Your missing the point by a distance of at least between NYC and Land's End in SF.

Quote from: tekla on April 29, 2009, 08:36:55 PM
Your missing the point by a distance of at least between NYC and Land's End in SF.

Then please enlighten me oh enlightened one.

If I hazard an attempt to sythesize some points made, I get this result:

To the girls, they tend to see themselves as looking good.
To (many) adults who see these kids, they see the girls as dressing sexy.

These two statements are not mutually exclusive.  They can both be true.

There is one point I have read a lot, and this concerns the second group:

"The girls should do more to protect their virtue."  The way girls dress may "send messages," but the ways they interact with other people is much more relevant.  Plenty of plain-looking girls get knocked up, too.  Self-respect and self-esteem go a long way.

There is a counterpoint to make with respect to the first group:

"The boys (and pedo bears) need to take responsibility for their actions."

Just like TGs don't want bigots bullying them, discriminating against them, imposing on them, or telling them how to act, girls are entitled to enjoy reasonable freedom of expression without facing harassment.  It's unlikely they can typically enjoy these liberties, but that doesn't change what they should have.

With that idea in mind, I don't disapprove (at least anymore) of the girls' clothing choices (although body-image insecurities ought to be addressed by family and the appropriate medical professionals, just because people need to have realistic and appropriate goals for themselves).  I do agree with Tekla's assertion of the article's hypocrisy (seeing a "problem" and then feeding it via pictures), and I would be happy to ride that point into the ground.  But then, maybe I liked South Park's Jonas Brothers episode too much.

As an extra anecdote, out of a UN survey of 21 major developed countries, the US ranked 20th in terms of how it treats its children.  Who was 21st?  The UK, the country of origin for this article.

Quote from: Kaelin on April 29, 2009, 11:12:00 PM
If I hazard an attempt to sythesize some points made, I get this result:

To the girls, they tend to see themselves as looking good.
To (many) adults who see these kids, they see the girls as dressing sexy.

These two statements are not mutually exclusive.  They can both be true.

There is one point I have read a lot, and this concerns the second group:

"The girls should do more to protect their virtue."  The way girls dress may "send messages," but the ways they interact with other people is much more relevant.  Plenty of plain-looking girls get knocked up, too.  Self-respect and self-esteem go a long way.

There is a counterpoint to make with respect to the first group:

"The boys (and pedo bears) need to take responsibility for their actions."

Just like TGs don't want bigots bullying them, discriminating against them, imposing on them, or telling them how to act, girls are entitled to enjoy reasonable freedom of expression without facing harassment.  It's unlikely they can typically enjoy these liberties, but that doesn't change what they should have.

Exactly! Thanks for putting this so well. 

Yes, thank you -- I agree completely.

I'm glad somebody here could eloquently state my opinion.

I just don't see the extreme outrage in this. Raising the alarm that the decline and fall of Western Civilization is at hand because of what those wayward females are up to these days is not new. I honestly don't get all the anguished reactions that the sky is falling. All I see is girls liking to dress up. Far as I know, it's always been this way. The pictures and text in that article are not extreme at all. Starr is right, they're just being girls, big deal.

I'm sorry to have to point this out, but Starr is someone who actually was brought up as a girl at that age, and experienced what it was like, so I think her perspective on girlhood carries some weight. I grew up in the company of four sisters so, at least vicariously, this aspect of girlhood is not strange to me either, and that was way back in the 1960s and '70s. I dressed up in my Mom's outfits along with my sisters back then. I remember media pushing the panic button back then too-- ZOMG horrifying revelation, girls like to dress up, what's the world coming to!

Sorry, I just do not get the overreactions here. I could understand it if this was a forum of one of those fundamentalist churches that don't allow women to wear makeup or anything stylish. But in terms of society in general, I see nothing alarming. Just girls being girls.

As a woman of trans history who also likes to be pretty, I've faced plenty of negative reactions from many in my tribe, a constant barrage of femmephobia. The tribe is quick to jump on any of us who like to be pretty, accusing us of being fetishists, phonies, not really trans, autogynephilic, a disgrace to the rest of us, etc. The peer pressure in the community not to admit that one likes to be pretty has been intense, and from my somewhat wounded perspective I'm wondering if perhaps the outrage in this thread comes from a not entirely dissimilar sort of femmephobic attitude.

I don't not think it is accurate to think of "society in general" as a homogenous entity that is heavily disjoint from "those fundamentalist churches that don't allow women to wear makeup for anything stylish."  Ideology falls along a multi-dimensional continuum, and girls' rights (not entirely equivalent to women's rights, since it adds age as a factor) are not universally understood, especially since it is not a matter maturely discussed in US politics (if anything, "moral leaders" and politicians tend to sell kids' intentions and judgment short); plenty of people steer clear of the "fundamental" group but still seek to regulate expression to a substantial degree.

Those of us here can try to fill the holes on our own based on needing to be consistent with our beliefs, but a lot can be overlooked when we haven't been in a particular social position of lesser influence.  MtFs can have an idea of what it is to be a woman, and they may go through certain things that teenage girls go through (growing boobs, dressing with a particular style or level of experience), but they often haven't been harassed by teenage peers who see them as girls or lorded over by (over)protective parents while presenting the female gender.  Other social factors (again, economic class, race/ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc) present their own issues that we have to do our best to understand, but we can't do it on our own.

Since Susan's is a TG-oriented site, is pretty easy for this community to pat each other on the back for accepting Trans-issues (although even that can fall to the wayside at times), because that acceptance is generally why we remain here.  A feminism orientation, however, can't be considered "automatic," nor can we assume certain attitudes regarding race/ethnicity, economic class, religion, etc.

In defense of the early tone of the thread, the (trashy) article presents an emotionally-charged title with the mention of diets and boob jobs; these concepts do point to self-esteem and body-image issues that women but girls especially should not need to endure (it's not "girls being girls").  Toss in an initial post that does not make a clear dead-on point, and groupthink can spill over into other sub-topics (dressing and manicures, actions which are more playful), at least until someone with a strong contrasting take comes around.  To the point, the initial flood dried up for the most part once Starr offered her experience, so I think she did a damn good job of making herself heard and understood.

This is pretty sad..(the article and everything)

'The model Jordan is Georgie's absolute idol, and she tells me and her father that as soon as she's 18 she's going to have breast implants so she can be just like her. She's been saving up her pocket money for the operation for the past few years'

*Facepalm*