"The
truth is that the new conception if raunch culture as a path to liberation
rather than oppression is a convenient (and lucrative) fantasy with nothing to
back it up" (Levy 82). I found this quote to be interesting. I
have frequently heard the discussions back and forth between whether when a
woman dresses provocatively and/or she engages in sexual activity if she is doing
so because she wants to or that she is doing it for a male audience. On the one
hand, it is her choice to wear what she wants and to act however she chooses. On
the other hand, it has to be questioned whether she is doing it entirely of her
own doing without some implied help from a male audience. Either way, I find it
interesting that the issue of sex and the so-called “sexual revolution” is a
dividing issue. I would have thought that both sides would be debating something
else like wages.
The
other thing that caught my attention was Echols showing the connection between
the women’s rights movement to the Civil Rights Movement. Last semester I was
in Multicultural Education and we spent a bit talking about social justice
advocacy. One of the things that we discussed was how things can be done and
voices heard when people join to fight for something. I did not realize before
how the two movements were connected. I vaguely knew that the two were around
the same time, but did not make the full timing connection. The immense amount
of political discussion around the time of the second-wave makes it surprising
that there was not support fatigue. As Echols points out, there were at least
three other social issues at the time, “struggles of blacks, the working class,
or the Vietnamese” (42).
I
wonder if the feminist movement would have stayed closer tied to the other
movements or stayed as a single group instead of the various factions if they
would have been more successful or less successful.
I was just watching Dr. Drew last night (there was nothing else on and the caption Mom's with X rated jobs caught my eye) and it reminds me of this issue of whether women are participating in sex for pleasure or for the benefit of others. In this show, the prostitutes were saying that they were in the business and proud of it. They are women but have the choice to choose and occupation and they chose this one, and should not be judged for it. Their argument is that they were clean from drugs and alcohol and were still very good mothers even though their job involved sex. It is hard to picture a mother going to work to provide for her family by having sex with paying stranger men. Although this is hard to picture, is it really our say to label this as wrong? As long as it is legal, how can we say that this source of income is shameful. These women could be called out for objectifying their bodies and revealing the wrong message of sex to their children, but these women were proud and saw this as a lucrative job. I am still on the fence about this issue, but it is very interesting to consider that legal prostitution may be a way in which women can exert their independence and proudly take care of their family
ReplyDelete