An invisible umbilical cord should connect [children] to a mature conscience. [Richard Cohen]. Same could be said for our women.
Is this blog turning feminist in its old age? I can’t imagine anyone being interested in the topic of this post but here goes nothing anyway.
When a society starts feeding off its women and children, especially for prurient purposes, then it’s a sick society as, for example, Ancient Rome became. For dramatic effect, Sodom and Gomorrah can be thrown in as well.
By what possible chain of cause and effect could political grievances such as airline pay disputes lead to female employees having to take clothes off? Even where there’s no dispute it is happening. Take your pick of any number of other incidents.
The first male reaction is approval – hey, all women should be naked but how many then stop and think about the coercive pressure itself on the women? And this does not mean someone standing with a gun to her head but instead, it’s about the climate, the culture within that group of people which expects looseness in its women.
It’s the easiest thing in the world to allow a falling away to a destructive culture of victims and in many cases, victims of themselves but I wonder how many can see the danger?
There is always a natural female need to flaunt herself, to show what she’s got; fashions are all about accentuating the female form and revealing as much as is socially tolerable – that’s why the female is at the forefront of pushing boundaries but she’ll only allow herself to do it if everyone else is also doing it and if people will “still respect her” afterwards.
This element of Respect is what it’s all about and in its final and most severe form, the female indulges in public orgies and is still “respected”. Look at Grace Kelly, the most expensive courtesan of modern times, famous for sleeping with men on a first date. In the case of Kelly, an adult who could decide her fate for herself, it looked like a conscious choice to sleep her way to advantage, as with Jackie Kennedy.
It’s not that Hollywood didn’t know the difference between right and wrong – look at the roles these courtesans played – one half of two people who always end up together in faithful monogamy, riding off into the sunset.
In the hierarchy of age, at what lower age should this pressure be applied to children? I come back to the seven year old sexually abused in Wales by school “friends” and no one saying or doing anything about it, even after it became known … or the seven year old sold off for sex.
And the only one interested is a pornographer’s newspaper? And if you say that these are isolated incidents, I say they are just the tip of the iceberg. What do you say about parents allowing their children to dress like tarts?
It’s held to be good parenting to let them run free and find out for themselves but what do you say about running free in a culture where even kids can be ogled and her own schoolmates urge her to disport herself that way? Even Kate Middleton had that incident of the obnoxious Sisterhood pressuring her to prostitute herself … for charity. It was the much-maligned Palace which saved her from herself.
Even in the video report on the child bullied to death, the female journo starts with “pretty young girl”. And there’s no lasciviousness mixed in with the horror over the kid? Coming back to Grace Kelly, we also come back to a predatory culture in an unhealthy environment – Hollywood, where women are expected to act as whores to succeed. Washington is another such culture.
This post is not having a go at the individual women but at the culture which promotes anything which prevents women acting with some sort of moral constraint.
What do the feminists say? They’re split. Half attack the objectification of women. Half argue that women should liberate themselves from all male-imposed moral constraint and if she sleeps around with large numbers, that the word whore cannot be applied to her.
And where are the effing parents in the genesis of the liberated female – teenage? No one has been talking about what parents are up to, except for the lone column writer here and there.
Richard Cohen, in the Washington Post, draws an analogy in the suicide case:
It is either significant or merely interesting that William Golding dedicated his classic, “Lord of the Flies,” to his mother and father. It is precisely the absence of parents, or any adult actually, that enables the boys of the island to descend into savagery, and it is the sudden appearance of an adult at the end that restores what we would now call law and order.
He writes of the creation of monsters, young monsters, by a predatory culture where the kids are no longer protected by the parents and by extension – in many cases, these parents are either actively abetting it or joining in themselves, not with their own daughters but with someone else’s.
I sat in a staffroom where the cougars thought it highly amusing that a young male teacher they were hot on was having it away with a 14 year old girl under their care. Everyone knew of it, no one did anything. I tried to stop it and was ostracized for suggesting that there was something less than good going on here but in the very attempt at stopping it, she became friendly with me.
Every teen girl you ogle and flog the log to in front of your screen is someone else’s kid gone astray. She’s part of a system which both plays on her own budding sexuality, the female love of money and how to get it [as distinct from the male love of money and how he gets it, in a different way] and on powerlessness.
Even in the best of those situations, where she’s hardly traumatized and might be actively indulging, she’s still warped in her values. And it comes down to a matter of degree. There’ll always be the tendency of the female and the tendency of the male. That’s a given. But this today is way OTT, where the whole culture of the society is aiding and abetting that which we secretly desire but it’s using victims who have no defences, either physically or psychologically.
It used to be that teachers would actively prevent such things. It used to be that parents would actively supervise their kids to the point where the kids might still get away with things, as we all did but the boundaries were at least known. What we are falling into now is Anton le Vey’s “do as you will” dictum and “do as you will” invariably leads to dark acts and nowhere to hide for the vulnerable. No boundaries at all invariably leads to predators and victims.
Which is no reason for the State to step in and play Parent as well as its other role of Nanny. This matter should be one for the parents.
Richard Cohen points out:
You will notice that in all the finger-pointing — the students, the teachers, the administrators — not a digit is aimed at the parents. Jaime Escalante, who died just recently, proved that a great teacher can make a great difference (he was the inspiration for the movie “Stand and Deliver”). And we know, too, the central importance of good principals. But parents, too, are important — most important — yet they, of course, cannot be fired. They have tenure.
Golding’s book is about evil. Kids can be mean. They want to belong. They mistake the strength of empathy for weakness. They need help. An invisible umbilical cord should connect them to a mature conscience. At South Hadley High School, the kids were running the island and the adults were missing. Where were the teachers? Where was the principal? But where, above all, were the parents?
Why are parents so fearful today that they won’t let their children play in a playground unsupervised, for fear of some paedophile or won’t let the kid climb a tree, for fear of injury but they’ll happily let the kid go up to her computer and make a date with a net pervert, posting naked pics of herself, via webcam, for the world industry in exploitation?
The parents say kids have changed today, that the kids would act up if they tried to curb what the little darling is doing.
For crying out loud – who’s controlling whom here? Since when do kids rule the roost? What sort of gutlessness in parents fears a kid won’t love them any more if they make a stand? Thus we get to, “If I make a stand here, she’ll just go round to her friend’s place.”
Is that a reason not to try? Why don’t parents combine in this? Why don’t these adults bring pressure to bear on authorities, not to put on £1000 fines for wheelie bin crime or to hound smokers but get to the heart of real crime – what is being done to the kids? Why don’t all the parents in an area combine and all agree on a minimum set of guidelines they’ll all apply to their kids?
And finally, why won’t the much touted State or community leaders lead the way in this, as fellow parents? The answer is simple – they are otherwise occupied, snouts are in the trough, fingers in the till – all part of the predatory process.
It’s big business, perverting children and women and nothing is going to stand in the way of it.
Insofar as women are hypersensitive to expectations, definitions of beauty and how others see them, especially other women, they are quite vulnerable too – almost as vulnerable as children and cynical commercial interests which play on that have a ready market for exploitation. It used to be that a woman could look to her man to protect her. Now he makes sex vids with her which find their way onto the web and later she “regrets” them.
If you’ve read this far, I wouldn’t expect anyone to agree and for sure there’ll be the word “hypocrite” thrown in my direction. I’m not saying I don’t feel the same as anyone else. I’m just saying that, at some point, we have to stop and take a look at ourselves – a look at what we are actually doing.