Fighting with seduction

When the women of Princeton take to the 'Street,' tube-topped and lipsticked, an entire generation of feminists rolls over in its graves. If these departed suffragettes and women's-libbers could speak, they would no doubt express disappointment. Decades of struggle to get women recognized as more than mere sex objects or walking baby machines, and for what? The feminine mystique is alive and well in America. The beneficiaries of the women's liberation movement — that's you and me, sister — seem more than willing to define themselves in terms of their gender.

But is this really a problem from a feminist perspective? Popular culture tells us that it isn't, and I believe that many women of my generation agree. On the surface, the message we receive from movies, television and music is simple and fairly innocuous: feminism need not exclude femininity. We can be strong and sexy at the same time.

Beneath the 'strong can be sexy' message, however, runs a creepy subtext: Sexuality is the key to female strength. Femininity, therefore, should be used as a weapon. We are bombarded with images of tough, toned, leather-clad ladies who overpower male enemies through seduction and befuddlement. In the "Charlie's Angels" arsenal, for example, decolletage is on an even footing with guns, bombs and kung-fu. The heroine of Fox's "Dark Angel," likewise, knows what her assets are and how to use them.

The idea of femininity as a weapon is alluring in some ways. It suggests that, turnabout being fair play, women should exploit male weakness for once, instead of vice versa. It allows 'liberated' women to be feminine without being helpless, to be objectified without being victimized.

At the same time, however, this view of femininity is insulting both to men and to women. It implies that women need something extra to 'make it in the world.' Their skills and intellects are not, in themselves, enough to ensure their equality with men. The use of 'feminine wiles' fills in the gap. Men, meanwhile, are portrayed as helpless, sniveling slaves to their gonads. It's Genesis all over again. Eve is tricky enough to offer the forbidden fruit, and Adam is besotted enough to eat it.

Men always have — and always will — focus on breasts ("It's involuntary!" declares one of my male friends) just as women always have been — and always will be — less physically strong than men. I don't think it's any more fair for women to take advantage of the former than it is for men to take advantage of the latter. Let's be sexy, and let's be strong — but let's also be fair and respectful towards ourselves and towards men.

Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon once mentioned that he finds it difficult to concentrate on what National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice says because she has "nice legs." Members of the 'if you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em' school of diplomacy might, for this reason, consider Condoleeza's legs a national treasure. I, however, would just as soon see them kept covered — as a gesture of respect both to her and to Sharon. Melissa Waage '01 is a politics major from Johnson City, TN. She can be reached at mrwaage@princeton.edu.