Registered user login:

The fallacy of the "easy girl" generation

Kira Cochrane

Published 14 August 2006

Reading the newspapers - almost always, let's face it, a bitter-sweet experience - can sometimes be especially demoralising. This past week, as usual, there were plenty of depressing stories, from carnage in the Middle East to Heather Mills McCartney's "abandonment", which seemed to add up to her looking miserable at a Madonna concert.

But sometimes it's the very smallest stories (yes, even smaller than the Mills McCartney one) that really get you down. So, for instance, the widely reported magazine survey of 3,000 women (average age: 28) which found that many would prefer not to work, one in ten would sleep with the boss for a guaranteed promotion, and almost half would pose topless for page three made me bang my head against my desk while gouging my thigh with a compass. On lifting my head briefly to read on, I found that these results were being used to dub this demographic - the one that I fall neatly into - the "easy girl" generation, a coinage that skilfully blends laziness with sluttishness. Excellent!

And yet, through a haze of self-harm, I realised I was approaching the results quite wrongly. These surveys that ask women whether we're happy (who is, when they really consider it?) or whether we've done/would like to do naughty, irresponsible things (yep, that's all of us, too) appear weekly, their results often garnering masses of attention and purveying the message that women are unhappy, feckless and immoral, and that feminism has therefore failed. Said results are extremely popular with newspapers, being a great excuse to run a picture of a very pretty woman alongside an editorial suggesting that emancipation has clearly been A VERY BAD THING. All of which - the conclusion that we women are letting ourselves down and the publicising of such - is supremely frustrating and disheartening, hence my bloodied thigh.

But the fact is that, in most cases, you would get similar answers if you asked the same leading questions of men. So, for instance, when it comes to New Woman's "easy girl" survey, I'm quite sure that just as many men would rather not work, would sleep with their female boss to gain promotion, and, if offered £10,000 to strip off (the amount mooted in the survey), would jump at the moolah. You can criticise the survey's respondents for wanting an easy life, but, realistically, that is exactly what most folk, regardless of age, gender or background, are after. Hence the incredulity and dark laughter when any Lottery winner suggests that they'll return to their job.

That only 13 per cent of these young women still want to be working at 40 is a bit depressing, but probably more a reflection of the jobs market, especially for women's work (at least 87 per cent of jobs just aren't all that interesting/lucrative), than it is of anything else. OK, you say, but if a men's magazine asked its readers whether they liked their bodies, as Grazia did this year, more than 2 per cent would say yes.

That is probably true, but male confidence arises partly from men not being being asked constantly to analyse their looks, personalities and behaviour in search of glaring flaws. Women's magazine surveys are one of many reminders to women that we should continually be picking ourselves apart like a monkey hunting fleas. And the media reaction, when it turns out that women aren't perfect, emphasises that we are held to a much higher moral standard than men: that while it may be socially reprehensible when men turn out to be unambitious binge drinkers who have one-night stands and use their sexuality to get ahead, if women do the same thing it's a sign, not of equality, but of feminism's failure and impending cultural doom (which can, thankfully, be illustrated with a photograph of a girl passed out in her scanties).

The world would probably be a better place if we all ignored such surveys. Because the real story is that young women today are more successful than ever. Sure, many would prefer not to work, but faced with the reality that we do have to, we are one of the most ambitious demographics in history. As the TUC spokesperson Kay Carberry noted in response to the survey: "Girls are outperforming boys in school . . . make up half of all graduates and are leaving university more, not less, ambitious."

The only snag is that when this story is actually reported it's usually in terms of "the boy crisis", and as proof that the education system is skewed in favour of girls. As Tammy Wynette sang then, and Heather Mills McCartney no doubt knows now, sometimes it's hard to be a woman . . .

Kira Cochrane is the Guardian women's editor

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

3 comments from readers

artfldgr
22 March 2007 at 20:37

Men are natural providers (we have low needs), women are the natural consumers (who use provision as a test for suitability - ie. hypergamous).

This means that when men don’t have to provide (as in a matriarchy), we don’t work...

This means if a woman is not provided for, she needs to work really really hard so she can consume.

he is driven by his selflessness (no matter what derision you want to add, for a long time in history, he worked and a large portion of what he got went to family, not himself) and want of family of which he needs a decent person to cooperate and for him to be sure of.

now women don’t want the men... so we don’t have to provide... that doesn’t mean that we need much. She can desire her Gucci glasses, but he only needs cheapies... she needs max azria, he only needs cheap stuff... She fantasizes about people wanting her enough to give her what she wants as proof of her desireability and his fealty.

So basically, matriarchies die out till they reach subsistence level. All feminism was/is, a way to convince women to terminate their family trees!

A person alive today is the tip of more than a billion years of development!! And most women that follow feminism clip off their contribution and having something in the next generation.

THEY TRICKED YOU INTO EXTINGUISHING YOUR WHOLE GENETIC LEGACY

And as far as women “outperforming” boys.. they are not. men don’t need to earn that much if men are not going to be heads of families. If women are going to marry and dump them making them a maple tree of money, then the best thing a man can do is be broke! Being broke is the best inoculation to gold digging women, of which the easy generation is rife with!!!

Basically, when the opponent in a race quits, the ones still running are not considered to be outperforming!

So now, women are out of luck… they cant go back, greer/cortez burned the boats, and the state used inflation to sink the returns. you need two earners to do what one used to do! so most women are now trapped!! They are in a much worse position for themselves, but in a great position for feminism!!! (the more women suffer, the more power feminism has… so guess who makes you suffer more, to make you scream more, to get more power from the state? the feminists)

You have been suckered by your own kind!

You have been tricked to think the one that loves you is against you, and the ones that don’t know you are on your side as if they share your pain and struggle.

Now strangers raise your kids.. they love their sitters more than mom (cause sitters are more fun than parents and more permissive). The mothers work and work. more kids are in poverty than ever before in history!! More women are toiling with no help. No companions, and the threat of being a slave keeps decent men from even trying.

This is what you watned. But don’t want to see.. so this is what you get..

Don’t blame the men, we have been following the womens plans for 40 years now.. and they have been blaming the men when their ideas don’t work. well they are used to blaming men for not making their dreams come true, and this is no different. But guess what? men cant give you what is unworkable.

I am glad I married a foreign woman… we are very happy… planning to have a kid… large families around all the time… its like it used to be… she does what she wants, I do what I want.. we work hard, she saves, I save.. I am so glad she and me are not feminists. Otherwise we would live in a hell of never enough!!!

Ladies.. you can have all that!!! Consider us men, off your radar.. of course many will call me names and such… and I don’t know why since there is no danger from me to their precious dreams. All there is is the envy that my wife and me have what they dream of, but must pretend they don’t want. Boy I don’t envy modern women at all.. bohica!!

Bachelor_of_Law
01 October 2007 at 16:46

I concur with the writer of the response article however I disagree on one aspect in both articles and that I shall submit in the form of a rhetorical question: 'Why is there a constant drive to separate the two sexes?'

Why do people find it necessary to be hell bent on division and who is the stronger sex? The more stress which is placed on such an issue just creates an unhealthy rift between humans as a species.

The feminist movement is a good thing in ideology however its purpose has in recent years been misconstrued to provoke a sense of competition between the sexes. After all was it not the purpose of the movement to make women equal? If so why are certain women quoting feminism as a means of promoting female supremacy?

Boys are performing badly or "Girls are outperforming boys in school" what is the difference? Why should either sex be performing better than the other? Is it possibly so; so that psychologists can go away and start labelling the sexes in line with social trends to construe an argument to suit their own means?

It is well documented that men are supposedly more competitive than women but is it not that the whole feminist movement is doing exactly that in the female corner.

It is conceded on my behalf that an element of competition maybe healthy however the argument has been taken completely out of proportion whereby the writer of the original article even mentions self harm. Life is too short to be quibbling over whom is the better sex never mind engaging in acts of self harm as a result.

In respects to the media documenting and stressing women’s 'imperfections' (as it were); these are only by-products of what women as a consumer are demanding from these women specific magazines. An author does not publish a story if they know there is no interest or rather a strong loathing in it; if the original article's writer is anything to go by.

Perhaps the answer in regards to media coverage is to stop purchasing such magazines which promote insecurities which as a result affect a person’s mental well being. As the author will only print what the public will buy.

The upshot of this argument is that some women enjoy subscribing to such magazines and enjoy reading such articles so in effect the argument is not with men and how society construes the male role its what these magazines hold out as the perfect figure, perfect waist size, perfect bust size, etc.

An element of individuality and personal autonomy must be recognised in this argument as just because the author of the original article does not subscribe to the views expressed does not mean that all women are of the same persuasion.

I myself do not subscribe to any magazine of this variety whether this is women or men specific magazines as I believe most of this literature is poorly researched and selective. However this is my own personal preference and I am in no way suggesting that such literature should be curtailed as it serves its purpose of entertainment to subscribers and is a privately funded industry which has always done well by itself financially.

Women are our mothers, sisters, wives, aunties, grandmothers, friends and beloved ones so for me to speak of them in any bad manner would be very foolish.

The same goes for men in a women’s perspective as men are fathers, brothers, husbands, grandfathers, friends and beloved ones.

We are both dependant on each other for support, comfort, companionship and survival and the greater the rift is between the sexes the worse of human kind will be. Competition is good but in small doses and not to be taken seriously.

By Nazar Shakir (LLB)

naz196@hotmail.com

saracen395
27 December 2007 at 19:19

Where do men use their sexuality to get ahead?,where do they get propositioned by a female boss to sleep with them for advancement,I've never heard of it ,so examples please.As far as I can see

there is only one sex which flaunts itself and that is female,you know ,the ones who are always crying me,me, me,the ones always deriding men until they are in trouble,the ones who have to have positive

discrimination in order to steal mens jobs,the ones that want all the nhs funding,the ones that want men to fight so that they can have a cosy standard of living,

the ones who,when they meet a man with power and money are in bed before they've had dinner.

Women will find,as men found ,that being a wage slave from20 to 65 with nobody to turn to is very lonely

especially if they are having to pay for some other person's welfare who ,it turns out has always hated them.

Keep reading your glossies girls,the treatment gets dearer as you get older.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Kira Cochrane is the women's editor for the Guardian and writes a regular column in the New Statesman.

Read More

Vote!

Does Hillary Clinton deserve to be secretary of state?