I'll start by going back to first principles; Doug posted an article that reported that an emerging fashion trend is Japanese women dressing as pubescent/much younger girls. A suggested motivation/explanation for this was the ongoing instability and uncertainty of the Japanese economy of the past 10 years. My point was that I thought there were underlying, longer term aspects of Japanese society, especially its inherent sexism, that provide a more succinct explanation than the one posited. I still believe that. The deeper point I was trying to make was that whatever valid reasons offered by the women doing this cite, the fact is they are in a society (local and generalized) that is sexist and hierarchical, and it plays a large (but not solely) determining role in how they choose to express themsleves sexually. To my mind this is consistent with some feminist/Marxist thought; social roles and appearances are partially constructed by the society they manifest in. I'll admit I did really abuse the commodity fetish concept, but it does link to my point; people can and do construct part of their gender relationships to an ideal defined within a capitalist system, in this case the fashion industry.
Somehow this turned into me being an oppressive, homophobic member of the Christian right.
This argument is going to go nowhere, but I do want to respond to some of the more choice accusations levelled at me.
> > Woody Allen creeps me out for having adopted a girl, then marrying her.
>Sorry, it just does.
>
>Was anyone harmed? Was Soon-Yi forced to act against her will? If it
>brings pleasure and causes no harm, why be creeped out?
'Causes no harm': there was an adoptive mother and siblings. Regardless of how you may feel about Mia Farrow and the siblings, no one deserves to have their trust violated in that way.
'Why be creeped out' ; because he was a parent and as such is in a powerful position of trust and authority. I suppose she did act in way that was freely willed on her part, but I question whether anyone ever truly acts in a freely willed way with a parent, adoptive or otherwise.
Sorry, but I don't see a whole lot to celebrate in Woody and Soon-Yi's relationship, lots of innocent people got badly hurt in some of the most vulnerable relationships you can be in.
>You can have all the opinions you want. However, your casting her actions
>as a craven giving into to conformity and societal pressure is the first
>step in trying to proscribe that behavior. Next you call such behavior
>reactionary (again without ever saying why it is so). Then you say that
>progressives should discourage reactionary behavior. All without ever
>demonstrating any actual harm being caused by her actions.
See my comments above on the relationship between how these women are choosing to dress and Japanese society. If you don't see the damage caused by reinforcing stereotypes and reinforcing sexism in society that's your right too, I just don't see it that way.
And having said elsewhere that you can't tell someones' motivation without getting into their head you seem pretty eager to impute motivation and potential actions to me. I was offering an opinion, I wasn't suggesting that people start tracking down these women and make them wear a big red letter 'A'. I don't want to proscribe it, I want people to understand the harm I think they do by accepting stereotypes roles and structures. If they want to do that, fine with me, I'm not about to stop them for the sake of my opinion.
>Same thing Christians do. This action is giving into the Devil and going
>against God -- it must be proscribed. There is never any analysis of
>whether or not this action causes any actual harm.
Thanks for equating my opinion with 2500 years of actual oppression. I'll make sure I send pictures from the next stoning of the adulteresses we have up in these parts.
>You are just trying to validate your
>small-mindedness by defining her actions in a negative way without any proof
>that they actually are negative.
If I'm small minded then so are the others (and I'll accept I may alone on this in this discussion) who view reinforcing sexist stereotypes as a negative thing to do. What proof do you want about the damage of sexism and the associated stereotypes; the incidence of sexual assault and other violence against women?, the lower rates of incomes for women? the consistent and frequently violent struggle for contraceptive and reproductive choice?
>Wouldn't it be ironic if you were in a monogamous dyad relationship -- the
>ultimate in reactionary bourgeois conformity -- and then go about accusing
>others of being reactionary/bourgeois when they do not follow that path.
Yeah, as a matter of fact I am in a 'monogamous dyad relationship' and a hetero one at that. I go to church most Sunday's and have season tickets to the local pro football team. So what? I didn't know this list had an ideological purity test I had to pass to offer opinions.
And I didn't accuse anyone of anything when it came to their choice of relationships. The relationship my spouse and I have is right for us, I don't begin to pretend that it's one everyone has to engage in.
I've spent close to 30 years fighting for and supporting women and the LGBT community in their struggle to be treated equally and with respect. I don't need to hear from someone who doesn't know me or my history that I'm intolerant.
PC
N Paul Childs 5967-157 Avenue Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5Y 2P3
e-fax 413-683-9725 _______________________________________________________ 'Gee thanks, your validation means oh, so much to me'.
-Art 'Bones' MacDesalavo