Previous post
Because feminists don’t have much to legitimately complain about, they have to resort to making up sexism. They can go so far as to even find it in different styles of jeans. (No, I’m not kidding.)
Okay, forget the creepy “modelquins” commercials for a second. Old Navy has managed to once again be condescending to its customers. They have added a new style to their ridiculously named women’s jeans that neatly packages their women customers into brightly colored, cotton, female stereotypes.
Previously, you could be slutty (the Flirt ), a doormat (the Sweetheart ), or a bitch (the Diva ). Now you can be The Dreamer.
In other words, you’re fat and you better push those curves into the appropriate shape.
Cause if you don’t, you’ll only get to daydream about a boyfriend to steal jeans from when you would rather not be a slutty, doormat, bitch.
These are cuts of jeans that this feminist is complaining about. Here is how Old Navy actually describes them.
The Dreamer: classic-rise jeans that sit at your waist, are straight through the hip and thigh. Have a front panel that slims the tummy and a no-gap band for full coverage in the back.
The Flirt: mid-rise jeans that sit right below the waist, are straight through the hip and thigh.
The Sweetheart: classic-rise jeans that sit at your waist, are relaxed through the hip and thigh.
The Diva: low-rise jeans that sit on your hips, are slim through the hip and thigh.
The Weekend: low-rise jeans that sit low on your waist, and have a relaxed boyfriend fit.
Yes, I can clearly see how these five styles translate to fat, slut, doormat, and bitch. It’s SO obvious. That girl isn’t reading too much into it at all!
This is the problem with modern feminism. They get their panties all in a bunch over stupid shit like this, and have little to no concern for the real problems in the world. They see sexism everywhere, without ever recognizing the sexism they’re carrying on their shoulders every day. Most women don’t identify with feminism anymore, because they frankly don’t want to be associated with humorless bitches who have a constant chip on their shoulder.
Larry Sheldon says: I’m sure glad this was the last problem to solve.
Seems like if jeans are such a problem skirts and dresses would be a solution.
Or select none of the above–my favorite.
Heavens only knows what these women would think of Victoria’s Secret’s habit of naming jeans and pants after women.
Here’s a solution. Demand that all feminists like the ones pilloried (with good cause) on this, your blog, wear knee-length skirts so those of us so inclined can point and laugh at their unshaven legs so they’ll have something else to complain about.
sonja says: Roxeanne – During the Vietnam war, the Fire Support Bases were named after wives and girlfriends. I wonder what they’d say about that?
mj says: The other night, I heard Katie Couric refer to Ted Kennedy as “the patriarch of the Kennedy family.” I’m still waiting for the denouncement.
‘Best to take a stand on the things which really matter; jeans.
“This is the problem with modern feminism. They get their panties all in a bunch over stupid shit like this…”
That wouldn’t be “grannie panties” by any chance?
Charity says: It’s very telling that they equate sweetheart with doormat. Explains a lot about why most of them are such…um…divas.
Larry Sheldon says: I’ve got a question I need help with–I’ve puzzling over it since I first saw this item…..
Is the contention here that men buy these jeans and force women to wear them at gunpoint?
If not, then it would seem that if they don’t like them they would not wear them. Or buy them.
What am I missing here?
You are All Morons says: Yeah, Feminists are terrible, you only have the right to vote because of them. If you are too ignorant to understand modern, institutionalized sexism, I feel sorry for you. But, then again, you are just another idiot with a blog and brains made of oatmeal, you don’t matter a lick. The feminists you all berate actually make a difference and all any of you do is whine about liberals, while real activists get things done. Whine all you want losers (i.e. McCain voters) Obama is president and will be for 8 years.
You are,
I want to thank you for totally proving my point a while back about feminists. You’ve made my day (I do hate being right all the time).
As for Obama and the radicals, you’re probably right. And America will be a worse place for it.
Don’t take my word for it. I’ll just let history be the judge (chuckling).
Knott Buyinit says: I would rather listen to Cassy whine about liberals inventing petty grievances than hear the profound silence from feminists concerning real tragedies – like the worldwide Islamofascist assault on women’s rights, say.
Mat,
Not to disturb our new found detente, but please let me point out: not all feminists are like that! What upsets me is to see these idiotic, over-privileged, reality-challenged women complain about the names of jeans when there are real problems facing women in the world. These sweeties are about as representative of most strong-minded, independent, feminist women as Ted Kennedy is of Catholic thinking: they use the name for their own ends, not because they actually believe in the ideals.
“You are,”
Perhaps you should have added “history challenged” after the first part of your appelation. We have the right to vote not because of the idiots at Feministing, but because of pro-life, pro-woman, pro-real-education (i.e. not Womyn’s Studies) feminists. The second wave and third wave have done nothing save to encourage both men and women to treat each other like dirt.
The feminists you all berate actually make a difference and all any of you do is whine about liberals, while real activists get things done. Whine all you want losers (i.e. McCain voters) Obama is president and will be for 8 years.
A Democrat got a majority of the votes in a Presidential election for the first time in three decades, which, I can guarantee you, is more years than you’ve been alive. Here’s the deal: you can call us “losers” until 2010 and then we can call y’all “losers” for the next 30 years, which is about how long it took this country to forget about ObamaLite (i.e. Carter) – because that’s how long it’s going to be for America to ever vote for a Democrat as president, again.
sonja says: “Yeah, Feminists are terrible, you only have the right to vote because of them.”
Not these feminists. The feminists of old, certainly.
“If you are too ignorant to understand modern, institutionalized sexism, I feel sorry for you.”
I’m not, but I suspect you are. Look up the word “misandry” sometime.
“The feminists you all berate actually make a difference”
They do? All I see them do is spout the usual false statistics about rape, whine about “the patriarchy”, and complain about petty crap like the names a company picks for their jeans.
BobV says: Well this could all be resolved if women weren’t allowed to wear pants, as the good lord intended.
And yeah, feminists were great, many years ago, when they were fighting for actual rights and against real abuses.
Their petulant granddaughters on the other hand are not so great. Instead they are hysterical, raving, man hating women who have far too much time on their hands.
Roxeanne,
“Not to disturb our new found detente, but please let me point out: not all feminists are like that!”
What you consider to be feminism, I believe is just simple common sense, supported by modern Western values (yes, I believe that Western Civ is a pretty good thing and worth defending, even if half the country doesn’t think so). What the old-style feminists pushed for was basic rights, which should have been guaranteed from the beginning if one looks at the essential beginnings of our fundamental political and ideological beliefs.
However, “you are” is fairly correct in her point in that the new “feminists” (which is part of the left) are making a difference (and as I pointed out, not in a good way). They are calling the shots and have the ears of powerful policy-makers (mainly because they have the biggest mouthes). And it’s not simply perception. It’s reality. They have taken over a respectible institution from the early 20th century and have turned into a very radical movement designed to bring about a literal gender war (which I believe you stated in your reply to “you are”).
Bear in mind that history is not often made by the vast majority, but more often by a very dedicated hardline, radical (and often very disciplined)faction willing to institute change. And the “feminists” are doing just that right now (in conjunction with other radical leftist aspects). And they’re often doing it in ways that are inperceptable to the general person.
Let me put it this way. Your reply to “You are” was “wait until 2010.” Ok, there’s nothing wrong with that, but what then?
The left (which radical “feminism” is part of) has been building up slowly and steadily ever since their public defeats in the post-60’s. Instead of admitting defeat, they went back to school, got degrees and started spreading their tentacles throughout our society. It was so gradual and so methodical that conservatives didn’t even see it (and in my opinion, many still don’t realize it) until now. The left has taken virtual control of the educational system (both administrative and teaching), the legal system (they have major control of the courts and policy decision), and the information system (look at most media outlets for stupendous examples). The radical “feminism” is only one facet of this multi-lateral attack on this country (and don’t kid yourself, we conservatives are under attack on multiple levels). These people are training the next generation (the Millenials) to be good little socialists, and they are succeeding in many ways. From what I can see in the long term, conservatives have been losing ground pretty steadily since the late 80’s.
The problem with conservatives, then and now, is that they too often focus on short-term election projections instead of the long view (which the left did take). Which brings me to 2010. I have a feeling that at the very least, the Democrats will ram through some aspect of health care. Is that a victory for us, since they didn’t get the whole package? Nope. All it means is that they have a foothold in massive government control and spending which will only increase in the years ahead, regardless of whether the Republicans come storming back or not. Once people are latched onto the government tit, it’s almost impossible to wean them off of it. And why not? It’s good politics. No one, not even Republicans, will try to piss off the electorate once they adjust to something (and gee who won’t ‘love’ “free health care?”). Look at Britain as a great example of how awry things can get.
No, I don’t see a whole lot of sunshine in the situation right now. The Democrats will pass something through regarding health care (among other things), and it’ll mean the long slow road to socialism (and hence massive government control). In the end, it doesn’t really matter what, because the only way conservatives will have a chance is if this is totally stopped cold, and I just don’t think that’ll happen.
I think the best chance conservatives had was if they could get McCain (as much as I totally disagreed with him) elected. With Obama in, I’m very, truly concerned that we’re witnessing a slow reversal of what the Founding Fathers stood for.
So anyway, what started out as a relatively simple subject, feminism, ended up in a long-winded point. But I think it was essential to also chalk up the big picture, which radical “feminism” is part of.
Spot-on Cassy.
Quoted from and linked to at:
http://www.thecampofthesaints.com/2009.08.30_arch.html#1251830309892
Mat,
From the bottom up:
I disagree about the “slow” change of America. It had been slow from about the 1930s onwards. Various groups slowly took over the school systems, slowly altered constitutional law (and thus the limits of government), and slowly shifted people’s perceptions of how our country ought to operate. We now have a man who is bound and determined to move as fast as possible and to push ever single lever that has been set up over the past century.
The bad part is that some of it will likely be irreversible. (Cap and trade: reversible. I would LOVE for that to go through, simply because it would piss people off, then we could get in and repeal it. Health care, unless there is delayed implementation, not so much.)
The good part is that people are furious. While sitting frogs will not slowly let themselves be cooked to death, Americans – as will all humans – will tolerate the erosion of their freedom. That isn’t what is happening here. You cannot get the kind of fundamental change that we need to have happen (i.e. actual, functional limits on our federal government) without this fury. Those changes happen by revolution only; it can be a peaceful revolt, in which people scream for action, or it can be a violent overthrow. Since the latter is unlikely (and will cause problems of its own), I’m okay with the former.
As for feminism: I apply the term to myself because I despise the bait-and-switch tactics being used. Most progressives will say that all women are feminists, then give a broad definition that encompasses the women of yesteryear. They will then promptly declare that, to be a “real feminist,” you must be a pro-abortion socialist. Since they presume to speak for me and to, as “You are” believes, helping me, I’m going to apply the term to myself and watch the lefties go nuts. First, I don’t like how they co-opted the term and use it for political gain (cf Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton – womanising hereos of modern feminists); second, I want to expose the lie of the bait-and-switch for what it is.
Moving onwards: one of the most effective political tactics going is to convince women and minorities that the liberals are actually doing them any favours. Unless “conservative” and “feminist” (or “conservative” and “African-American”) are not considered to be oxymorons to the American public, we will continue this farce in which a tiny minority of the population manages to shove its views onto the rest of us by convincing most of us that the other side hates us.
I’m a feminist. I am morally and fiscally conservative in my politics. Women have come a long way since we were just to sit pretty and shut our pretty little mouths, but today’s culture is selling it all away.
We wanted to be seen as more than sex objects – yet our liberal, outspoken feminist sisters say NOTHING when our young women are showing their bare genitals so that they can make more money selling records. Hmmm… I’ll show you my naked body, you throw me money… How dignified! How enlightened! How truly progressive!
A rapper makes a video running a credit card through the butt cheeks of a woman… where’s the outrage?!?!?! crickets… many of us – true feminists – are horrified by the objectification of our young women.
Is exhibitionist whoredom an act of empowerment? Just making a buck off of the male response to it? How insulting! Our pop culture is selling out the self-respect of our young women, and destroying the respect shown to them by the young men in our society… and we’re wasting time worrying over the names of the jeans in advertisements…. seriously, my jeans are there to cover my ass. The best statement they can make is… this woman is smart enough to buy jeans that fit her. I don’t care what they are named… This makes us look so stupid and petty.
Roxeanne,
“It had been slow from about the 1930s onwards.”
It may have started in the 30’s, but it really took hold post-60’s. The Boomer generation was the first to really push the envelope. What was very slow and very gradual turned into a steady torrent later on.
“Cap and trade: reversible. I would LOVE for that to go through, simply because it would piss people off, then we could get in and repeal it.”
Maybe. You’re assuming the Republicans will do something about it. In 1994, the Republicans swept the congressional elections and managed to only hold the line. I could be wrong, but I don’t think (and think is the operative word) anything was actually repealed. Holding the line isn’t enough. People need a guarantee from politicians that they won’t just get into office and dick around, which I’m afraid is exactly what will happen.
“First, I don’t like how they co-opted the term and use it for political gain (cf Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton – womanising hereos of modern feminists); second, I want to expose the lie of the bait-and-switch for what it is.”
And how effective has that been? It’s a serious question. The “feminists” will get into a huff and ignore you, which they’ve done for quite some time.
“Moving onwards: one of the most effective political tactics going is to convince women and minorities that the liberals are actually doing them any favours. Unless “conservative” and “feminist” (or “conservative” and “African-American”) are not considered to be oxymorons to the American public, we will continue this farce in which a tiny minority of the population manages to shove its views onto the rest of us by convincing most of us that the other side hates us.”
Which goes back to my premise about history being dictated by small groups of determined radicals. They do this because they can. Most people drift though history. They do not determine. They simply accept what’s going on around them (hence dictators are able to rule the way they do…because people don’t know any better).
22 Comments