Document text
SATURDAY March 27 , 2004 - Subscribe - Contact Us - Rate Card - Place an Ad Valley&State Backpage O&E Sports Archives Classifieds Faith&Beliefs Obituaries Revels March 1, 2004 Prager's 'femininity' is arbitrary and demeaning It was a real frustration to read the recent commentary run in the Tidings by Dennis Prager, "Why young women are exposing themselves." The thesis was that young women are wearing more sexually provocative clothing in public as a result of the death of femininity: These young women are striving to find some expression of womanhood by dressing in this manner, because the effects of feminism have taken away their female identity. Traditional aspects of femininity cited and lamented as gone were motherhood (no longer distinct because current lifestyles have roles of mother and father that are undifferentiated, and because gay parenting has confused the roles of mother and father), "feminine" dress consisting of dresses and skirts, and others. Mr. Prager doesn't seem to want to recognize that these concepts of femininity are both arbitrary and show a classic lack of respect for women (something that could only fuel ideas such as feminism). One could cite too many examples of the various ways that different cultures have defined feminism (it is an arbitrary concept), and they have too often been quite "dangerous" (Mr. Prager's word for the effect of current dress trends). Should women in our culture be covering their faces with veils in public? Consider the old Chinese practice of binding feet, causing great suffering to women, done so that they could hobble about in a display of dependency that was supposed to be enticing to men. Or the practice of mutilation by quite literally cutting women's exterior genitals completely off. Mr. Prager's idea that sexual reticence should be a defining characteristic of femininity expresses this same old underlying concept that women exist to satisfy man; The woman's experience is not what is important. It is not something to lament when an arbitrary and damaging concept is dismissed; His sentimentality is not only misplaced but offensive. And he wonders about the fact that he gets a reaction of hostility when he tries to discuss with people this topic. The remarks Mr. Prager makes about the role of peer pressure and marketing in our choices of dress are more valid that his other arguments, but certainly aren't noteworthy, as we are all quite aware of those mechanics. What is noteworthy about that section of his commentary is how he can see how others respond to the cultural suggestions via marketing (and "feminist doctrines that pervade education") but doesn't recognize his own thoughtless adaptation of cultural suggestions, in his case, of concepts of femininity (which, with his Commentaries, he is attempting to perpetuate the pervasion of in our society). One says we should wear skirts, another, short skirts. Perhaps today's mode of dress or other current cultural attitudes deserve criticism, and if he had written nothing more than, "Wouldn't it be nice if men and women each wore clothes that accented their uniqueness but without blatant sexual appeals," it would be hard to disagree with him. But the analysis of this Commentary is about as unenlightened, unimaginative, and unhelpful as we can get. It is almost too obvious to respond to, but yet this is what is being printed in our papers. Is this the most substantial thought we can find? Alice Sufka Ashland DailyTidings.com Home Page Valley&State | Backpage | O&E | Sports | Archives | Weather | Classifieds Columnists | Faith&Beliefs | Obituaries | Revels | Subscribe | Contact Us Copyright 2004 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers All Rights Reserved Site Search: The new search is here! Click here for more information. .:Advertisements:. RESOURCES - ODOT Road Cams