“Feminists Out, Women As Sex Symbols In”
Believe it or not, that gem of a headline actually belongs to a real NPR news article.
And while we wish we’d had cause to coin that phrase (maybe Sic will put it on a FITS T-Shirt), we refuse to agree with anything expressed in this mainstream media regurgitation, particularly not since it has the nerve to pair such a provocatively alluring a title with a been-done story on sexism.
“Alotta Fagina,” indeed.
This time, the culprit is Italy – a country we can thank for cappuccinos, tiramisu, and Monica Bellucci, and now also for the return of the slut streak.
Apparently Italian women show a lot of skin, and according to this story that’s a bad thing.
Also a bad thing is that the showgirl has become the top role model for Italian women, a fact which the article ties to the skin-showing.
We’re thoroughly confused.
Isn’t it, like, the responsibility of a liberated woman to leverage her assets? And if so, wouldn’t a showgirl be the ultimate expression of that?
Curves are currency, people – that was the battle cry of the sexual revolution, anyway.
Finally the feminists have what they’ve wanted – unfussy appetites and a show-me state of mind – and finally they realize that sex in the casual yields casualties in the sex.
It’s something, at least, even if the whole thing is ironically wrapped up in a blame-the-sexists package.
The NPR story laments cultural raciness and its correlation to the dearth of working Italian women, a point that defeats itself a couple paragraphs later.
Apparently women constitute “a majority of Italians now studying in universities,†the flipside of which is that all those women aren’t working but learning.
See?
All it takes is a bit of simmering logical inference to conclude that Italians can do sexy without sexism – which should totally please feminists but somehow doesn’t.
It does please someone, though, and that’s Italy’s Prime Minister. Silvio Berlusconi recently remarked, apropos of what we’re not sure, that he can “sleep for three hours, and still have enough energy to make love for another three.â€
La dolce vita, people.
Comments
By Reader on December 4th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Par for the course for Italy/Rome/The Vatican — Purveyor of warped knowledge for centuries — ever since they recast Mary Magdalene from the Apostle to the Apostles that she was, into the prostitute they needed her to be.
There was a great special on the History channel last night about Mary Magdalene — a channel whose theological narratives I usually take with a grain of salt — but this one had legitimate logic to it. The Catholic Church didn’t want any chicks doing anything of value. Period.
HAS THE WORLD CHANGED ONE IOTA? No.
By Regulus@binarymoon on December 4th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Let’s see if I have this straight, Reader: You usually discount The History Channel’s take on religion, except when it agrees with your preconceived notions, especially if they take shots at The Vatican. Very sound logic.
Also, it’s a bit inaccurate to lump Italy, Rome and The Vatican together. Rome got its start around 750 BC; The Vatican obviously came into being sometime after Jesus’ death; while Italy wasn’t formally unified until 1861. Rome did its best to eradicate the early Church, while Italy seized most of what was left of the Papal States in the 19th Century. The three are hardly interchangeable.
Finally, if the Catholic Church didn’t want “chicks” doing anything of value, it wouldn’t have allowed them to take vows and becomes nuns.
By Reader on December 5th, 2008 at 10:06 am
If you say so, bm.
By Reader on December 5th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
BTW, those vows usually endow them with ******unlimited******, *********irrevocable**********!!!!!!!!!! powers to cook, clean, teach the little rugrats, and give swats.
Wow.
By Aquinas on December 6th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
“Reader”, what are you, some kind of bitter ex-Catholic? Jeeze, try not to hyperventilate the next time the mere mention of Italy and/or women comes up. So you don’t think the Catholic Church has held women in very high regard, huh? Let’s start by taking a look at the way some early artwork actually made the case for some pretty smart ladies: By the late third century, artists commonly depicted women with books. We see such women in frescoes, on sarcophagi, and on glass medallions. Susanna and other holy women were often depicted holding a scroll or book, to represent their religious learning and wisdom.
Later Christian art continued to show women such as St. Catherine of Siena with books or holding scrolls on which their own words were written. Church decoration depicted these women for everyone to see, and illustrated manuscripts portrayed them to the merchant and noble classes. These were familiar visual reminders that women could be learned and wise. A consequence of the Protestant Reformation, with its wide-sweeping destruction of religious art, was to reduce radically the visibility of educated women.
The Catholic Church has always held women in very high regard, starting with the mother of Jesus. The history of the Church bears constant testimony of this position of Mary in the history of civilization. It has from the beginning vindicated the dignity of womanhood and declared that in spiritual matters man and woman are equal, according to the words of St. Paul: “There is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28)
Don’t confuse authentic Church teaching with some of the less-than-edifying writings and behavior of individual Catholics.
By Reader on December 6th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
You touch all the bases, Aquinas, but art can be used as propaganda-heretical!
Jesus’ mama has always been rightly venerated. But what of his ’sisters’ ?? What of Mary of Magdala? She has been the victim of a 2,000-year smear campaign. Oh, and check out this definition, and its origin:
[Source: The Britannica Concise]
PROPAGANDA:
“Manipulation of information to influence public opinion. The term comes from Congregatio de propaganda fide (”Congregation for Propagation of the Faith”), a missionary organization established by the pope in 1622. Propagandists emphasize the elements of information that support their position and deemphasize or exclude those that do not. Misleading statements and even lies may be used to create the desired effect in the public audience.â€
;)