"If You've Got It, Charge for It": The Feminism 2.0 Manifesto

Submitted by anthony on Mon, 2011-09-12 18:24

Article here. Excerpt:

'In her new book Erotic Capital, Hakim says sex appeal is our most valuable asset and we should deploy it without shame. It went on sale this week, and it’s required reading for anyone under 35.
...
Like money, you can be born with it, and like friends, you can work on getting more of it. It provides measurable and significant advantages to people who have it, just like being tall.

Women have a lot more of it than men, but men want more sex than women do, a global phenomenon Hakim calls the “male sex deficit.” That means erotic capital is a valuable asset in high demand and short supply. (“Male sexuality is worthless, because of excess supply at zero cost.”)'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

At first I disagreed with much of the article, but then when I got to the 2nd page I realized she doesn't always mean what I think she means and I actually agreed with some of her conclusions, but I did not agree with all her blame or attitude. She does blame feminism and promiscuous women for the devaluation of sex (which I agree with) but then she goes on further to blame men and patriarchal society (which I don't agree with). I do see some men behave badly when it comes to sex, but my opinion is that our behaviors rebound off one another, and when you get bad sexual behavior in women it leads to bad sexual behavior in men. It's hard for women to get men to value intimate relationships when 'our sisters' are giving out sex for free.

I don't really care for her one-sided attitude either. For example, I believe it is good for women to keep men interested in sex, but I don't think flaunting female sexualty is the right application. The title implies she is promoting prostitution, but I think she is saying that women shouldn't give sex away so freely (which I agree with)

Anyway, I thought the article was interesting and a 'mixed bag' for me. (although I admit it is a little difficult for me to grasp what side she is on at times).

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Tue, 2011-09-13 20:38

I file this stuff under "horseshit." This feminist media stuff, much of it ripped off sociology of knowledge, like Bourdieu, just pisses me off (PS: Most feminist work is ripped off from male theorists, ie: the feminist appropriation of Foucault, Fine and Weis's appropriation of German psychoanalytics. Of course, they neither acknowledge nor realize it). She got the whole Bourdieu "capital" thing wrong. Human capital is a phrase used by economists to descibe people as potential workers - it is an ideology I really hate, because it ignores fundamental human needs. The central component is the notion of "cultural capital," something this little girl probably doesn't understand. Reading this: “Male sexuality is worthless, because of excess supply at zero cost" just fills me with hate. And this is why America went from one of the most scientifically and technologically advanced socieities to one of the dumbest socieities in a single generation.

I suddenly remember how much I hate Margaret Atwood.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by cwondermagic1 on Wed, 2011-09-14 04:25