![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
franceslievensCross-posted to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
salon_virtuel . Please move all discussion over there.
The last couple of days I tripped over a couple of articles in both newspaper and magazine that give an analysis of contemporary womanhood. Maybe the fact one of the Flemish public radio stations will be broadcasting a Fab 50, the fifty most fabulous female singers, has something to do with it. Or maybe there truly is something going on with the current presentation of women in the media.
Let's start simple with a couple of observations anyone having spent some time in education can do:
When looking for reasons and explanations we run against a wall that says nature on one side and nurture on the other. What is it that drives women towards the softer side of society? Their inate maternal instinct that leads them to making choices that will leave them time to raise children? Or are women socialised into believing in those maternal instincts, and is that the reason why they prefer to not take too many steps on the path leading towards a well payed career, leaving the career planning to their male partners and colleagues*? There is no solution to the question, but looking at the extremly female career of primary school teacher one has to admit that more than once this choice is driven by social expectations. It is expected of women to make time for the kids. And more importantly: it isn't expected of men to do so, because that would put a terrible strain on their career. Men making time for their families run against the same glass ceiling women encounter.
The work of the contemporary feminist lies in showing that all this isn't the "free" choice of women. Choices are never completely free. There is this general feeling that feminism has done its job for women rights. Destiny's Child sings about Independent Women, and we like singing along and showing our hands, because we bought our cars, and jewels, and beautiful clothes with our very own money. It's an easy feminism that says that money gives us power. But in a society where both partners go out working to be able to buy the house and the car and provide for the kids, the facts say "co-dependence".
The music industry likes to show us these so-called "strong women"**. They're usualy very pretty and dare wearing sexy clothes when they hook up with men in a predator-style that was previously only reserved for the objects of their hunt. This idea of sexy strong women is actualy taken over by women in power: Belgian federal minister of budget Freya Vanden Bossche is a young lady who dares and wears her short skirts and so-called fuck-me-boots. This also reduces her credit with some commenters. She shows her legs? It's because she doesn't want us to look at her digits that don't add up.
More than men, women use their looks to achieve something and send a message. Is this an actual problem, something brought on by a male dominated field where women are in the first place judged by their looks, or is it a truly feminin strategy to survive in the male dominated top ranks of society?
We need a new feminism, one that can integrate sexiness with power and seriousness, and this without using hollow phrases of independent women buying their own stuff. We have passed that level of independence. Money can buy you things, but it cannot buy you the drive you need to reach that top.
*And how do lesbians fit into that picture?
**For my analysis of the idea of "strong women" as presented in contemporary media I'm much indebted to Filip Huysegems' column "Sterke vrouwen" in De Standaard of April 28-29, 2007.
salon_virtuel . Please move all discussion over there.The last couple of days I tripped over a couple of articles in both newspaper and magazine that give an analysis of contemporary womanhood. Maybe the fact one of the Flemish public radio stations will be broadcasting a Fab 50, the fifty most fabulous female singers, has something to do with it. Or maybe there truly is something going on with the current presentation of women in the media.
Let's start simple with a couple of observations anyone having spent some time in education can do:
- Girls do better at school than boys. They are more attentive and get higher grades.
- There is an uneven distribution of girls and boys in higher education: girls still tend to choose the "softer" courses (humanities), whereas the guys go for hard sciences and engineering.
- The softer choices made by the girls lead them to jobs with less pay than what they would earn had they chosen a career as an egineer or scientist.
- At the highest level of power there still aren't as many women as men.
When looking for reasons and explanations we run against a wall that says nature on one side and nurture on the other. What is it that drives women towards the softer side of society? Their inate maternal instinct that leads them to making choices that will leave them time to raise children? Or are women socialised into believing in those maternal instincts, and is that the reason why they prefer to not take too many steps on the path leading towards a well payed career, leaving the career planning to their male partners and colleagues*? There is no solution to the question, but looking at the extremly female career of primary school teacher one has to admit that more than once this choice is driven by social expectations. It is expected of women to make time for the kids. And more importantly: it isn't expected of men to do so, because that would put a terrible strain on their career. Men making time for their families run against the same glass ceiling women encounter.
The work of the contemporary feminist lies in showing that all this isn't the "free" choice of women. Choices are never completely free. There is this general feeling that feminism has done its job for women rights. Destiny's Child sings about Independent Women, and we like singing along and showing our hands, because we bought our cars, and jewels, and beautiful clothes with our very own money. It's an easy feminism that says that money gives us power. But in a society where both partners go out working to be able to buy the house and the car and provide for the kids, the facts say "co-dependence".
The music industry likes to show us these so-called "strong women"**. They're usualy very pretty and dare wearing sexy clothes when they hook up with men in a predator-style that was previously only reserved for the objects of their hunt. This idea of sexy strong women is actualy taken over by women in power: Belgian federal minister of budget Freya Vanden Bossche is a young lady who dares and wears her short skirts and so-called fuck-me-boots. This also reduces her credit with some commenters. She shows her legs? It's because she doesn't want us to look at her digits that don't add up.
More than men, women use their looks to achieve something and send a message. Is this an actual problem, something brought on by a male dominated field where women are in the first place judged by their looks, or is it a truly feminin strategy to survive in the male dominated top ranks of society?
We need a new feminism, one that can integrate sexiness with power and seriousness, and this without using hollow phrases of independent women buying their own stuff. We have passed that level of independence. Money can buy you things, but it cannot buy you the drive you need to reach that top.
*And how do lesbians fit into that picture?
**For my analysis of the idea of "strong women" as presented in contemporary media I'm much indebted to Filip Huysegems' column "Sterke vrouwen" in De Standaard of April 28-29, 2007.
