Mean Girls 2024 doesn't address its own subject, which is the engagement tactics between women. There's a whole world of how women are with each other that men will never see, and gender dynamics affect a great many areas of life, so here is an examination of what changed from third to fourth wave feminism through Mean Girls.
I agree we should strive for a world in which all races can be everything from a genius to an idiot to a criminal. I saw someone mention Jason, the dumb Asian guy in the Good Place (go Jacksonville Jaguars! Lol). I was also thinking of the Canadian show Kim’s Convenience on Netflix.
One main character is played by hot guy Simu Liu. The characters in that show are mostly Asian and they run the gamut from dumb to attractive to smart, and there are 2-3 Indians, including an Indian shopkeeper who chats with the main guy about how he exploits the workers at his Indian restaurant and also a bubbly air headed Indian girl who is the younger characters’ roommates. Maybe you’ve seen this show but it came to mind for me when discussing stereotypes about Asians.
I also just thought of “Crazy Ex Girlfriend” in which the object of the white main character’s desire is an Asian guy also.
As usual, your writings make me think a lot! I thank you for that.
One thing I would like to address here, if I may share my own observations and conclusions, is an issue you tackle well but also cannot seem to help engaging in a bit yourself -- which proves, I think, one of the main points you were trying to make: How we both love and loathe various forms of progress, the liberation and admiration of female beauty, etc.
This displays a constant source of conflict between those who are truly liberal and freedom-minded while also recognizing some of the negative directions this can take us: How do you properly balance freedom and responsible decision-making without policing the latter in the name of the former? And how far should we resort to the use of social techniques like shaming to achieve a better world? And at what point does shaming cause harm more than it corrects genuine mistakes?
And should we go that far just to stop people from making decisions we believe they will likely later regret? And, perhaps conversely, how can we change society for the better to make certain decisions considerably less likely to result in regret rather than diminishing or policing agency? Finally, is the right to take risks and make mistakes actually an important one, no matter how upset we may get about the nature of the risk in question?
For instance, you correctly (in my view) lament the suppression of transgression that is a major feature of Internet Feminism & the wardens of woke (good terminology, btw lol!). And you critique its inherent authoritarian nature, which I also commend. That is a damning indictment of Nanny State ideology that I cannot agree with more.
But... then you mention how the possibility of girls making decisions they might later regret make it laudable for parents to police how their daughters dress, or how they express their natural sexuality or, perhaps more relevantly, whether they should express it in any way, shape, or form and instead pretend to be characters from a Disney sitcom. After all, how well did that work out for Miley Cyrus, for instance? How much did that make her want to transgress all the more in a rather startling fashion? I can think of many non-celeb instances of this that I have seen, of young girls being driven over the rails by such policing and shaming of even slight expressions of their sexuality by well-meaning parents.
Ironically, it would seem that subjecting them to a light version of modesty culture may only make them want to transgress all the more, and not in positive ways. And the surfeit of it in the past may, in fact, have led us right to wear we are now, with hyper-permissiveness being equated with liberation.
What I am basically saying is this: Modesty culture is no better an alternative than hyper-permissiveness, as it is the opposite extreme rather than a better alternative. And I have often observed, and concluded, in my writings that *extremes* in general are never good ideas.
We already know what hyper-permissiveness can result in, of course. But what happens when modestly culture gets out of hand? As noted above, you get situations like the enforcement of Disney-style culture on girls that is stifling and very unrealistic (note that the example of Miley is just one of several girls who had extreme *de-sexualization* imposed on them while working for Disney). You also get hyper-patriarchal societies like certain Muslim nations where women are completely denied most forms of agency for their own perceived good. This, of course, includes attempts to protect their purity by "protecting" them from the dreaded male gaze and policing their sexuality.
I fully understand that you are not suggesting anything like that, of course, but this is where an emphasis on female modesty can lead us, and the evidence against modesty culture is as pervasive as the evidence against hyper-permissiveness represented by *Mean Girls* 2024.
Herein are the contradictions in which we find ourselves grappling with. We realize the importance of transgression; but we also dislike it & where it may lead. We realize that sexuality is a major form of liberation while also deriding the dangers it may expose us to.
(And this type of permissiveness will not only potentially endanger girls and women -- it may also endanger relatively decent males who may respond to such female invitations only to later be subjected to regret-based false accusations of sexual abuse if they should later piss off their partner for some reason.)
We acknowledge the great beauty of the female form and what an awesome creation of nature it is, while also pointing out the dangers of showing enough of it off to men. And how women and girls often covet the attention and get upset if men do not acknowledge their beauty; while simultaneously fearing it and seeing it as predatory or "creepy," and expect decent men not to look at females. We criticize the "sexualization" of certain groups of people, often on a gender and (these days) age specific basis, while simultaneously realizing that the default state of most human beings is not inherent asexuality, nor a tendency to pretend that such attraction does not exist for reasons of decorum.
So, what may be the solution to this conundrum of contradictions brought to us by contemporary society?
Firstly, I cannot help but wonder if at least part of the reason permissiveness in this society has led to so much regret on the part of women over the past few decades is not because of that permissiveness itself but because of how it occurs within the context of a specific type of society. That societal context is late stage capitalism, in an era when the system is self-destructing, material inequality within a material-rich world is at a zenith, competition between all groups of people is heavily encouraged (to which Woke mentality is a major symptom of), and the infancy of the Information Age where are just learning to cope with the relatively recent, game-changing introduction of the Internet & social media into our global existence.
In other words, would open sexual expression and sexual behavior be as bad in a different, more socially and economically improved post-capitalist world where cooperation and material equality was the order of the day rather than ruthless competition and wealth disparity that permeates every aspect of our current existence? We cannot pretend that our socio-economic environment has nothing to do with any of this.
Next is the matter of extremes.
Is hyper-permissiveness a good thing? No, I don't think the evidence suggests that it is.
But is a return to some degree of modesty culture and policing of the decision-making of girls and women to enforce risk aversion a good thing, along with efforts to suppress their sexuality (as opposed to trying to hyper-sexualize it)? I think the historical evidence does not suggest returning to the way things used to be is a good idea either, since that too has a dark side with potentially serious consequences no matter how good the intentions behind it may may be? And let's be honest about this too: those intentions are not always good. The desire to protect and the urge to control are often uncomfortably intertwined.
With my observation that no extreme is good, this is what I suspect may be the future solution: To achieve something *between* too much permissiveness and enforced modesty. To put policing and shaming aside in favor of creating a better world order for everyone that does not encourage self-destructive forms of transgression but also does not stifle healthy displays of sexuality and allowing for the respectful admiration of the female form.
It does not mean females running around scantily-clad at all times and attempting to jump in bed with every attractive guy they see, of course. Nor does it mean engaging in sexual activity with wanton disregard for any possible consequences or responsibility.
But it also doesn't mean females always walking around or photographing themselves dressed in frumpy, figure-obscuring sweatshirts that resemble tents more than clothing, with bikinis or modeling of such attire strictly verboten or relentlessly shamed. Nor does it mean avoiding sexual contact like it was a life-destroying plague they will almost certainly regret engaging in or experiencing. Nor will it mean authority figures controlling them rather than society simply encouraging behavior that balances having fun with responsibility; a society far less competitive, and thus less dangerous, than this one, since such a society would produce far less broken hearts, mental illness, and narcissism.
(However, how much is too much will invariably be an individual thing for females, and we may have to find a proper place in a better future society for females who are just naturally hyper-sexual. I can think of a few responsible, non-condemnatory ways, but that will be left for a future article of mine.)
Ultimately, it means working to create a better world order rather than just trying to improve matters within the context of the current one. Things changed from what they were to what they are now for a reason, and I think the future demands restoring the good of the past and merging it with the good aspects of the present, while diminishing or eliminating the bad elements of both.
One of the many things I enjoyed about The Good Place was that it had an Asian character portrayed as dumb. It did a great job of playing against stereotypes.
I have a love-hate relationship with this concept. I'm assuming then you find desi Karen to be fine? I think there can definitely be reasonable disagreement on this topic. I do think Jason was a great character but if he had been white, the reaction would have been the same. With Karen, the original was in a time when anti-intellectual stances and feminism weren't as tightly connected, meaning it wasn't exactly desirable to be a ditz, and everyone made fun of her. The argument today is that women shouldn't have to be any particular way - someone as silly as desi Karen is equal in value to a more intellectual woman, and with that I just can't agree. And while this subtext is being pushed, we also are supposed to agree that somehow portraying a dumb Indian is a win for diasporic representation. I don't think we all need to be portrayed as engineers but I also just...can't get behind this celebration of anti-intellectualism in media representation.
I agree with this, Radha! I also commend you for something that you admitted, which is not easy to do but which is essential to confront objectively if we are to move forward in terms of positive progress.
Specifically, you admitted that you have a love-hate relationship with certain concepts and situations, much as our society has a love-hate relationship with sexual freedom & liberation; and with the very general concept of freedom itself.
For instance, how often do we see people arguing that it's normal and healthy for females to express themselves sexually, only to see those same people slut-shaming females who do? How often do we see people argue that it's healthy for people 18 and over to express themselves sexually, but also insist that it's unhealthy for anyone under that arbitrary age to do so (we have an "ick" factor with that, exacerbated by the elephant in the room that people under that arbitrary age lack their civil rights & we always assume them cognitively deficient on that arbitrary basis, a matter we need to admit).
How often do we see your fellow Democrats extol the virtues of freedom and democracy, only to fully support numerous forms of censorship like de-platforming, shadow banning, and cancel culture in general? (I know you oppose that within your party, another thing I commend you for!)
That was a point I made in my lengthy comment up above (which will likely be converted into one of my future articles) as it was evident in some parts of your article about certain matters that I addressed. It's great that you acknowledge that we can be "on the fence" about certain concepts, and see both good and bad in them at the same time, display conflicts of fealty with opposing ideas, and struggle to reconcile them in a way that results in positive change that works for society as a whole. And this dissonance includes conflict between believing that authoritarianism is bad, but also believing it may be good on some levels in certain situations etc.
That is why I ultimately suggested that the way forward to benefit everyone is achieving a society and culture somewhere *between* modesty culture and hyper-permissiveness. We know that the latter is not working, but it's also evident that the former invariably leads to forms of rebellious transgression that brings us to the latter along with loss of agency and authoritarian dictates. And I also pondered the idea that the present type of society is just bad in general, and it tends towards extremes rather than a healthy balance of reasonable permissiveness and responsibility.
As another example that I think you point out most elegantly, the concept of tolerance and diversity of expression is a good thing but not if taken to *extremes.* Extremes are rarely, if ever, positive. That is why I agree that freedom of choice and expression is a good thing, but it must be balanced by responsible behavior and decisions. And I think a better, truly democratic society where everyone enjoys the full fruit of their labor materially would lead to far less negative or extreme exercises of agency. And thus no perceived need to resort to authoritarian measures to prevent the potential negative consequences of certain decisions.
Totally agree with needing to find a middle ground, and it is so with most things we struggle with. Sexual permissiveness is at the top of my list of things that need mitigation.
It does need mitigation, but I believe it has to be done with democratic solutions, because authoritarianism simply leads us back to where we are now. In fact, it's how we got here in the first place; people rebel against heavily imposed restrictions, which is why modesty culture is not, IMO, a good idea for all the reasons I described.
I think the democratic solution means creating a better environment that does not encourage extreme levels of risk-taking. To be clear, I do not not find sexual permissiveness per se to be a problem, but what might better be described as *hyper-permissiveness*. That is permissiveness taken to its extreme, and that is what we are now dealing with in the West. In many Eastern nations, IMO, we see examples of modesty culture taken to its extreme, and needless to say, it does not lead to freedom and democracy as traditionally defined.
Also, which I further commend you for admitting, one's personal cultural upbringing and religion etc will affect which way someone will lean when confronted with the conflict of extremes. As a Hindu, you come from a culture that favors modesty; as a Wiccan, we have a sub-culture that favors permissiveness (not hyper-permissiveness, however). This is why I support the idea of embracing multiple lifestyles as long as none of them impact society as a whole in a negative way, and none of them run counter to democracy or responsible behavior.
The question though is how to instill a sense of moderation in people. The way we think of feminine liberation is akin to everything being good, a free for all. I don’t see how we would reign in hyper permissiveness other than a healthy amount of shame re-entering social relations. I don’t think all shame should be eradicated but it can be taken to extremes, too, as my mother showed me.
I think that one way of moderating behavior and keeping it responsible, as I noted earlier, is to create a better world order, one of material equality, and cooperation instead of competition. These economic changes would improve our personal lives and behavior immensely, since as we both know the type of economic and material environment in which we live spills over in major ways into every other aspect of our lives. An economic environment that encourages and even rewards us for greed, one-upmanship of our fellow person, and playing cruel games via office politics to get ahead is not going to result in a citizenry who behaves responsible or avoids excess in their personal lives & choices.
For example, a system that provides the full material fruit of our labor to every person would end the practice of hypergamy among women. They would choose partners who complimented them as people with no concerns for anyone being a "provider" and nothing, including child-rearing, would require an economic calculation. People would be used to working with each other rather than against each other, and that would improve all types of interpersonal behavior. People would feel less need to seek fulfillment via any form of extreme behavior, including substance abuse.
That is why you and I focus strongly on class rather than cultural issues, as we know it's the crux of just about everything else. And it's also why I believe we agree that efforts to improve our behavior while maintaining the current economic status quo may very well be futile.
The reason I am not comfortable with shaming, or perhaps more conscious of how it can be taken too far once it's started, is that I was subjected to it for a variety of reasons my entire life simply for not adhering to the expected "norm" for my gender or my age group, or for "fitting in" better with my family.
For instance, because I was a male who was more interested in comic books and video games than sports or cars (which males in the West are expected to be interested in). Because of my romantic preference for younger women, which is NOT a choice (it's accepted in certain Asian cultures, but very verboten in the West), and it's futile to expect me to form romantic bonds with partners I am not naturally attracted to. And because I did not feel comfortable practicing Catholicism in a family that was devoutly Catholic.
These were not the norm for people of my gender; of my age group; or of my nationality and family in the West. But they were not actually hurting anyone in any demonstrable way; they were just making people "uncomfortable."
That is why I am wary of using shaming as a means of social control, including as an effective way of maintaining it and not instead coming back to bite us in a major way.
. I think we need to accept that not everyone can be expected to have the same type of lifestyle choice or preferences. For example, everyone will be happy in a nuclear family unit or monogamous relationship, etc.
Specifically, I think we need to limit shaming to behavior that truly hurts other people in demonstrative ways. Examples? We should indeed shame people for stealing, or being quick to resort to violence or emotional outbursts (of the type you have rightfully critiqued that are encouraged by the wardens of woke); chronic lying; or using deception to get what they want out of any type of relationship.
I also think there is a difference between critiquing and shaming. For instance, I agree we should critique women for insisting that they only date extremely hot men that make them look good in front of others, thus resulting in our current situation of having 90% of the female population competing for only 20% of men, the latter of whom are obviously entitled and more interested in having fun than forming lasting relationships that would be conducive to building family & responsible child-rearing.
But for women and men who are naturally hyper-sexual? We may have to accept that they are not suited to meet the type of expectations we would like, and we need to find responsible ways to accommodate them rather than making them feel horrible for not being able to meet those expectations; or attempting to compel them into pretending to meet those expectations anyway, which is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole..
Accordingly, I agree that we should oppose negative or non-ideal lifestyle choices occurring on a mass scale due to *social trending* and *societal pressure.* That, I believe, is the main source of the problems we are discussing here in terms of irresponsible behavior. Examples of that are, for instance, young people and women who are not naturally LGBT or non-binary etc feeling pressured into identifying as such by the wardens of woke, who have an active anti-heteronormativity agenda.
However... we do and should accommodate people who are naturally LGBT or who have legitimately diagnosable gender dysphoria, which I certainly think you agree with.
I haven't actually seen the new Mean Girls (or the old for that matter), so I'll withhold judgement on anything in it at present. What I think is good is to have a *variety* of portrayals of people from any background, and therefore subvert stereotypes. If there were lots of portrayals of dumb Asians out there, there wouldn't have been anything particularly valuable about Jason as a character (and it might even have been a problem), but I'm not aware of any others.
That’s really good to know. I thought that these ideas had only infiltrated the second generation of Indians born in the US - they think we’re oppressed even though Indians are so rich, and I don’t get it. You’re right about this thinking preventing loving yourself. Sometimes I wonder if several of my friends think I’ve lost my mind, but I feel like I’ve found the obvious problem keeping us from loving ourselves that no one wants to admit is THE problem.
I also didn’t realize the reluctance to criticize religions not your own for being harmful to women’s psyches had been exported, which is deeply unfortunate. I’ve noticed this tendency, and I’ve had it myself, whereby if your own religion is oppressive, you’re far more willing to criticize that than any other religion, especially anything about Islam. Now if there was consistency here it would be one thing, but the left is willing to criticize Christianity here but no other religion for anything, which is why we have leftists for Hamas.
Finally, I think it’s kind of crazy to refuse to criticize anything while claiming you’re critiquing dominant structures. We’re not tearing down the disempowerment born of thinking about the world this way and instead are tearing down all that might have made the world livable before the age of the smartphone - religion, community, family, etc. All of these things are under attack, and I don’t mean to be hyperbolic and sound like Tucker Carlson, but these three pillars of human life can’t be abandoned. We’re seeing the effects of doing so in the west, and I don’t like the results.
For the record, my serious issues growing up as a Catholic did not cause me to abandon religion altogether and embrace atheism (a belief system that, despite its claims, is often no more rational or conducive to peace than the least rational aspects of any given religion). I instead found my way to Wicca, which I am good with because it encourages responsibility to yourself and others without politics and authoritarian measures.
That said, I have no problem with any religion, or with atheists etc, provided they do not try to impose their specific set of beliefs and lifestyle choices on me, and do not try to write their beliefs into law. For instance, I have no problem with my Muslim neighbors, or with them choosing to implement aspects of Sharia Law into their personal lives. I accept them and respect them because they do not expect me to do the same, they do not try to get Sharia Law writ into the legal system, and they fully tolerate me for not being Muslim.
I also have no problem with Christianity as long as it stays out of the law and does not attempt to dominate the culture in every which way. All religion has positive spiritual value and good truths & insights to provide us with, and can provide immense emotional comfort when we need it most. But it needs to stay out of politics and people need to consider it a personal choice and individual matter rather than something that everyone should follow. Catholicism was bad for me because it was *imposed* on me. It was not right for me, but I fully understand that it works for many other people, and if it does, I fully respect their faith as long as they respect the fact that I am better individually suited for a different one.
And also for the record, I do not like the idea of atheism dominating our culture either. People have a right to be atheist, but they do not have the right to try and hi-jack science and claim they adhere to scientific objectivity, because they do not. They simply hate religion, and that is fine as long as they do not expect everyone else to as well, and do not insist that science stay out of any area of study that may risk "validating" religion in their eyes. It's pretty much an objective fact and well-recorded by science that unseen aspects of our universe exist, and technology of any given era may not be able to detect it in full, but do eventually find signs that it's there as it advances (e.g., microscopic life; various levels of sound & light; the quantum level of existence; and more recently, infra-sound, dark matter & dark energy).
That said, I do support a *secular* government, but that is not the same thing as one that promotes atheism.
Oh dear! Speaking truth in our modern culture? You shall be summarily canceled :-) -- not by me. Glad you're asking these questions. Has anyone noticed the mental state of young girls today - teens and 20-somethings in the modern (western values abiding) world? Not good! And the modern world has never been less sexist, more willing to accommodate what women want, so what gives? No one wants to ask/tell/know...
PS> In case you think I'm some sort of traditionalist, I grew up, went to engg college in india in the '80s - one of 2 girls in a class of nearly 300 - considered myself a harcode feminist; never thought I'd shake my head at "feminism" but it's been distorted beyond recognition. I now say I'm just an old school feminist.
PPS> The other strange phenomenon... A LOT of work on behalf of women remains to be done in the medieval fundamentalist/ fanatical circles of certain regions/ religions... but strangely mentioning the issues in cultures that clearly need questioning on behalf of their women, is also verboten! I can't make sense of any of it anymore.
You are absolutely right, and this realization that we're freer than we've ever been while feeling the most victimized is a topic I can't stop thinking about. And, I like you considered myself a hardcore feminist; it was my first ever identity. I see myself also as an old school liberal and feminist who is for actual equality. I never thought I'd hear arguments in the name of feminism that just sound like dressed up traditionalism, expecting more from men than we expect from ourselves. I'm wondering if you see that in India too? And when you say work on behalf of women, I think about the ways in which Hindu culture can be used to justify oppression as well as within other religions. I'm curious what you think about that topic.
Exactly! I'm SO glad to see young women like yourself snatching your agency - and brains and the right to be HAPPY - right back. Sadly, prevalent victimology is playing havoc with young women's mental health and their relationships. They can't love because they can't love themselves because if they dared to they'd lose all their (loser) friends. Sorry for the harsh language, but it really pisses me off to see beautiful young minds get so corrupted.
I don't know too much about India because I've been in the US for 30+ years (live in CA - the bastion of crazy woke) but from what I can gather the progressive left there is badly infected by ideas exported by the US. They think they're being hip, aping our shit, oh while condemning the US for just about every sin on the planet.
Regarding my comment re. religion, I meant part of being a woke feminist is not criticizing non-judeo-christian tradition (cultural relativism) even when it's patently patriarchal and sexist. Many Hindu practices ofc which I could write a tome about. And even more so, the state of women under fundamentalist Islam. But no...look squirrel!
Ironically, the brave women of Iran beg to differ greatly from the woke ones of USA. I don't know if you've paid attention to Ayaan Hirsi Ali who bravely calls out our hypocrisy...she's persona non-grata in feminist circles for that reason and she has a tremendously brave life story to tell... We need a "classical liberal feminists" club :-)
PS> I never thought I'd say this but in some ways my daughter is more of a classical conservative than I ever will be and it's a relief. LOL!
I agree we should strive for a world in which all races can be everything from a genius to an idiot to a criminal. I saw someone mention Jason, the dumb Asian guy in the Good Place (go Jacksonville Jaguars! Lol). I was also thinking of the Canadian show Kim’s Convenience on Netflix.
One main character is played by hot guy Simu Liu. The characters in that show are mostly Asian and they run the gamut from dumb to attractive to smart, and there are 2-3 Indians, including an Indian shopkeeper who chats with the main guy about how he exploits the workers at his Indian restaurant and also a bubbly air headed Indian girl who is the younger characters’ roommates. Maybe you’ve seen this show but it came to mind for me when discussing stereotypes about Asians.
I also just thought of “Crazy Ex Girlfriend” in which the object of the white main character’s desire is an Asian guy also.
As usual, your writings make me think a lot! I thank you for that.
One thing I would like to address here, if I may share my own observations and conclusions, is an issue you tackle well but also cannot seem to help engaging in a bit yourself -- which proves, I think, one of the main points you were trying to make: How we both love and loathe various forms of progress, the liberation and admiration of female beauty, etc.
This displays a constant source of conflict between those who are truly liberal and freedom-minded while also recognizing some of the negative directions this can take us: How do you properly balance freedom and responsible decision-making without policing the latter in the name of the former? And how far should we resort to the use of social techniques like shaming to achieve a better world? And at what point does shaming cause harm more than it corrects genuine mistakes?
And should we go that far just to stop people from making decisions we believe they will likely later regret? And, perhaps conversely, how can we change society for the better to make certain decisions considerably less likely to result in regret rather than diminishing or policing agency? Finally, is the right to take risks and make mistakes actually an important one, no matter how upset we may get about the nature of the risk in question?
For instance, you correctly (in my view) lament the suppression of transgression that is a major feature of Internet Feminism & the wardens of woke (good terminology, btw lol!). And you critique its inherent authoritarian nature, which I also commend. That is a damning indictment of Nanny State ideology that I cannot agree with more.
But... then you mention how the possibility of girls making decisions they might later regret make it laudable for parents to police how their daughters dress, or how they express their natural sexuality or, perhaps more relevantly, whether they should express it in any way, shape, or form and instead pretend to be characters from a Disney sitcom. After all, how well did that work out for Miley Cyrus, for instance? How much did that make her want to transgress all the more in a rather startling fashion? I can think of many non-celeb instances of this that I have seen, of young girls being driven over the rails by such policing and shaming of even slight expressions of their sexuality by well-meaning parents.
Ironically, it would seem that subjecting them to a light version of modesty culture may only make them want to transgress all the more, and not in positive ways. And the surfeit of it in the past may, in fact, have led us right to wear we are now, with hyper-permissiveness being equated with liberation.
What I am basically saying is this: Modesty culture is no better an alternative than hyper-permissiveness, as it is the opposite extreme rather than a better alternative. And I have often observed, and concluded, in my writings that *extremes* in general are never good ideas.
We already know what hyper-permissiveness can result in, of course. But what happens when modestly culture gets out of hand? As noted above, you get situations like the enforcement of Disney-style culture on girls that is stifling and very unrealistic (note that the example of Miley is just one of several girls who had extreme *de-sexualization* imposed on them while working for Disney). You also get hyper-patriarchal societies like certain Muslim nations where women are completely denied most forms of agency for their own perceived good. This, of course, includes attempts to protect their purity by "protecting" them from the dreaded male gaze and policing their sexuality.
I fully understand that you are not suggesting anything like that, of course, but this is where an emphasis on female modesty can lead us, and the evidence against modesty culture is as pervasive as the evidence against hyper-permissiveness represented by *Mean Girls* 2024.
Herein are the contradictions in which we find ourselves grappling with. We realize the importance of transgression; but we also dislike it & where it may lead. We realize that sexuality is a major form of liberation while also deriding the dangers it may expose us to.
(And this type of permissiveness will not only potentially endanger girls and women -- it may also endanger relatively decent males who may respond to such female invitations only to later be subjected to regret-based false accusations of sexual abuse if they should later piss off their partner for some reason.)
We acknowledge the great beauty of the female form and what an awesome creation of nature it is, while also pointing out the dangers of showing enough of it off to men. And how women and girls often covet the attention and get upset if men do not acknowledge their beauty; while simultaneously fearing it and seeing it as predatory or "creepy," and expect decent men not to look at females. We criticize the "sexualization" of certain groups of people, often on a gender and (these days) age specific basis, while simultaneously realizing that the default state of most human beings is not inherent asexuality, nor a tendency to pretend that such attraction does not exist for reasons of decorum.
So, what may be the solution to this conundrum of contradictions brought to us by contemporary society?
Firstly, I cannot help but wonder if at least part of the reason permissiveness in this society has led to so much regret on the part of women over the past few decades is not because of that permissiveness itself but because of how it occurs within the context of a specific type of society. That societal context is late stage capitalism, in an era when the system is self-destructing, material inequality within a material-rich world is at a zenith, competition between all groups of people is heavily encouraged (to which Woke mentality is a major symptom of), and the infancy of the Information Age where are just learning to cope with the relatively recent, game-changing introduction of the Internet & social media into our global existence.
In other words, would open sexual expression and sexual behavior be as bad in a different, more socially and economically improved post-capitalist world where cooperation and material equality was the order of the day rather than ruthless competition and wealth disparity that permeates every aspect of our current existence? We cannot pretend that our socio-economic environment has nothing to do with any of this.
Next is the matter of extremes.
Is hyper-permissiveness a good thing? No, I don't think the evidence suggests that it is.
But is a return to some degree of modesty culture and policing of the decision-making of girls and women to enforce risk aversion a good thing, along with efforts to suppress their sexuality (as opposed to trying to hyper-sexualize it)? I think the historical evidence does not suggest returning to the way things used to be is a good idea either, since that too has a dark side with potentially serious consequences no matter how good the intentions behind it may may be? And let's be honest about this too: those intentions are not always good. The desire to protect and the urge to control are often uncomfortably intertwined.
With my observation that no extreme is good, this is what I suspect may be the future solution: To achieve something *between* too much permissiveness and enforced modesty. To put policing and shaming aside in favor of creating a better world order for everyone that does not encourage self-destructive forms of transgression but also does not stifle healthy displays of sexuality and allowing for the respectful admiration of the female form.
It does not mean females running around scantily-clad at all times and attempting to jump in bed with every attractive guy they see, of course. Nor does it mean engaging in sexual activity with wanton disregard for any possible consequences or responsibility.
But it also doesn't mean females always walking around or photographing themselves dressed in frumpy, figure-obscuring sweatshirts that resemble tents more than clothing, with bikinis or modeling of such attire strictly verboten or relentlessly shamed. Nor does it mean avoiding sexual contact like it was a life-destroying plague they will almost certainly regret engaging in or experiencing. Nor will it mean authority figures controlling them rather than society simply encouraging behavior that balances having fun with responsibility; a society far less competitive, and thus less dangerous, than this one, since such a society would produce far less broken hearts, mental illness, and narcissism.
(However, how much is too much will invariably be an individual thing for females, and we may have to find a proper place in a better future society for females who are just naturally hyper-sexual. I can think of a few responsible, non-condemnatory ways, but that will be left for a future article of mine.)
Ultimately, it means working to create a better world order rather than just trying to improve matters within the context of the current one. Things changed from what they were to what they are now for a reason, and I think the future demands restoring the good of the past and merging it with the good aspects of the present, while diminishing or eliminating the bad elements of both.
One of the many things I enjoyed about The Good Place was that it had an Asian character portrayed as dumb. It did a great job of playing against stereotypes.
I have a love-hate relationship with this concept. I'm assuming then you find desi Karen to be fine? I think there can definitely be reasonable disagreement on this topic. I do think Jason was a great character but if he had been white, the reaction would have been the same. With Karen, the original was in a time when anti-intellectual stances and feminism weren't as tightly connected, meaning it wasn't exactly desirable to be a ditz, and everyone made fun of her. The argument today is that women shouldn't have to be any particular way - someone as silly as desi Karen is equal in value to a more intellectual woman, and with that I just can't agree. And while this subtext is being pushed, we also are supposed to agree that somehow portraying a dumb Indian is a win for diasporic representation. I don't think we all need to be portrayed as engineers but I also just...can't get behind this celebration of anti-intellectualism in media representation.
I agree with this, Radha! I also commend you for something that you admitted, which is not easy to do but which is essential to confront objectively if we are to move forward in terms of positive progress.
Specifically, you admitted that you have a love-hate relationship with certain concepts and situations, much as our society has a love-hate relationship with sexual freedom & liberation; and with the very general concept of freedom itself.
For instance, how often do we see people arguing that it's normal and healthy for females to express themselves sexually, only to see those same people slut-shaming females who do? How often do we see people argue that it's healthy for people 18 and over to express themselves sexually, but also insist that it's unhealthy for anyone under that arbitrary age to do so (we have an "ick" factor with that, exacerbated by the elephant in the room that people under that arbitrary age lack their civil rights & we always assume them cognitively deficient on that arbitrary basis, a matter we need to admit).
How often do we see your fellow Democrats extol the virtues of freedom and democracy, only to fully support numerous forms of censorship like de-platforming, shadow banning, and cancel culture in general? (I know you oppose that within your party, another thing I commend you for!)
That was a point I made in my lengthy comment up above (which will likely be converted into one of my future articles) as it was evident in some parts of your article about certain matters that I addressed. It's great that you acknowledge that we can be "on the fence" about certain concepts, and see both good and bad in them at the same time, display conflicts of fealty with opposing ideas, and struggle to reconcile them in a way that results in positive change that works for society as a whole. And this dissonance includes conflict between believing that authoritarianism is bad, but also believing it may be good on some levels in certain situations etc.
That is why I ultimately suggested that the way forward to benefit everyone is achieving a society and culture somewhere *between* modesty culture and hyper-permissiveness. We know that the latter is not working, but it's also evident that the former invariably leads to forms of rebellious transgression that brings us to the latter along with loss of agency and authoritarian dictates. And I also pondered the idea that the present type of society is just bad in general, and it tends towards extremes rather than a healthy balance of reasonable permissiveness and responsibility.
As another example that I think you point out most elegantly, the concept of tolerance and diversity of expression is a good thing but not if taken to *extremes.* Extremes are rarely, if ever, positive. That is why I agree that freedom of choice and expression is a good thing, but it must be balanced by responsible behavior and decisions. And I think a better, truly democratic society where everyone enjoys the full fruit of their labor materially would lead to far less negative or extreme exercises of agency. And thus no perceived need to resort to authoritarian measures to prevent the potential negative consequences of certain decisions.
Totally agree with needing to find a middle ground, and it is so with most things we struggle with. Sexual permissiveness is at the top of my list of things that need mitigation.
It does need mitigation, but I believe it has to be done with democratic solutions, because authoritarianism simply leads us back to where we are now. In fact, it's how we got here in the first place; people rebel against heavily imposed restrictions, which is why modesty culture is not, IMO, a good idea for all the reasons I described.
I think the democratic solution means creating a better environment that does not encourage extreme levels of risk-taking. To be clear, I do not not find sexual permissiveness per se to be a problem, but what might better be described as *hyper-permissiveness*. That is permissiveness taken to its extreme, and that is what we are now dealing with in the West. In many Eastern nations, IMO, we see examples of modesty culture taken to its extreme, and needless to say, it does not lead to freedom and democracy as traditionally defined.
Also, which I further commend you for admitting, one's personal cultural upbringing and religion etc will affect which way someone will lean when confronted with the conflict of extremes. As a Hindu, you come from a culture that favors modesty; as a Wiccan, we have a sub-culture that favors permissiveness (not hyper-permissiveness, however). This is why I support the idea of embracing multiple lifestyles as long as none of them impact society as a whole in a negative way, and none of them run counter to democracy or responsible behavior.
The question though is how to instill a sense of moderation in people. The way we think of feminine liberation is akin to everything being good, a free for all. I don’t see how we would reign in hyper permissiveness other than a healthy amount of shame re-entering social relations. I don’t think all shame should be eradicated but it can be taken to extremes, too, as my mother showed me.
I think that one way of moderating behavior and keeping it responsible, as I noted earlier, is to create a better world order, one of material equality, and cooperation instead of competition. These economic changes would improve our personal lives and behavior immensely, since as we both know the type of economic and material environment in which we live spills over in major ways into every other aspect of our lives. An economic environment that encourages and even rewards us for greed, one-upmanship of our fellow person, and playing cruel games via office politics to get ahead is not going to result in a citizenry who behaves responsible or avoids excess in their personal lives & choices.
For example, a system that provides the full material fruit of our labor to every person would end the practice of hypergamy among women. They would choose partners who complimented them as people with no concerns for anyone being a "provider" and nothing, including child-rearing, would require an economic calculation. People would be used to working with each other rather than against each other, and that would improve all types of interpersonal behavior. People would feel less need to seek fulfillment via any form of extreme behavior, including substance abuse.
That is why you and I focus strongly on class rather than cultural issues, as we know it's the crux of just about everything else. And it's also why I believe we agree that efforts to improve our behavior while maintaining the current economic status quo may very well be futile.
The reason I am not comfortable with shaming, or perhaps more conscious of how it can be taken too far once it's started, is that I was subjected to it for a variety of reasons my entire life simply for not adhering to the expected "norm" for my gender or my age group, or for "fitting in" better with my family.
For instance, because I was a male who was more interested in comic books and video games than sports or cars (which males in the West are expected to be interested in). Because of my romantic preference for younger women, which is NOT a choice (it's accepted in certain Asian cultures, but very verboten in the West), and it's futile to expect me to form romantic bonds with partners I am not naturally attracted to. And because I did not feel comfortable practicing Catholicism in a family that was devoutly Catholic.
These were not the norm for people of my gender; of my age group; or of my nationality and family in the West. But they were not actually hurting anyone in any demonstrable way; they were just making people "uncomfortable."
That is why I am wary of using shaming as a means of social control, including as an effective way of maintaining it and not instead coming back to bite us in a major way.
. I think we need to accept that not everyone can be expected to have the same type of lifestyle choice or preferences. For example, everyone will be happy in a nuclear family unit or monogamous relationship, etc.
Specifically, I think we need to limit shaming to behavior that truly hurts other people in demonstrative ways. Examples? We should indeed shame people for stealing, or being quick to resort to violence or emotional outbursts (of the type you have rightfully critiqued that are encouraged by the wardens of woke); chronic lying; or using deception to get what they want out of any type of relationship.
I also think there is a difference between critiquing and shaming. For instance, I agree we should critique women for insisting that they only date extremely hot men that make them look good in front of others, thus resulting in our current situation of having 90% of the female population competing for only 20% of men, the latter of whom are obviously entitled and more interested in having fun than forming lasting relationships that would be conducive to building family & responsible child-rearing.
But for women and men who are naturally hyper-sexual? We may have to accept that they are not suited to meet the type of expectations we would like, and we need to find responsible ways to accommodate them rather than making them feel horrible for not being able to meet those expectations; or attempting to compel them into pretending to meet those expectations anyway, which is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole..
Accordingly, I agree that we should oppose negative or non-ideal lifestyle choices occurring on a mass scale due to *social trending* and *societal pressure.* That, I believe, is the main source of the problems we are discussing here in terms of irresponsible behavior. Examples of that are, for instance, young people and women who are not naturally LGBT or non-binary etc feeling pressured into identifying as such by the wardens of woke, who have an active anti-heteronormativity agenda.
However... we do and should accommodate people who are naturally LGBT or who have legitimately diagnosable gender dysphoria, which I certainly think you agree with.
I haven't actually seen the new Mean Girls (or the old for that matter), so I'll withhold judgement on anything in it at present. What I think is good is to have a *variety* of portrayals of people from any background, and therefore subvert stereotypes. If there were lots of portrayals of dumb Asians out there, there wouldn't have been anything particularly valuable about Jason as a character (and it might even have been a problem), but I'm not aware of any others.
I haven't seen this new one yet, but you've got me excited to hate-watch it!
I must know your thoughts after
That’s really good to know. I thought that these ideas had only infiltrated the second generation of Indians born in the US - they think we’re oppressed even though Indians are so rich, and I don’t get it. You’re right about this thinking preventing loving yourself. Sometimes I wonder if several of my friends think I’ve lost my mind, but I feel like I’ve found the obvious problem keeping us from loving ourselves that no one wants to admit is THE problem.
I also didn’t realize the reluctance to criticize religions not your own for being harmful to women’s psyches had been exported, which is deeply unfortunate. I’ve noticed this tendency, and I’ve had it myself, whereby if your own religion is oppressive, you’re far more willing to criticize that than any other religion, especially anything about Islam. Now if there was consistency here it would be one thing, but the left is willing to criticize Christianity here but no other religion for anything, which is why we have leftists for Hamas.
Finally, I think it’s kind of crazy to refuse to criticize anything while claiming you’re critiquing dominant structures. We’re not tearing down the disempowerment born of thinking about the world this way and instead are tearing down all that might have made the world livable before the age of the smartphone - religion, community, family, etc. All of these things are under attack, and I don’t mean to be hyperbolic and sound like Tucker Carlson, but these three pillars of human life can’t be abandoned. We’re seeing the effects of doing so in the west, and I don’t like the results.
For the record, my serious issues growing up as a Catholic did not cause me to abandon religion altogether and embrace atheism (a belief system that, despite its claims, is often no more rational or conducive to peace than the least rational aspects of any given religion). I instead found my way to Wicca, which I am good with because it encourages responsibility to yourself and others without politics and authoritarian measures.
That said, I have no problem with any religion, or with atheists etc, provided they do not try to impose their specific set of beliefs and lifestyle choices on me, and do not try to write their beliefs into law. For instance, I have no problem with my Muslim neighbors, or with them choosing to implement aspects of Sharia Law into their personal lives. I accept them and respect them because they do not expect me to do the same, they do not try to get Sharia Law writ into the legal system, and they fully tolerate me for not being Muslim.
I also have no problem with Christianity as long as it stays out of the law and does not attempt to dominate the culture in every which way. All religion has positive spiritual value and good truths & insights to provide us with, and can provide immense emotional comfort when we need it most. But it needs to stay out of politics and people need to consider it a personal choice and individual matter rather than something that everyone should follow. Catholicism was bad for me because it was *imposed* on me. It was not right for me, but I fully understand that it works for many other people, and if it does, I fully respect their faith as long as they respect the fact that I am better individually suited for a different one.
And also for the record, I do not like the idea of atheism dominating our culture either. People have a right to be atheist, but they do not have the right to try and hi-jack science and claim they adhere to scientific objectivity, because they do not. They simply hate religion, and that is fine as long as they do not expect everyone else to as well, and do not insist that science stay out of any area of study that may risk "validating" religion in their eyes. It's pretty much an objective fact and well-recorded by science that unseen aspects of our universe exist, and technology of any given era may not be able to detect it in full, but do eventually find signs that it's there as it advances (e.g., microscopic life; various levels of sound & light; the quantum level of existence; and more recently, infra-sound, dark matter & dark energy).
That said, I do support a *secular* government, but that is not the same thing as one that promotes atheism.
Oh dear! Speaking truth in our modern culture? You shall be summarily canceled :-) -- not by me. Glad you're asking these questions. Has anyone noticed the mental state of young girls today - teens and 20-somethings in the modern (western values abiding) world? Not good! And the modern world has never been less sexist, more willing to accommodate what women want, so what gives? No one wants to ask/tell/know...
PS> In case you think I'm some sort of traditionalist, I grew up, went to engg college in india in the '80s - one of 2 girls in a class of nearly 300 - considered myself a harcode feminist; never thought I'd shake my head at "feminism" but it's been distorted beyond recognition. I now say I'm just an old school feminist.
PPS> The other strange phenomenon... A LOT of work on behalf of women remains to be done in the medieval fundamentalist/ fanatical circles of certain regions/ religions... but strangely mentioning the issues in cultures that clearly need questioning on behalf of their women, is also verboten! I can't make sense of any of it anymore.
You are absolutely right, and this realization that we're freer than we've ever been while feeling the most victimized is a topic I can't stop thinking about. And, I like you considered myself a hardcore feminist; it was my first ever identity. I see myself also as an old school liberal and feminist who is for actual equality. I never thought I'd hear arguments in the name of feminism that just sound like dressed up traditionalism, expecting more from men than we expect from ourselves. I'm wondering if you see that in India too? And when you say work on behalf of women, I think about the ways in which Hindu culture can be used to justify oppression as well as within other religions. I'm curious what you think about that topic.
Exactly! I'm SO glad to see young women like yourself snatching your agency - and brains and the right to be HAPPY - right back. Sadly, prevalent victimology is playing havoc with young women's mental health and their relationships. They can't love because they can't love themselves because if they dared to they'd lose all their (loser) friends. Sorry for the harsh language, but it really pisses me off to see beautiful young minds get so corrupted.
I don't know too much about India because I've been in the US for 30+ years (live in CA - the bastion of crazy woke) but from what I can gather the progressive left there is badly infected by ideas exported by the US. They think they're being hip, aping our shit, oh while condemning the US for just about every sin on the planet.
Regarding my comment re. religion, I meant part of being a woke feminist is not criticizing non-judeo-christian tradition (cultural relativism) even when it's patently patriarchal and sexist. Many Hindu practices ofc which I could write a tome about. And even more so, the state of women under fundamentalist Islam. But no...look squirrel!
Ironically, the brave women of Iran beg to differ greatly from the woke ones of USA. I don't know if you've paid attention to Ayaan Hirsi Ali who bravely calls out our hypocrisy...she's persona non-grata in feminist circles for that reason and she has a tremendously brave life story to tell... We need a "classical liberal feminists" club :-)
PS> I never thought I'd say this but in some ways my daughter is more of a classical conservative than I ever will be and it's a relief. LOL!