Features
9.23.18: a rebel alliance of quality content
our facebook page our twitter page intrepid media feature page rss feed
FEATURES  :  GALLERYhover for drop down menu  :  STUDIOhover for drop down menu  :  ABOUThover for drop down menu sign in

the curse of the f-word
unveiling the feminine mystique
by tracey l. kelley (@TraceyLKelley)
2.27.06
news

Women, we are a bunch of narrow-minded bitches.

What’s worse, we don’t seem to care.

Upon the death of Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer dragged out petty grievances 35 years old. Jennifer Baumgartner and Amy Richards think the point has been missed completely. Donna Haraway theorizes we’d be better off acting as machines, because we don’t have anything that naturally binds us together.

We femmes have suffered a fatality of purpose.

Let loose with the f-word these days, and many other cursed labels follow. Extremist. Man-hater. Dyke. Labels licked and stuck on mostly by other women –- timid sorts hesitant to pick up the flag of advocacy for fear that they, too, will suffer the sticker shock.

It’s crucial to disregard all that nonsense. The timeline doesn’t lie:

  • It’s been 135 years since black men were first allowed to vote -– but only 86 years for any woman.


  • In 1966, the second wave of women’s suffrage was well underway to changing perspectives on equality. But 40 years later, in most professions, women earn 25 percent less than men in the same job.


  • The phrase “the first woman to…” continues to be uttered. It’s 2006, yet there are “firsts” for women specifically to achieve.

Sluggish movement every 40 years or so cannot exactly be considered progress.

Is the stigma surrounding the f-word holding women back? Maybe. But it’s a dastardly predicament. Proponents of the third wave of suffrage (Did you even know there was a third wave? Oh yeah. Started about 10 years ago.) believe the action behind the label is far more important; that the true definition of the word means more in this new phase than the burning of bras-as-built-by-men in the second phase.

Not to lessen the impact of that act, but the challenges of equality go far beyond he said/she said and proper pronoun placement. Why should we care if “women” is spelled “men” or “myn” when much larger issues are still unresolved?

Instead of turning on each other, women need to rally together. Opportunities of positive choice and effective change are being smothered by gender –- thus, the rest of society suffers, too.

Don’t believe me? Take a look around:

When’s the last time a woman became a media superstar for being intelligent? Instead, there’s "Project Runway," "American Idol" and competition for the affection of an illiterate, has-been rapper. And just because Meredith Vieira hosts "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" doesn’t mean she celebrates the cerebral. Even the character of Willow, the brain of the riot grrrl show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," was stripped of her intelligence and sexed up.

Approximately five percent of organized churches have females in a senior position of spiritual leadership. Many men and women say it’s just not “natural” for a woman to speak from the pulpit, especially since the majority of standard religious doctrine assigns the man as the spiritual leader of the household and God is referred to as Him. According to a U.S. Census report from February 2004, 56,000 women are working as clergy in the U.S., but mostly in secondary roles.

That, friends, is a stained glass ceiling. If we can’t achieve equality in church, it’s most certainly not going to happen in the boardroom.

Reproductive choice has still not advanced. I’m not talking about abortion -– I’m talking about the basic human right to decide to bring life into the world and dedicate oneself to that life.

The second wave explored the scant possibility that women had more talents than marriage and the ability to bear children. Today, if a woman expresses that she doesn’t want children, often other women consider her selfish, in denial, denouncing her God-given right, unworthy for fit company and quite possibly mentally unstable. She’s not revered for making a conscious choice that is best for her as a whole person and, perhaps, her unborn child.

Likewise, women who choose to stay home to raise their children do not catapult the entire gender back to the 19th century. We need to stop making them feel as if they do. It’s about choice, remember?

Nearly 50 years after Friedan tried to demonstrate that marriage might complement a woman’s life, but shouldn’t define it, the media makes billions telling women how to attract a man, keep a man, that we’re nothing without a man. Many women are still badgered by “well-meaning” family and friends if they’re single –- whether by choice, circumstance or alternate preference, instead of admired for choosing healthy relationships.

Marriage should never be a badge, shackle or crown: it is a union between two people who have chosen to commit to each other for various reasons. It is not, nor should it ever be, a vehicle only for reproduction.

The way we look vs. the youth of our spirit continues to be a frightful battle. It’s one thing to take healthful care of your person –- quite another to be judged by how old you are and how this affects your abilities and perceptions. Younger women often judge older women instead of being inspired by their experiences. Older women consider younger women to be strict competition instead of guiding them into a promising future.

This unleashes unhealthy insecurities that manifest into external exaggerations of youth. A 60-year-old in a mini-skirt, no bra and a frozen face full of Botox? That is most certainly not youthful beauty, nor is it sexy.

And let’s not kid ourselves: real men aren’t demanding real women look this way. Our competition with other women demands we look this way.

Gender roles are still highly stereotyped. This wrecks havoc on how both women and men think they should be, which spawns nothing but hysterical me monkeys. Rather than constantly trumpet on the front pages the father staying home with his children or the woman working on an oil rig, we should be more focused on how all people can exist together, enjoy love and take care of one another. What we do to make a living or how we dress are the least of our concerns in this world.

Establishing and maintaining a level of equality and conscious choice for all people –- whatever gender, orientation, color, creed or religious belief –-
are the responsibilities of the new woman.

Call her a choice-ist, if using the f-word makes you wiggy.

While everyone should champion these rights, women in particular should shoulder both the burden and the joy of this task. Why?

Because we know what it is to not to have any rights at all. To be thought “less than”, as property, denied access, violated. Yet with each passing year, we loved, birthed, educated and moved forward, chipping away at the status quo a little at a time as “uppity” women and, more importantly, as human beings. Therein lies the power of the feminine mystique –- it's not about the label. It's about the action.

These collective experiences shared by all those who went before us should be what binds us together. The knowledge of that history –- yes, history, get over it -– forged around our desire for positive change, is what can unite us now, clarify the true purpose and strengthen our courage, force and beliefs.

Not as victims of the past…

…but as victors in the future.

Even if it is a man’s name.


ABOUT TRACEY L. KELLEY

Tracey likes to shake things up and then take the lid off. She also likes to keep the peace, especially in a safe, fuzzy place. Writer, editor, producer, yogini, ('cause yoger or yogor simply doesn't work) by day, rabid WordsWithFriends and DrawSomething! player by night. You can follow her on Twitter: @traceylkelley or @tkyogaforyou

more about tracey l. kelley

IF YOU LIKED THIS COLUMN...

guns don't kill people....
the ongoing fight for mental health
by tracey l. kelley
topic: news
published: 7.20.12


fire on the cross
lifting fred phelps’ hood of hatred
by tracey l. kelley
topic: news
published: 3.29.06





COMMENTS

sloan bayles
2.27.06 @ 8:19a

You're absolutely right Trace, in a lot of ways women are our own worst enemies. We are catty, judgmental and scheming--against other women. Too many women look to men to allow their empowerment instead of grasping it firmly on their own. This is a great discussion topic.



[edited]

michelle von euw
2.27.06 @ 9:29a

Amazing column. You raise so many good points, Tracey, in a fabulously organized and thoughtful way. I do believe that in some ways, we're actually moving backwards: your point about the fact that there are few women in the media known for their intelligence is especially poignant. There's still a narrow definition of beauty (or, uh, hotness) that female celebrities must fit into, which serves as a huge double standard.

sandra thompson
2.27.06 @ 9:40a

Beautifully thought out and exressed, Tracey. The f-word I hate most is feminazi. I'm a proud feminist from the consciousness-raising sessions of the Sixties, when we earned 58% of what men earned. At least it's gone up to 75%. In 1968, I had to have a master's degree to be hired as a VR Counselor, while they were still hiring men with only a bachelor's. In 1966, I was turned down for a raise because "we can't pay you the same as the men. They'd revolt." So I revolted on my own. We need to keep on revolting, and standing together on those mythical barricades, arm in arm, cherishing our women friends and family. With so much at stake we can't afford to fight with each other. Feminism is a team sport.

Once again, however, I must point out that if we don't get honest voting machines we can kiss it all goodbye.

erik myers
2.27.06 @ 10:23a

I think the entertainment industry is dragging the feminist movement kicking and screaming backwards in time every single day. You're very, very right.

You think Britney Spears, Ashlee Simpson, and Lindsay Lohan are popular because they're talented? Puhh-lease.

But, we're a culture that thrives on beauty and until that dyanmic changes - until men and women are celebrated for their real actual accomplishments rather than their fashion choices and their hairstyles these problems are going to persist throughout the rest of society.

lisa r
2.27.06 @ 10:41a

Not to lessen the impact of that act, but the challenges of equality go far beyond he said/she said and proper pronoun placement. Why should we care if “women” is spelled “men” or “myn” when much larger issues are still unresolved?

A corollary to this statement is the distressing tendency to change any sort of gender-related tag to something sexless--i.e., chairman to chairperson, postman to postal worker, etc. Supposedly, this is in the name of political correctness and equality, but I harbor the theory that it's really a way to remove a woman's gender from her identity. What's wrong with calling a woman who is chairing a committee "Chairwoman Whatshername"? She's a woman, and she's in charge. In fact, I'd rather be addressed that way. Let's face it, I have too many curves for anyone to mistake me for a man and I object to being reduced to simply being a "person".

Sandra, I know exactly what you mean about being required to have more education to do a man's job. When I was in graduate school, there was a professor who told me to my face that women did not belong in my degree field, and most assuredly should not be pursuing graduate degrees in it--especially a doctorate. I ended up sharing his office with two other grad students after he retired.


[edited]

dan gonzalez
2.27.06 @ 11:01a

I think, as in all manner of politics, before anything we can rightfully call "progress" is to be made, we have to base our assessments of where we are accurately, honestly, and with proper context. And that has not occurred in a very long time in terms of 'mainstream' feminism.

The first article I ever read from ifeminists.com, Lady, Your Slip is Showing, details what I thing the true impediment is: almost universal feminist deception in terms of critical data regarding the 'status quo' including the 'wage gap', etc.

I'm biased toward the ifeminists, though. Wendy McElroy is one hot mama, and I can't help myself.

[edited]

tracey kelley
2.27.06 @ 11:21a

I brought up the wage issue simply because it exists, and in grand form. I gathered data for statistics for a living once - and I know first hand that many women make less than most men in the same profession.

The primary reason?

Time off from the workplace for childrearing/family caregiving. Women taken out of the workforce for these issues "lose" their earning potential.

The second reason?

Lack of financial security after seperation/divorce, compounded by childrearing as a single parent.

Statistics can be hooey, certainly and always need to be evaluated with a close ye. As a former manager, I know what my employers told me to offer employees, and am very aware disparities are still prevalent.

dan gonzalez
2.27.06 @ 12:01p

I didn't say it did or didn't exist, I'm saying that that 75% number is arbritrary, completely out-of-context hooey that doesn't help anybody solve any real problems, but does conveniently advance certain political agendas..

And I'm saying that those agendas are misbegotten and are themselves the biggest bane to progress at the current time.

Once can't honestly say that a woman has been "discriminated" against because she chooses to leave the workforce to raise kids or whatever, can one? So why are they saying it?

jeffrey walker
2.27.06 @ 12:21p

Not to belittle the women's movement, but re: Dan's point, I have to address:

quoting Tracy:
women make less than most men in the same profession.

The primary reason?

Time off from the workplace for childrearing/family caregiving. Women taken out of the workforce for these issues "lose" their earning potential.


And so what? Women are supposed to get the time off for family and get paid like they didn't? Ridiculous!

I'm all for women's rights, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too. If a man adopted a child and took "x" months off to be with it instead of being at work, he'd be penalized, too. Or anyone taking time away for some reason or another. I had to decide if I wanted to take a leave of absence to tour with one of my bands for a month or not. And I'm not touring, because I know I'd be f'ed at work. It's not discrimination – it's a choice of one over the other. You have to be on the job to succeed. If you choose something else, that's what your choice was, and you'll be passed over at the office.

tracey kelley
2.27.06 @ 12:31p

at work, he'd be penalized, too

Actually? He probably wouldn't be allowed to leave, period. Most fathers aren't given the same caregiving rights as mothers. Rare, rare, is the father that is allowed to take more than two weeks of slated vacation for the birth/adoption of a child. The societal and workplace pressure alone forbids it.

And therein lies my point. It's equality on all levels, even if it has to be led by women.

I personally don't consider the value of the human worker to be greater than/less than because of family/personal pursuits. Just because I don't have children doesn't make me a better worker than those who do have children -

- and vice versa.

Matt took three weeks off to go to Ireland in 1999 - two weeks of his paid vacation, and special permission for the unpaid third week. He stockpiled stories ahead of time to assist his co-workers. He had worked for the company for almost four years, and in all that time, had only one sick day, and often worked for others in the newsroom when they couldn't.

Yet he was still reprimanded by the higher ups for asking for that unpaid week, because they couldn't understand why he wanted it and bluntly verbalized why he thought he deserved it.

American workplace issues are fractured on a number of different levels, and unfair wages are just the beginning. For this column, I started with showcasing the female to male disparity.

[edited]

tracey kelley
2.27.06 @ 12:39p

Dan, there are agendas by some for a variety of reasons, but you can not honestly say there hasn't been discrimination against one or the other -

until you've been the one or the other.

Personally, I have a variety of stories about discrimination. While it pisses me off at the time, I do try to rise above it and think more universally -

- which again, is the point of the column. Extremist agendas need to be pushed aside for the common good.

jeffrey walker
2.27.06 @ 12:41p

Fair enough, but in my estimation, the issues in the American workplace aren't about sex. It's the puritan work ethic deep seeded in our country's roots. And to overthrow that, you'll have to overthrow the (what I consider to be) Bravo Sierra Christian morals that worm their way into almost all parts of our society.

When you're ready to overthrow the religious right, give me a call.

jael mchenry
2.27.06 @ 1:06p

I'm not quite sure how the issues in the American workplace are related to Christian morals specifically. Most issues I'm aware of in the American workplace have to do with companies putting the needs of their stockholders ahead of the needs of their employees, and worshipping the Almighty Dollar at the cost of their employees' health, pocketbook, and well-being. Wal-Mart and mining companies and whatnot.

jeffrey walker
2.27.06 @ 1:18p

"X" - Strike one. Most people do not work for corporations. Stockholders do not come into play,and your theory is bogus.

Religious morals are at play. Puritans founded this country, and their beliefs have become codified into our work ethic of America. Puritan sects were greatly over-represented among the early major industrialists, and their belief that suffering is required to redeem our ‘original sin’ as human beings became part of their work ethic. This is a notion which continues to underlie our attitude towards work even today.

This is why, in our society, work is closely related to, and often motivated by, guilt. The modern equivalents of these archaic religious beliefs are:

i) Hard work is the main factor in producing material wealth.
ii) Hard work is character building and morally good.

The evil is not corporations; it is Christian underpinnings.

As a side note, these same Christian goals are what drive the motivation to overthrow a woman's right to have an abortion. Wanna blame corporations for that, too?

[edited]

lisa r
2.27.06 @ 1:34p

Tracey,

Interesting story about Matt and his bosses. I think American companies in general miss a salient point--happy workers are more efficient and more prolific. Vacations and time to attend to family needs reduce stress, reduce stress-related health disorders, and ultimately reduce costs to the company in terms of less overtime and lower healthcare costs.


jael mchenry
2.27.06 @ 2:25p

Walker -- While I acknowledge that not everyone works for corporations, I certainly don't believe that original sin has anything to do with work. And your statement that corporations are not evil because Christian underpinnings are, that's an unnecessary distinction; I would say that a corporation putting forward that "if you just work hard enough, you'll be successful" is not necessarily a reference to a puritanical past; it's also a way for a company to shift the blame for your poor pay off them and onto you.

My point is much the same as Lisa's, I think; I wish companies would invest more in keeping their workers happy by providing better benefits. For both men and women, naturally.

jeffrey walker
2.27.06 @ 2:58p

The Puritan ethic as the beginnings of the work ethics of this country is well documented. You can choose not believe it all you want, but that's the way it is. The way workers in America are treated (long hours, few benefits) didn't happen after corporations came into practice. Making American workers work long hours for as little as could be possibly given over has existed since our country's inception. If you're going to question the reasons for this, the root of it comes from our countries Puritan roots - and this root cause is why these issues persists. And this is going to have to be overthrown before your "wish" for companies to be more giving to the employees will occur.

brian anderson
2.27.06 @ 3:09p

I think the truth, as always, lies somewhere between Jael and Walker.

jael mchenry
2.27.06 @ 3:24p

Making American workers work long hours for as little as could be possibly given over has existed since our country's inception.

Yes, because the employers of early America -- be they farmers, mine owners, mill tycoons, lumber barons, innkeepers, etc. -- were more interested in profits than peoples' well-being, same as the corporations of today. Only the advent of unions has changed any of that. Working your underpaid employees til they die predates the Puritans by thousands of years.

That all said: Brian's probably right.

And: Tracey, I love the line "Marriage should never be a badge, shackle or crown." Very nicely put.

lisa r
2.27.06 @ 3:25p

Making American workers work long hours for as little as could be possibly given over has existed since our country's inception.

That's not the Puritan work ethic. The Puritan work ethic is based on the tenet that "idle hands are the Devil's workshop". You see it still today in Amish, Mennonite, Hutterite and certain other religious sects.

Getting as much as possible for as little pay as possible goes back to either the concept of frugality or downright greed in some instances.

sloan bayles
2.27.06 @ 3:59p

I believe it goes back to the master/servant working conditions of England. While people were not (technically) slaves, they were paid very little, as little as possible, and expected to be glad of it. In a treacherous economy, they were glad for jobs, and in alot of instances the "pay" was room and board.

tracey kelley
2.27.06 @ 4:57p

From a USA Today article about Brenda Barnes, CEO of Sara Lee, two key points:

Regarding Carly Fiorina, former head of HP "Fairly or not, Fiorina was known for an uncompromising leadership presence that had some, such as University of California-Irvine management professor Judy Rosener, dismissing her as too manlike in style to be considered a female failure."

Regarding Brenda Barnes, who is being questioned for her leadership of Sara Lee because the stock dipped considerably during her first year, a typical transition-of-head occurance: "She first made the media rounds in 1998 when, at 43, she resigned as head of Pepsi's $7.7B NA division to be with her children. 'I was selfish - I did it for me.' She says it's 'definitely a myth' that she made it back to CEO from 'traditional' homemaker. Between Pepsi and Sara Lee, Barnes: served on seven corporate boards; chaired the trustees at Augustana College; taught a leadership class at Kellogg Graduate School of Management; served as interim president of Starwood Hotels. When Sara Lee hired her as president in July 2004 and promoted her to CEO a year ago, it was proof that women's careers can be interrupted without consequence. But she says few ambitious women will choose to follow her path, and if she is proof of anything, it's that women don't lose their brains or capability.

Number of Fortune 500 companies with female CEOs? Eight. Yet Judy called Fiorina "too manlike." That's the kind of attitude that holds everyone back. Meanwhile, Barnes proves differently by example.

And: Tracey, I love the line "Marriage should never be a badge, shackle or crown." Very nicely put.

Thank you. I really get disgusted with society's devaluing of single individuals. Just as there are myriad reasons why people couple, there are as many for why people don't.



[edited]

brian anderson
2.28.06 @ 9:07a

I'm not sure that Fiorina being "too manlike" had as much to do with her failure at H-P as being a crusading market-oriented executive being placed in charge of a company with a well-established engineering-and-research culture. The Compaq merger, which was a poor decision from the HP side, simply sealed the deal. It might have been easier for her if she were a man, but many of the problems have more to do with personality and style.

margot lester
2.28.06 @ 9:38a

"stained glass ceiling".

*that* is brilliant.

dan gonzalez
2.28.06 @ 11:03a

I agree with Walker is that the extreme religious right is a corrupting factor. I'd add the extreme secular left as well as the two major oppressors of individuals and submit that both must be overcome. He is also correct in that most people don't work for corps. (Most people now work for some level of government.) But Sloan is correct in that serfdom goes back farther than Christianity, and in fact is seen in Islamic and Hindu cultures (caste system) as well as communistic and socialistic ones.

The fact is, people are not equal in reality, we are ideologically equal is all. We have equal rights to pursue opportunities and equal basic responsibilities. But that's all. No political system can be built that can effectively overcome true nature and compensate for the ambient inequalities. Capitalism is the most superior, if one measures systems based on which gives the greatest number of individuals the greatest opportunity to prevail.

As an example, let's go back to chicks in the workplace. No, single people in the workplace. Tracey said above "Just because I don't have children doesn't make me a better worker than those who do have children". This is merely an ideological truism. It's known that, on average, parents such as myself take more sick-days, and, certain exceptions aside, we are on average less productive than single counterparts. We're also more expensive to relocate. This affects anyone's (a corporation or a non-profit's) bottom line. This can, and should, be seen as an advantage that the average non-parent has in competing for jobs. What I'm getting at is, if the law says my wife and I are equal, but I'm only permitted 2 weeks paternity leave, and she has 6 weeks, the fact is I'm more productive than her, and therefore more useful to any employer, profit or not.

[edited]

dathan wood
2.28.06 @ 1:52p

Dan's right. I know that my being a good dad hurts me career-wise but I need to get home early enough so the Little Mermaid can rescue me a few times before dinner. If a co-worker of mine gets a promotion over me because they are willing to work until 9 p.m., I really don't see that I can whine about that. In our culture, people (men and women) choose career over family every day. Choose being the operative word. If you want a high power, high pay career, skip the kids. If you want to be a devoted parent, accept that you aren't likely to be the CEO. It's not really a gender issue, it's a priority issue.

I was in HR for several years and did a lot with compensation. I learned that there's a threshold around the 150K range where the company isn't paying you, they are purchasing you. People just need to decide what's most important to them and be willing to accept the consequences of their decisions.

tracey kelley
3.1.06 @ 6:36a

Yet again and again, companies that strive to find a balance between humanity and the bottom line continue to be the most productive, most highly-ranked companies.

Go figure.

Now, while it's true that a certain type of individual will never be satisfied, most employees respond favorably when treated decently. There really shouldn't be any reason why all companies can't implement positive change.

So I got an e-mail from someone who wondered if I'll stop wearing makeup, highlighting my hair and wearing nice clothes when I go out because of this "protest" against women being judged by their looks.

I haven't decided how to respond to all that just yet.

[edited]

matt kelley
3.1.06 @ 8:30a

Bah. You don't need make-up, since you've got that whole natural beauty thing going. XO

(Sorry, Intrepidites!)

jael mchenry
3.1.06 @ 10:15a

Wearing nice clothes when you go out is not necessarily about either competing with other women or trying to snag a man. Looking good is its own reward.

Believing that people deserve better things because they're better-looking, now that's objectionable, and I think more the point of the column.

lisa r
3.1.06 @ 11:22a

So I got an e-mail from someone who wondered if I'll stop wearing makeup, highlighting my hair and wearing nice clothes when I go out because of this "protest" against women being judged by their looks.


Whoever sent that email missed the point of that section of the article. There's a difference between doing something to highlight our natural beauty (tasteful makeup, highlights and clothing) and trying to maintain an iron grip on youth or achieve someone else's idea of perfection.

In a fit of absolute ennui one day I watched Celebrity Fit Club 3 (and those who know me know I despise that sort of reality tv that seems designed to make fun of others). However, I just happened to watch the episode where Gunnar Nelson joined the group. His story was interesting. Here was this still handsome man, carrying a few extra pounds, who because of his family and Hollywood influences felt that he was inadequate. He'd tried all the typical approaches in Hollywood to get thin/beautiful quick, including two liposuctions.

So he decides to see if the CFC can help him, and discovered that improving his self-image came not from meeting someone else's ideal but from putting the effort into changing his body and appreciating the results of his hard work. It also became clear to him that it's more important to appreciate yourself than it is to live for others' appreciation.

My point? There's a difference between doing something like trying to find the fountain of youth through Botox and plastic surgery and miniskirts and simply making oneself presentable to one's own standards. Tracey's point, I think, was that certain aspects of our society still judge based on the cover rather than the contents. Some of us choose to simply make the most of what we're given and do our best to share what's inside, while others go through life worrying more about their dust cover and not about opening the book and showing how well-written it is.

[edited]

dan gonzalez
3.1.06 @ 4:22p

Lisa's right, it's obviously way harder for men. (That was her point, right?)

Women, all you have to do is slap on some make-up and get a boob job, and ZING!, your career's on auto-pilot. No such luck for us, and we are jealous.

lisa r
3.1.06 @ 4:46p

Dan's been sniffing the rubber cement again.

The point was (obviously I was too convoluted in my example) that too much emphasis seems to be placed on living up to society's expectations of external appearance than being happy with who we are--thus the book/cover analogy.

Women are more likely to be held to a higher appearance standard than men in the workplace. Look at television media---it doesn't really matter how fit a man is, or if he has hair or not, as long as what he has is sprayed within an inch of its life with hairspray. Wrinkles on men are still, for the most part, considered character lines. Let a woman start looking anywhere near her age, and she's told to get it fixed or find another job. How many times have we seen actresses report that directors and producers hound them to lose weight for the camera? I've yet to hear an actor say the same.


Hard-core feminists who go about sans makeup and supportive undergarments want the public to see them as tough, self-confident, and in control of their destiny. However, my first impression isn't "Gee, there goes someone with self-confidence"---it's "How sad, there goes someone who doesn't care about herself". Clearly, the point they try to make and the point they really make are often poles apart. What they fail to see is that it's not wearing make-up or a bra that is being conformist. What makes someone conformist is not being afraid to stand up for herself and work for change where change is needed. Abandoning foundations (pun intended) and mascara is superficial and accomplishes nothing except a droopy chest, a shiny complexion and disappearing eyes.

[edited]

[edited]

stacy smith
3.2.06 @ 11:08a

Women, all you have to do is slap on some make-up and get a boob job, and ZING!, your career's on auto-pilot. No such luck for us, and we are jealous.

Well if that is the case, I'll never get back to work.

I hardly wear make-up ( I have to throw it out most of the time as most of it goes bad within 6 months to a year) and I certainly don't need a boob job. The girls are big enough as it is.

I'm doomed!


tracey kelley
3.20.06 @ 2:47p

Once again, we are trendy...

(thanks to Russ for the link)
Sorta like me, only not

jael mchenry
3.20.06 @ 3:14p

We're always just a little bit ahead of the pack!



Intrepid Media is built by Intrepid Company and runs on Dash