Thorns as well as its male counterpart, the Timbers (both are owned by Merritt Paulson), announced that shirts would be discontinued just about 24 hours after going on sale.
….In an apparent effort to diffuse charges of sexism, Golub revealed that a female employee had come up with the “Feelin’ Thorny” slogan, though he wouldn’t reveal the employee’s name. Posters on Facebook pointed out that the shits sexualized the women’s soccer team in a way that would the organization would never do to the men’s team. One poster in particular framed the shirt’s inherent sexism pretty concisely:
What makes you think that producing a t-shirt with the phrase “Feeling Thorny?” is a good idea? Why the need to sexualize merchandise for a women’s sport, or any sport for that matter?
Let me see if I can understand this train of thought.
Jezebel feminists write other editorials on their site in support of women getting free birth control, complaining about anyone who dares judge a woman for having sex or for enjoying sex, but then get pissed off by a T-shirt (allegedly designed by a female) that implies that women enjoy sex and deem said shirt “sexist.”
I would think it positive, if being consistent with Jezebel site views, that a predominantly male run organization with female employees,
1. allowed a female to design the shirt motto and
2. that they are acknowledging the female libido
Using the “search” feature on their site, I know I could probably find dozens more example of these inconsistent stances on the sexualizaton of women.
———————-
Related posts this blog:
(Link): How Feminists Are Making Women Easier Rape Targets
(Link): On Miley Cyrus Being Sexual at 2013 VMAs – Hypocrisy of Secular Feminists
(Link): Why Comic Characters and Super Heroes Can’t Marry – Marriage Makes People Selfish
Christian Pundit 