Job Discussion Forums

[leeroy]

(This isn't related to teaching much...)

A few months ago I had a black and white picture of Audrey Hepburn framed in my bedroom. For a 24-year old this might seem like an odd choice - shouldn't I be waking up to a picture of a scantily-clad Britney Spears or Jennifer Lopez shakin' their booty at me?

As soon as I saw Audrey in Breakfast At Tiffanies I fell in love with her - she was sexier than Pamela Anderson, Capergirl's avatar and the ethnic girl from Baywatch Hawaii put together.

But in this picture you can see only her forearms, her face, a bit of her shoulders and a somewhat dated haircut. How can a picture with no T&A be sexy?

It wasn't just Audrey - it seems that women in "those days" had a very different form of sexiness, at least certainly in films. I was no-where near alive in the 1960s, so I had a chat with my Dad in the pub about this (who was). I asked, somewhat naively, if all women in the sixties were like Audrey Hepburn in BaT's.

"Well, no." He answered (predictably), "Are all women these days like Halle Berry?"..."Women have changed since the sixties, but not as much in real life as they have in films". It wasn't quite what I wanted to hear. I liked the idea of sixties women gracefully strolling through the park with their umbrellas and smoking cigarettes like Audrey did.

The main male and female characters in films have to impress the male and female sections of their audiences correspondingly. In the 1960s, Marilyn Monroe leaning over a piano smoking was sexy for the boys and gracefully elegant for the girls. Frank Sinatra in Ocean's Eleven was cool and suave for the boys, and manly and assertive for the girls.

Things are a little different now, though, aren't they? Even the "girl power" films like Charlie's Angels paradoxically promote these strong independent women on the one hand, while essentially objectifying them into sex objects on the other. As they are wading onto the beach there is no need to do a slow-motion close up - it's cheap and tacky and demeaning to us all! Give them a piano, a black dress and a cigarette and we'll all be better off.

I remember long ago my great-Auntie lamenting the loss of "ladies". "Women knew how to act back in those days" she moaned, with the oh-so-typical aristocractic English accent, "young girls today are so uncouth..." (well, it was words to that effect). Perhaps there is something slightly more telling in her unwitting testimony here: They knew how to act. Much as we see the squeeky, giggly Japanese & Korean girls "acting" now in front of men - is it simply that women in Britain now care less about the impression they make on the other sex than before? Was the "ladylike feminine grace" thing all one big front to impress the boys and make other girls feel jealous? Has feminism and this new trend in female assertiveness killed off this imposter of "feminine grace" - that actually never really existed in the first place?

It was a Colombian student's last day in London, and after a couple of Gin & Tonics she felt quite confident in telling me what she really thought of the place. A vitriolic rant ensued, I'll just pick out the stuff relevant here:

"When I see English girl I think 'oh!' they are stupid! You know why? They are not like women just they want to be like 'oh! I don't care'. They are ugly! Not for their body but for how they acting"...

Getting back to that "acting" thing again... Colombian girls are sexy - there's no doubt about it. Well, Colombian people are sexy. I had always attributed it to simple physical attractiveness though. Having a quick scan around the smoking area the following week I noticed a crowd of Colombian girls talking amongst themselves. Well, you couldn't have simply stuck them in a black dress and wheeled up a piano - but there was something there. They were feminine. I (very tentatively) refer you back to the numerous "Asian vs. Western women" threads before - the subject of femininity came up then as well. Frequently, in fact!

Women and men in (western) film now suffer a kind of identity crisis. The leading male character must be suitably macho and suave for the men in the audience, but unthreatening and respectful to women for the girls. The leading female must be sexy for the men but assertive (and not inferior to the leading-male) for the girls. The traditional well-defined "masculine" and "feminine" roles have mutated into something barely recognisable. Perhaps this was necessary, an inevitable casualty on the way to sexual equality.

Isn't it ironic, then, that to be attractive these days women celebrities need to simulate homoerotic sexual acts on stage and "accidentally" reveal their breast on prime-time TV? In the old days, when the world was still chauvanist, all they needed was a cigarette...

[leby26]

I'm actually studying 'Sixties America' at the moment, specifically the Women's Liberation Movement during the period and ofcourse you're right, not all women during a certain time are represented in the icons we see on film, etc. I would slap someone silly if they tried to tell me that I'm like Britney Spears!

I've read that Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany's is considered a feminist icon in the sixties with her female bohemian lifestyle, cigarette smoking, aversion to marriage, flat-chestedness and whatnot ... the epitomy of 'glamour'. However, I'm sure you noticed the suggestion that she is just a lost little girl who needs to be tamed by a man by the end ...with the straight-edged man claiming his ownership of her in the taxi cab and rescuing her from the rain (hardly an independent feminist icon there) (For more on that read 'Where the girls are' by Susan J. Douglas)

I would agree that the image of Audrey Hepburn is far more classy and would assume that this is far more respected by both sexes than other so-called feminist icons (ahem, Madonna, Spice Girls, Charlie's Angels (esp. in slow mo') as you pointed out etc.) who claim female power in explicit displays of their sexuality which, to me at least, is completely ridiculous -- it's 'congratulations, you can perform or suggest the most primitive of human functions and stimulate the male libido', which (i'm sorry) is neither talent nor power to me.

I think there also may be a slight confusion in terms and in personal opinions here as well.....what is 'feminine'? Is it Audrey Hepburn's demure, sweet, 'graceful', fairly safe image of a lost little girl - but still, as you rightfully point out, not using her sexuality for power (in her clothing, etc) - or is she? There are and will be (as I can sense reactions on this in posts to follow) different reactions on what 'femininity' is since, according to feminist authors like Germaine Greer, it is how a woman has been socialized to be the passive, demure, virginal and sweet masochist 'partner' who is the receiver responsive to the male libido. It is said that this socialized femininity replaces the more authentic and primitive sexuality in females that must be tamed by and controlled. So maybe its just a function of all the angry feminist books from the sixties/seventies i've been reading, but i would be offended if someone referred to me as 'feminine' at the moment.

Or is Marilyn Monroe leaning on the piano supposed to be 'feminine', or is it just supposed to be sexy? You could also make the argument that Marilyn Monroe was like the Britney Spears of her time ... just another kichy sex symbol - so yeah, I would disagree that giving the Charlie's Angels girls a piano and a cigarette would make us all be 'better off', it would leave us in the exact same place.

I personally think that women in the current and this past century are stuck between being 'feminine' (which, to me, is closely equated to masochism) and in trying to discover and control their own sexuality (which can have such disastrous and disgusting consequences seen in the antics of icons such as Britney Spears and Janet Jackson at times). I definately agree that Audrey Hepburn types deserve much more respect than the Britney Spears types, but its also important to note that both are using some form of either their femininity or sexuality as well as their good looks as a tool. I have far greater respect for women who use their brains and hearts rather than their sexuality (or the appearance of a lack of sexuality (ie. being 'feminine')) or their appearance to control their own lives.

(there's my rant for the day, sorry 'bout that one)
Cheers,
Laura

[delian]

I've read the threads you tentatively refer to (those dreaded 'Asian vs. Western women' ones, argh!) and read your thread about the apparent loss of 'feminine grace' (I assume you mean in Western women).
As a woman, I have to admit that I am confused. I am highly educated (as a majority of my fellow TEFLers are), very well-travelled, ambitious and confident of my physical/intellectual abilities. On the other hand, I look like the stereotypical blonde, which drives me mad - people compare me to any and all blondes in the media. When people first meet me, they are convinced that I can barely walk up a hill, let alone kick their a@@ sprinting to the top (competitive, little ol'me?) I can play 'both sides of the fence' maybe. However, it is not enough for me to get by on my looks alone, which I feel 'femininity' seems to value above all things.
Having lived in Asia for many years, as an attractive female (I get hit on by gweilos and Asian men alike, if that matters), yet listening to men from Western cultures bemoan the lack of femininity in Western females...I really would like to understand what they mean. Is femininity acting (because I really do feel it would be 'acting') submissive and incapable? Do these types of men have a 'Daddy complex' ? (did I just make that up?) On the other hand, I do see a certain type of Western female here in Asia (I see them at home, too - but they stand out more here), they are often a bit overweight (I'm going to get clobbered for saying this), drink a lot, are a bit loud, wear lots of khaki...in short, they seem to be a lot like the expat MEN here. So, I guess this type of female is seen as acting too masculine. BUT, this is just a type of female.
Another thing, talking to the men in my life - specifically my husband - they point out that people like to be in control. Traditionally men have been in control of the finances and overt decision-making, while women have had control of the household and children. These days, there are some men who think Western women are lacking femininity and find women from more traditional cultures more 'feminine' - maybe because these women conform to those traditional roles. However, I know lots of men who are married or are in long-term relationships with those dreaded 'Asian' women who also complain about how they are manipulated by these women constantly. But this type of manipulation seems to be how these more traditional women gain their control in the relationship. So, is being 'feminine' acting submissive, but being manipulative to gain your power in the relationship?
I think I would agree that given feminism, many women are going to reject the stereotypical giggly, lost female role - if they have the chance or are aware of it. I have been there, done that act in my teens and early 20's - yeah, guys seemed to love viewing me as the little lost blonde - but in my head it didn't do anything for my self-esteem. I also felt that once I gained the self-confidence to view myself as the equal of the men around me, that attracted a lot of men as well. I think Audrey Hepburn is beautiful and elegant looking - but she did play characters
who were almost childlike. In person, wasn't Audrey Hepburn actually a bit of an iconoclast?
I guess, I would say that women may need to reject all the trappings of 'femininity', go the other way for awhile, then readopt some of the 'act'.

That's my rambling rant for the day.

[leeroy]

Thanks for the replies so far - please please let's not let this degenerate into a "western" vs "asian" women thread

[denise]

Leeroy--

You always put so much thought and explanation (and the occasional disclaimer!) into your posts that I feel almost guilty about my indignant reaction to your definition of femininity.

What you encountered in that bar was two women having a private conversation. Had they known that they were being overheard, and had they wanted to make a different impression (one of "femininity"), they could easily have put on the act, as it has been described by previous posters. Had they smiled and giggled at you (and saved their shagging conversation for the ladies' room), would you have found them more feminine? If you found yourself charmed by them, would they lose their charm the minute you learned that it was an act, and that among friends they behaved in a different manner?

My first thought was that maybe you were confusing femininity with class, but I quickly changed my mind because personally I don't think that there's anything classless about discussing sex (however crudely) among friends in a private conversation--the same holds for men and women. If guys can get away with "locker room talk," then so can we ladies.

Before anyone flames me and tells me either a) I must be yet another bitter, fat, ugly, feminazi Western gal or b) I need to get laid to mellow out (saw something like this on another thread before the mods deleted it), I can assure you that neither is true.

d

[leeroy]

Denise - I wouldn't accuse you of any of those things!

To clarify: in theory it was a private conversation but it was done at a volume and in such proximity to others that they clearly weren't bothered about who heard what. Of course I don't have a problem with women discussing their sexual preferences - that would be chauvanist - I suspect what "turned me off" so to speak was the manner and context in which it was done.

Hell, I've been known to have similar conversations with "the boys" - but only situations where I was confident that I wouldn't be overhead. If you were to overhear me saying..

"I reckon she'll shag me, yeah, but her mate's got well nice t**ts!" would you celebrate my confident freedom of expression? But here's where we get to "How Men Should Behave"...

[denise]

[Cleopatra]

I'm also puzzled by Leeroy's reaction to the two ladies whose conversation he overheard in Tenerife. After all, it seems to me a bit odd to go on your holidays to a place well-known for attracting, umm, shall we say - not the most sophisticated of British holiday makers -and then to blame two women in a bar for not acting like Audrey Hepburn. It would be a bit like me going to a Millwall match and then saying, "Isn't it dreadful,there are no gentlemen anymore- Clark Gable would never have cussed like this!"


Women have always acted toplay up to men. Many of them still do - some because they have no choice, others because they see it as a way to get ahead. Every other day you see posts on this site from men who are oh so bowled over by the "feminine" charms of, say, Japanese or Polish women. In many other parts of the world, women are aware of their own worth and have - for the most part - moved beyond it. However, there are men out there who still need to feel needed, as it were, and there are women out there still willing to flatter their egos - for a time.

As for Ms. Hepburn, she was certainly beautiful and certainly elegant - right up until the day she died of cancer - but she was no dollybird. She grew up in Nazi occupied Holland and never forgot the sacrificies she made in this time. She dedicated much of her life to organizations like UNICEF, long before it became fashionable for celebrities to do so.

She was also a great actress. But this is a talent she shares with not a few other women.

[leeroy]

The whole Tenerife thing was told with a certain quantity of ironic self-cultural-hatred - actually my holiday there was free (but that's a different story)...

[nomadder]

Leeroy you raise some good points. First of all though let's think about the difference between fantasy and reality. Movies almost never portray real life. Even biographies tend to glam things up a bit. Images are images. Things are different with 3 dimensions and people always seem different once you get to know them.

But your post has got me to thinking about the general lack of culture especially in English speaking countries. I've just been in Colombia and have seen some of the Barbie dolls in some of the cities (tho others are just nicely dressed)and also the disgusting foreign men with tongues hanging out looking for sex and drugs. I could bemoan today's masculinity as well. Where are Gregory Peck types today? Men with manners and culture.

As I've been travelling these last months I am often struck by the apparent disregard for self and others often found in the tourists. The locals must be shaking their heads-people supposedly from rich countries but they often look worse than some of the poorest people in Latin America. Clothes that don't fit, messy hair, no grace or charm, loud and belligerent sometimes. It's not just women. I feel our societies have degenerated-no moral codes, standards of dress or personal interaction.

Now in Ecuador and I've just had the opportunity to meet lots of Ecuadorians at parties. They all come up and greet you with hugs and kisses and ask how you are and do similar for good byes. They didn't seem so loud and arrogant as people I've met at anglo parties. They try to make polite conversation and are just generally more mellow.

While not all travellers are so bad there are certainly too many that seem too unfriendly, self absorbed and look like urchins.

As for submissiveness vs. assertiveness. I think moderation in all things. A happy medium. That goes for me and any guy I go out with. Compromise will involve submitting to the will of the other at times but it should work both ways. Balance

[SueH]

[Atlas]

We're not just talking about culture of femininity, we're talking about the business of show business. Take a look at what passes for common fare these days, movies that are geared toward the largest movie-going demographic, (17 year-old boys?). Movies were once an event but now they are assembled like cars, and in this kind of "creative" process, movie studios care less about art and more about reproducing what has proven to work in the past.

Production has become quite slick, wonderful--but the substance of movies has become incredibly vapid. Formulaic. Sometimes downright contemptful for the audience. More often than not, the roles portrayed in the movies exhibit and glorify the sexual aspects of human nature; while I admit this is interesting for us all at some time, I wouldn't call sexual reproduction the sum total of the human reasoning capability, or even the whole point of being alive. But we are constantly having our sexuality hammered into the forefront of our minds by the media. It's like soma.

I'm not a woman so what I say about them may not be valid, but here's my opinion: sexual power often arrests development of personal power. And that is a waste. Last night I saw an Asian girl crying on a raft because she was tired of rowing. She was just whining and crying like a little girl demanding attention, Oh booboo.... If I was on that raft I would tell her to shut up or I'll throw her in the river and give her something to cry about! If you're tired of rowing stop rowing and shut up about it! But she was on camera, and playing the helpless cutiepie role. As a man with a lot of sisters, and watching them grow up demanding (and getting) so much attention, while I grew up left to my own devices, I have little patience for spotlight-seeking egoists.

While I am not advocating becoming aescetic, asexual monks, I'd like to aver that a person is more than their sexual aura, and that this game involves more than just bagging and shagging and cranking out young 'uns. But that's the difference between real life and the movies. Movie roles are crystallized before our very eyes. In life, we experience a wider variation of identities. Movies reflect us but they never define us.

[yaramaz]

What Atlas said, yeah... Hear hear! I get so miffed here in Turkeyland because many women subscribe to that helpless pretty-toy role and it makes me crazy--- it seems like their whole young life is geared towards finding a man. Then what? Sure you've used your cutesie pie, faux-sexy mannerisms and 30 kilos of makeup and stunningly tight outfits to snare a man in the most obvious and successful way possible... but then what? You've locked yourself into a purely reproductive corner! It all revolves around sex, getting sex, attracting sex, etc--- and damn but that gets boring.

Cant we be independent, intelligent, creative, eclectic, well mannered, kind, compassionate, attractive, etc without going over the top about it? I want to live my life for myself, for more than just finding a man.

[dmb]

[biffinbridge]

Is this the thread of really long posts or what?