To me, as a male, feminism is about acknowledging the difference between men and women instead of equality. The women in the 60′s didn’t burn their bras because they wanted to be seen as equal to men, they wanted to have the same rights and possibilities while still being obviously different to men.

If a woman finds that she is “empowered by being a sex object” then how is it wrong of her to embrace that? If she does this out of her own free will and by her own choice, how is that not the epiphany of feminism.

To add to your other comment about non hetero women, how does her statement differ if the woman is hetero or non hetero? Change every “man” in her statement to “human being” and it still stands.

And what does matriarchal societies have anything to do with this? Feminists don’t want matriarchy in place of patriarchy.

You also fail at assuming my “type of “feminism”" is not okay with women wanting to be considered attractive by men. Last I checked, I too enjoy being found attractive by men and ::gasp:: I often am in that I largely fit into our society’s beauty ideal in that I’m young, fit, have a pretty face, and am somewhat feminine (though not as femme as Britni, who rocks it!). After checking out your blog though I realized the irony of your argument in that by essentially accepting our society’s conventional beauty and sex object “ideal”, you yourself have accepted that you are not truly considered beautiful or worth lust as much as other women who fit the ideal because you are in fact a larger woman.

Can you name one? Most of the societies people claim as “matriarchal” turn out not to be when one pauses for more than a cursory glance.

Jennifer, In my original comment, I believe I specifically asked that I not be misunderstood as being “pro” manipulation.

Using your personal assets as positives in your life is not manipulation (any more then any basis for a relationship is by default). Using your assets as assets is simply being smart. It’s all in your perspective; either the couple has a healthy, happy relationship (which always includes give and take from both parties). Or the couple is just manipulating each other … the man is just using his “protect the girl” instincts as part of the package to “manipulate” the woman into finding him useful and keeping him around. And, the woman is just using her “sex-object-ness” as part of the package to “manipulate” him into staying around and being faithful.

If a woman finds that she is “empowered by being a sex object,” then how is it wrong of her to embrace that? Even if you truly believe it hasn’t helped historically, why is she responsible for all of society’s “women” and not just for herself. I say if she’s found something that works for her, more power to her.

As far as the history theory goes, there are plenty of matriarchal societies in history, and I guarantee you they did not rule by denying that they were different from men and avoiding the sexual side of their natures.

I really don’t think I am anti-female by being pro-sexuality… However, if I have failed at your version of feminism, that is OK with me as any type of “feminism” it isn’t a label I claim. I enjoy the fact that I am female and my differences from men give me the ability to be desired by a man.

Feminism is about woman having choices. She chooses to use her sex-objectness in this way instead of bitching about it being there.

Power to her, I say.