<p>07DAD, I’m afraid you missed the point of the post. By about 180 degrees. What I meant was that no one would ever describe someone they loved, understood, and sympathized with a “slut”. That word is generally reserved for some threatening, mistrusted, not-fully-human Other. Who of course only exists in a less-than-charitable imagination, the real-life person being a daughter just like ours.</p>
<p>JHS: I like your posts. I don’t agree with you about Samantha. I think her behavior does have some strong overlaps with the Women’s movement (think Venn diagram.)</p>
<p>Her insistence that women earn their own money (she wanted to gift herself with a huge cocktail ring, not receive it from her boyfriend) is a reflection of the women’s movement. So is her consistent drive to demystify money and power. She found it okay that Carrie take Big’s money for her apartment and didn’t see this as a form of bondage as the others. So independence and flexibility in money matters.</p>
<p>She was also consistently supportive of her friends and strong in her position that women don’t need relationships to define them.</p>
<p>Her attitudes about sex can be viewed as exploitative of partners (her female lover thought so), but I think that has to do with the expectations of the partners.</p>
<p>Yes, in many meetings I attended I was the only “pro-sex” feminist. The Andrea Dworkin, Catherine McKinnon anti-sex posture cut very deep.</p>
<p>I felt the opposite. As long as women are ashamed of sexuality double standards will prevail throughout the social contract.</p>
<p>Hooking up and FWB are sexual mores that don’t quite resemble the ideas of sexuality we enjoyed in the sixties, but the again, the boundaries should always whether or not the behavior is self-destructive (of physical or mental health) or exploitative of others.</p>
<p>I understood your point about our own daughter vs. other people’s daughters perfectly and did not find it sexist.</p>
<p>I also see your point about using the term slut for men.</p>
<p>My students, who are not the caliber of your U of C kids, did and do call women, not men, sluts all the time with all the Puritanical moralism that my mother still enjoys. Sad.</p>
<p>They also balk at Masters and Johnson’s findings that women enjoy sex more than men. Their point of view remains that sex is for guys, women are whistle-blowers. Any woman who doesn’t blow the whistle is a slut.</p>
<p>There are also women at women’s colleges who feel this way, though of course many don’t. </p>
<p>Women’s Colleges see the entire spectrum of social valuations from extreme religious judgments through experimentation along a wide spectrum including same-sex relationships and casual sexual relationships.</p>
<p>Coed institutions do too, though of course the male condemnation of female sexuality is absent from women’s colleges.</p>
<p>Regarding the William and Mary situation, the full story is that for parents who have been paying taxes in VA for 17 or so years, in part to support the flagship state university, it CAN seem discriminatory for the university to then turn down their valedictorian daughter in favor of someone else’s 3.3 GPA son. </p>
<p>My understanding is that in such an instance, They’re claiming that it’s actually a violation of due process – that in return for the taxes that they pay, they should be able to calculate that their child would have equal ODDS of being accepted at the university, regardless of gender (vs. the present 47 percent to 29 percent acceptance ratio). Otherwise, it’s kind of like the state is subsidizing education for people who produce sons, but not for those who produce daughters – since all pay the same, but not all have an equal likelihood of enjoying the fruits of those tax dollars that they’re paying. (Your odds are 1.1, approximately and mine are 3.1 against my getting the same payoff for my money. It’s like you’re being forced to put your tax dollars into a slot machine that’s rigged against you. Does that make sense?)</p>
<p>mythmom</p>
<p>!!!STANDING OVATION!!!</p>
<p>Thank you for those posts.</p>
<p>Yes, it does make sense and does have an element of fairness. It’s a very thorny and complicated issue, but for in-state folks it does seem fair for admit rates for women and men be equal unless men are substantially more qualified. Obviously, argument doesn’t hold for out-of-state folks.</p>
<p>However, colleges would argue that they are creating best college by skewing admit rates.</p>
<p>mythmom, I’m largely with you. My first big piece of advice to my kids is to be respectful of your partners.</p>
<p>However, I think that evolution does make males and females different in ways that matter for this discussion. First, females pay much bigger consequences if contraception fails. I’ve had as executive assistants a couple of college material (bright, energetic, …) single mothers who chose to have the baby and skip or not finish college. Abortions are no emotional picnic. And, young men often skip out on various potential obligations when a sexual partner, especially a casual sexual partner becomes pregnant – they (and their parents if financial costs are incurred) may feel no sense of obligation. Second, I could be mistaken here as I am really far from my expertise, but I thought that some STDs contributed to or caused female infertility. Third, (and I am really no expert here), I thought that there was a hormonal thing that makes women more likely than men to feel attachment after sex. As such, casual sexual activity is a bigger investment (on average) for women than men (though the differences is much smaller than it was before contraception and before big though incomplete changes in societal views of women who have numerous sexual partners). </p>
<p>The choice of behavior ought to be up to the individual but it should be an informed choice. Because all of the costs only occur with some probability (but not negligible probabilities), young women may not fully appreciate the differential costs of a choice of casual sex until afterward if the chickens (or other things) come home to roost.</p>
<p>As such, I have extra advice to my daughter (as if she would listen anyway) regarding care in choice of partners and speed of getting to it.</p>
<p>
Motion seconded.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I read the thread, there are those who suggest that females need not be ashamed of sexuality. </p>
<p>Others seem to suggest that males should be ashamed of sexuality, I guess to (what) make things equal?</p>
<p>I guess one’s perception turns on how he or she values shame. “She’s a shameless hussy!” “Have you no shame?!?” Or, is it --well if I’m ashamed, you need to be ashamed? “You ought to be ashamed of yourself.”</p>
<p>Hey mythmom - Great post! Do you have anything else to say; as always, I want to read more!!</p>
<p>mythmom- blast from the past! I remember those debates in the feminist movement in the 80’s with MackInnon/Dworkin vs. prosex feminists!
My D is much more conservative than I ever was on issues of sexuality/feminism. I guess I should be proud that I didn’t foist my beliefs on her. But sometimes I am amazed when she says things like “I could never ask a boy out”!</p>
<p>Fallgirl-Well, I agree with some of what you had to say but “Pretty” is an OPINION. Remember that. I seek out girls I think are DECENT or good looking but you know what? I have male friends all the time say “Why do you like that ugly girl” or “She is nasty”! Bottom line, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. With that being most guys say I have low standards when it comes to looks.</p>
<p>Here is what I mean by girl’s standards. I’ll admit, guys are “Visual” people. They like a large butt, large boobs, small waist, pretty face. We like bodies and looks. We are visual.</p>
<p>HOWEVER, girls are still extremely strict when it comes to other things. Besides the fact you have to be wealthy and have a nice car, you have to be extremely popular among other males and have to have the BEST clothes. You also can’t say ONE thing which may anger them or it’s over.</p>
<p>Holliesue-I know this is random but your daughter has a disadvantage, because I can tell you the NUMBER ONE thing which turns a man OFF(Almost ANY man) is a “traditional girl.” By “Traditional” I mean a girl who won’t ask a guy out(Which is ridiculous, because it happens a lot these days), expects to be paid for on everything(Good luck lol), wants to do all of the cooking and cleaning for the man and expects to be showered with gifts. She needs to realize it’s 2010, not 1950. My pet peeve is a YOUNG GIRL who goes by traditional gender roles.</p>
<p>I’ve only met a few guys who agree with traditional gender roles, at least here in Ohio. She is at a major disadvantage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is funny to me, because it is spot on with my theory about males and females and natural instincts. The males are looking for females who are best adapted to bear their progeny (big boobs, big butt) and females are looking for males who are most likely to be able to provide for their offspring (money, success and status).</p>
<p>Women who “wants to do all of the cooking and cleaning for the man”? ROTFLOL!</p>
<p>I can safely say that my daughters are in no danger of being that type of woman. I’m still working on getting them to be the type who want to do all the cooking and cleaning for the parents. :D</p>
<p>Blake- I think you missed the part where I told you to have a good attitude toward women. I sense a chip on your shoulder when you generalize all females as being only interested in guys with money, nice car, etc.</p>
<p>
Maybe it’s how you say it.</p>
<p>Think about it.</p>
<p>I recently received a large scholarship from a private college (over half), but am planning turning it down. One of the major reasons is that the campus is 65/35 female to male.</p>
<p>blake180-other than not asking a guy out, which comes from fear of rejection in my opinion, my D is very much not as you described. like Slithytoves’ Ds I would be happy if my daughter would boil water for someone! and believe me she is not a materialistic person at all!</p>
<p>holliesue and friends: Know just what you mean. </p>
<p>Shawbridge: Those consequences are results of patriarchy too. In pre-agricultural societies women weren’t marriageable until they had conceived. </p>
<p>I <em>do</em> think many women became more attached because of sex than many men, but it is by no means universal.</p>
<p>As a young woman I thought temple prostitute would be the best job ever. But goodness, that was almost 40 years ago. No need to think about that now.</p>
<p>And I don’t want to be graphic or gross, but many of the attitudes toward sexaulity are learned.</p>
<p>OTOH: I do think in the interests of genetic variation, males having multiple partners does serve a greater evolutionary purpose but that doesn’t really express itself in the lives of individuals.</p>
<p>I think, if it’s true as Shawbridge observes, that young women suffer greater consequences, hey let’s minimize those consequences. The first thing is to do away with social sanctions for female sexual activity to my thinking.</p>
<p>As for young men here generalizing about “what guys like” I think there is a lot of variation there as well.</p>
<p>I think many young women would be shocked and relieved to discover “guys like big butts.” Haven’t found any generalizable qualities that “guys like.”</p>
<p>Maybe i’ve had especially good luck, but I have found that guys like sense of humor, friendliness, altruism, intelligence, adventurousness as much as women do.</p>
<p>I haven’t found looks as prioritized as the above poster suggests.</p>
<p>My S was much more vulnerable to his GF’s controlling nature than my D was. He was much more off-kilter from a complicated love affair than she ever was.</p>
<p>I know we can’t generalize from one example, but I do think there is a lot of individual variation.</p>
<p>And to 07DAD – I am as invested in not seeing males as predators as I am in not seeing females as victims or objects of shame. There is nothing predatory about many of the very darling young men I’ve met as a college teacher.</p>
<p>For example – a colleague of mine rushed in and asked if I had any aspirin. She was clearly having some kid of problem (learned it was a minor stroke.) One of the young men in the class who’d never seen her before told her to go back to the classroom. He walked to the bookstore and bought her a liter of water and bottle of aspirin, took them to her classroom and refused to accept a penny. </p>
<p>I was impressed by his kindness and his assertiveness.</p>
<p>I’ve run into a lot of behavior like that.</p>
<p>My own S had a drunk girl climb into his bed. He was just praying she didn’t pee in it. He took her back to her room and spent the next Saturday night with her so she wouldn’t drink and gave her a lot of info on blacking out.</p>
<p>I don’t think this is unusual to him at all.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t call her a slut. I would call her a self-destructive individual.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I, too, agree with much that you have said. I worry sometimes that our generation of women never passed on some of the wisdom we learned. We or at least my particular group were strong women. There was an internal fortitude or something. We made mistakes (like trying to dress like men with the stupid little ties) but somehow we came out with an inner strength. I don’t see that inner confidence and strength in younger women. I don’t have a daughter so perhaps I’m way off base but they seem sometimes to derive more strength or validation from control over “outer things” than “inner things.” I wonder sometimes if that has what has led to an increase in eating disorders, sexting, FWBenefits (which is really a “girl” validation) and other such stuff. It would be a really interesting study to analyze girl facebook pictures vs. boy facebook pictures and what is going on in the pictures, the postures, gestures, etc.</p>
<p>momofthreeboys-- I will say that with the onslaught of the media culture, it was an incredible challenge to raise daughters who get thier self-esteem from themselves and it took a great deal of work. It was, during the 10 to 15 years, in particular, unbelievably challenging when even disney was putting Britney Spear and a very under-dressed Christina Agulera up there as “role” models.</p>
<p>But, we managed. :)</p>
<p>well, Slithly Tove, Holliesue, I am positive that your D’s will figure it out when they find the MR.
So how old are your D’s again? :)</p>
<p>
Has she tried a slow cooker? :)</p>