Comments on: Spice Girls Feminism: why the third wave needs more than a band-aid

By: Generation M, and the lack of female film critics | the Hathor Legacy

Generation M, and the lack of female film critics | the Hathor Legacy — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:34:33 +0000

[...] explores how sexualized images of young women (teenagers in many cases) in pop culture have been rebranded as a form of feminism. Along the way, Generation M forces us to confront the dangerous real-life consequences of misogyny [...]

By: The Baby Boomers: programmed for selfishness

The Baby Boomers: programmed for selfishness — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:35:58 +0000

[...] even bigger; surely now there was room for them. Then, as happens with every great movement (see Spice Girls Feminism), a bunch of entitled kids re-branded something every generation plays with – screwing and playing [...]

By: Scrubs: Thank heaven for men! | the Hathor Legacy

Scrubs: Thank heaven for men! | the Hathor Legacy — Thu, 15 May 2008 21:27:54 +0000

[...] learned to do heroin-chic makeup. Because the screenwriters clearly got the 90’s memo about feminism now taking the form of cute white girls trying to look like prostitutes. Or else they have a series bible which says, “Any chance we get to put Sarah Chalke in a sex [...]

By: Narcissist Feminism | Feminism @ the Hathor Legacy

Narcissist Feminism | Feminism @ the Hathor Legacy — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:13:21 +0000

[...] talked about Spice Girls feminism a while ago; now I’ve decided to label another form of feminism that I disagree with. [...]

By: Scrubs dissects the myth that flirting gets women everywhere | the Hathor Legacy

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:45:22 +0000

[...] she wants. Angry Men’s Rights Activists kvetch about it in forums all the livelong day. Spice Girls Feminists brag about it and think it’s great for women. And some of us don’t think it’s the [...]

By: Jennifer Kesler

Jennifer Kesler — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:25:06 +0000

Yeah, exactly. It’s like saying there is one exact meal plan that’s best for every living human, without taking into account their size, how their body processes food, their activity level, and whether or not they need to avoid certain foods for health reasons or personal moral decisions.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:38:52 +0000

I definitely agree that the idea that “heterosexual, monogamous, lifelong marriage is what everyone should aspire to” pretty absurd. While obviously there are people that gravitate toward that standard (like myself), how bizarre is it to think that this is what all people (or even just all heterosexual people) should want?

By: Official Shrub.com Blog » Blog Archive » The problem with feminism lite

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:10:03 +0000

[...] Frontal Feminism is what I’m going to call “feminism lite” (BetaCandy calls it Spice Girls Feminism). To my knowledge, the book is aimed at being a non-threatening introduction to feminism for those [...]

By: Jennifer Kesler

Jennifer Kesler — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:34:29 +0000

That’s actually what I meant – I wasn’t very clear (because I could write a book on the topic and was having trouble condensing my view for the post). I think the ideal of a lifelong monogamous het pairing is wrong for more people than it’s right for. For those of us it doesn’t suit, you might be able to construct alternative forms of marriage – marriage with no intention to be lifelong, gay marriage, marriage among more than 2, open marriage, etc. But none of these are the current model we’re all supposed to aspire to, and that’s the one I meant isn’t right for most people, IMO.

By: Mickle

Mickle — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:26:41 +0000

Thanks for this post – often times when topics like this come up I have a hard time articulating what is bothering me about them. Sometimes, in my ignorance (no, I don’t read enough blogs/media from people not like me – bad Mickle) I only have this vague feeling that it’s not the whole story. You and tekanji always do a great job of stating it all very clearly and understandably. And reminding me that I really need to add a lot of people to my blogroll/bookmarks.

“I’m saying that I suspect the reason so many marriages fail is that heterosexual marriage isn’t right for everyone.”

I’d also argue that they fail just because – well, they do. People change, they grow apart, some regress, they have different needs now than they did yesterday.

Or rather, I have problems with calling such marriages failures. If they were right for the people at the time, then who says they have failed simply because they didn’t last until death do us part? Well – the religious vows of course

It would be nice for there to be an intermediate option – a marriage that is a long term but not for certain a life term commitment. Which we do have informally and technically, through the ability to divorce and live together without getting married. I just think people would be able to make better choices if such options were not defined as being failures or shadows of the real thing.