Would anyone like to tackle a question on modern feminism?

[Writer]

Have women, facing the daunting challenge of finding parity with their male counterparts in the public sphere, sublimated their political pursuits of equality in the workplace for a new type of power - their sexuality - which tends to be more effective in attracting attention in the male-dominated public sphere? Is this a product of women possessing agency over the means of achieving equality, or is this a product of women relinquishing a part of their political power upon the realization that the public sphere is not purely merit-based?

[Taverner]

1. Different - it can (note the word can) be the female counterpart to men's pursuit for weightlifing

But who knows?

[darkstar]

2. Well...that's at the crux of the Feminism 2.0, post-Paglia debate, eh?

The answer is a little bit of each, I'd say, if you take it as aggregate behavior. Culture is complicated. What do I know?

But the question is important, I think.

[DarkTirade]

3. I would say it depends on the individual, really.

[ghostsofgiants]

15. I've never really looked into it but I'd be willing to bet there are strong social trends...

Out side of individualism. Haven't read a whole lot of recent feminist theory though so I'm not sure what those trends might be.

[Writer]

16. Working together for political effectiveness is one. n/t

[ReliantJ]

4. I dont know

but they are smarter than us. Don't know what's holding them back

[Radical Activist]

5. Some women have always used

their sexuality to get ahead in the workplace. At least since women in the workplace started becoming more prevalent. The only thing new is that some women who do so now make ideological rationalizations for their behavior.

No one can deny that professional advancement is not entirely merit-based for men or women. Some people are willing to accept that reality and maintain their integrity even if it means losing some advantages. While others are willing to do anything to get ahead, even if it means unfairly disadvantaging women who don't meet the standard definition of beauty. Women who use their sexuality to get ahead in the workplace certainly aren't creating an environment of equality for less attractive women. If anything, they advance themselves for personal gain by becoming a tool of patriarchy.

[Indi Guy]

6. In my humble opinion...

Women cannot be generalized into a simple demographic.

Like any "group" -- there is no real group there.

Ask Clarance Thomas what he thinks about race issues.

[lukasahero]

7. My personal experience in the workplace is that

women who try to 'use their sexuality' as power are those that occupy the lower power levels. The women who hold positions of power in a company RARELY used their sexuality to get there.

[Rabrrrrrr]

8. It's cuz wimmin are all hos and bitches. Just shake that thang!

Giggity.

[malta blue]

12. When I first saw your post, I thought "oh hell, that person is gonna get it"

and then I saw it was you...

:rofl:

[Phillycat]

9. You can only get so far ahead being hot. Low-middle management. After that,

you have to be smart.

[rurallib]

10. I'd love to see this question posed in Freeperville just to see heads explode

[LaraMN]

11. I think that as women many of us are pulled in so many directions

that we employ all the tools in our arsenal to be effective and "successful".

What you speak of probably hearkens to the old cliche about catching more bees with honey. It's just one of many tactics women apply in their efforts to attain their goals.

Intelligence, to me, is the larger part of sexuality. Wearing a short skirt and shaking your ass at your boss is just sleaze.

[dawgmom]

13. You said it -- the public sphere is not purely merit-based

I think that everyone -- not just women -- use the tools they have at their disposal in order to get ahead in the workplace. Some people are just naturally at an advantage because of physical appearance, and that's true for both men and women. However, in my experience physical attraction will only carry you so far. If you don't have the brains to back it up, you won't advance past middle management. I'll also add another point: women who try to use their sexuality past a certain level within management are not respected. As a woman in upper management, you run a very serious risk of being disrespected if you dress too suggestively. The old "she slept her way to the top" innuendo machine is still alive and well. The women I know in upper management dress quite conservatively, and they don't flirt.

There's a character on television that bothers me a lot -- the woman who plays the hospital administrator on House. I'm curious as to what you think of her. She dresses very provocatively -- very tight skirts, spike heels, and shows cleavage. In my experience, she's a very unrealistic portrayal of a woman in that position. No woman I know in similar positions would ever dress like that, as she knows she wouldn't be taken seriously.

This probably didn't exactly address your questions, but they're the thoughts that your questions brought to mind.

[old mark]

14. When you say "women", it kind of de-individualizes people, no?

Sorry, just a non-woman's opinion, but there are probably as many differing thoughts on this as there are people on this forum.



mark

[ogneopasno]

17. Some have. But what power is there in being property?