female objectification

After Women Took off Their Aprons, Advertisers Began Taking Off the Rest!

fem 17Once we won our equal liberty to choose our personal “place” in the world, the male ego swiftly began to make sure that women would never forget their universal “purpose” in the world.

By T.L.Dayen

They say “a picture paints a thousand words.” Imagery has the power to elicit emotion and provoke thought. It can also be used to subconsciously persuade or manipulate. Imagery has also historically been used to disseminate propaganda such as the iconic “Rosie the Riveter;” an animated image of a strong-armed woman in a factory uniform intended to convey that it was acceptable to see women; the majority of the domestic work force during the war effort of WWII, as strong and capable. Images can also portray social behavioral norms like iconic Norman Rockwell fem 15paintings depicting ‘normal’ life in middle and working class America from the early to mid 20th century. Culturally, our social norms are reflected through imagery in our media; movies (entertainment mostly) and advertising (expressly to persuade).

Imagery in advertising works to convince, confirm or inform viewers about what they should want, think, identify with or accept as good for them. When advertisers use sexually implicit images to sell a product, it is reaffirming stereotypes that objectify women’s bodies and marginalize their humanity.

Selling Sex

Exploiting sexuality to sell a product is, unfortunately, effective. The ‘sex kitten’ eating Doritos on T.V. prompts the dorritosman to buy the chips because he wants to “get the girl” in the ad, and the woman buys the chips because she wants to “be the girl” in the ad; “We’re a visually explicit culture that’s become comfortable with selling domain names and winter coats on the backs of pretty, naked people” (Thompson, 2011).

Using sex in advertising subliminally links our most primal motive of procreation to the impulse desire for that product/service. In other words, buy the product, get (feel) the sex.

Sell Sex; Buy Sexism

The problem with ‘selling sex’ is that it takes the elemental human drive to procreate (which requires dominant and pliant roles), and attaches it to everything in our lives from food to cars to clothing to cleaning products to insurance. fem 14The dominant/ pliant roles of our sex organs become the roles we identify with as represented subliminally by the products and services we need and use every day. By ascribing the yielding female sex organ to her overall nature and character (as subordinate), advertisers can use sexually explicit imagery to not only potently objectify women’s bodies, but also marginalize female humanity by transforming “actual women into [sexual] objects, devoid of individual will or subjectivity” (Benshoff and Griffin 238-256).

The female body, pliant in sex, becomes the objectified woman, subordinate in life.

Even while women have made stellar strides in education and work force parity since the blatantly sexist advertising of the 1950’s; “an era when women’s roles were confined to the corridor between the bedroom and the kitchen” (Thompson, 2011);

the ‘new sexism’ is simply explicitly sexist imagery without the explicitly sexist messaging. In the 21st century, the message of sexual servitude is “implied.”

“Having lost the argument that women are incompetent, American advertising has had to settle on the argument that fem 18women are [still] attractive” (Thompson, 2011). In other words the iconic domestic dependent ‘June Cleaver’ telling viewers something like, “Your husband will never complain about undercooked eggs again with this new and improved egg timer!” has been replaced with the sexually implicit ‘cleavage and stilettoes’ seductively and silently stepping out of a Lincoln Continental. I call this “objectified female imagery.” This more modern version of sexism has only fed new life into age old social constructs of female subordination, because “American women still develop a sense of self-worth based primarily on how they look, rather than how talented or intelligent they are” (Benshoff and Griffin 238-256).

Domestic dependent submissiveness has simply been replaced by sexual objectification; both are demeaning and subordinate positions of “service.”

What’s even more poignant is that some of worst offenders of this type of sexist advertising are ‘women on women.’ fem 19Women who appeared on a Phil Donahue Show “fashion segment,” un-apologetically defended their unusual preoccupation with ‘perfecting’ their hair, skin, eyes, clothing and bodies. Susan Bordo took note of their naiveté and that “putting on makeup, styling hair, and so forth are conceived of only as free play, fun, a matter of creative expression,” but in reality is, “also experienced by many women as ‘necessary’ before they show themselves to the world, even a quick trip to the corner mailbox.” Bordo expresses her concern that the true messages being sent by ‘fashion statements’ are merely “whimsical and politically neutral vicissitudes [that] supply endless amusement for women’s [apparent] eternally superficial values.” Bordo goes on to say in the context of the fashion and beauty industry, “the specific ideals that women are drawn to embody…are seen as arbitrary, without meaning [by society].”

In other words, obsession with fashion culturally indicates frivolous and superficial priorities.

Bordo’s trepidation with the multi-million dollar fashion and beauty industry is shared by Benshoff and Griffen who assert that this advertising strives to persuade women to “buy their [own] femininity;” be re-made into “some ideal fem 20form” as an “object of the male gaze (objectification).” This, alleges Benshoff and Griffen, actually convinces women “to be complicit in their own objectification.” A massive and still growing fashion and beauty industry in America may be evidence that many women have indeed “internalized the ideology that their self-worth is based upon their public image… that achieving total objectified desirability is the only thing that will give them happiness and fulfillment” and that, “this mythical ideal keeps patriarchal (male) domination in place” (Benshoff and Griffin 238-256). If women are buying sexism, then apparently sexist advertising is working.

Hijacked Sexuality

Full disclosure: as a woman myself, I am frustrated that an industry has “hijacked” my God given sexuality for their profits! Can a woman in the 21st century fully express her innate sexuality without the implication that she is consenting to, even encouraging the sexist messages sent by the objectified female imagery in media advertising? And what of those who feed into the ‘cultural messages’ that are fabricated from objectified female imagery in the media; that a woman’s sexuality is by its very nature literally “there for the taking?”fem 5

Can a woman in the 21st century fully express her innate sexuality personally without the implication that she is “asking for it” publically? I fear that the answer to these questions today is “no.”

Sharon Marcus writes of the misleading dialogue used when legislating rape laws or hearing rape cases; “The rape script describes female bodies as vulnerable, violable, penetrable, and wounded.” A website called “Controltonight.com” ran an ad showing a young woman’s legs with her panties around her ankles lying on what looks like a bathroom floor. The ad reads, “2:19 a.m. She didn’t want to do it, but she couldn’t say NO.” The ad intends to warn against drinking and date rape, but the ‘message’ is that women’s bodies are simply up for grabs by anyone who may gain the advantage to take it – and that’s somehow a woman’s fault. Marcus purports, “the adherents of rape culture see female sexuality as a property which only men can truly own, which women often hoard, which can thus justifiably be wrested from us, which women themselves merely hold in trust for a lawful owner. Rape thus becomes the theft or violation of one man’s property rights by another.”

fem 8If women’s sexuality is not even seen in our law as our own rightful possession, it is no wonder it could be unabashedly exploited personally or commercially by whomever and however it serves to benefit.

Audrey Lorde writes of the uses and power of the ‘erotic’ – in this context, ones ‘passions;’ sexual or otherwise; “We have been taught to suspect this resource, vilified, abused and devalued within western society… the erotic has been encouraged as a sign of female inferiority.” So a woman’s capacity to “feel deeply” has been equated with weakness, and that “only by the suppression of the erotic within our lives and consciousness can women truly be strong. But this strength is illusory, for it is fashioned within the context of male models of power” (Lorde 188-192).

If we follow Lordes’ premise, then a woman’s capacity to feel her own sexuality is considered “suspect” and therefore only passably expressed within and through our patriarchal society’s consent and capacity to control it.


What came first, female objectification or female objectified imagery? The truth is not what you might think. While media imagery only began in the early 1900’s, female objectification is just one arm of female subordination that has fem 12stigmatized the male/female dynamic for thousands of years. However, in the 21st century human kind is capable of growing beyond our prejudices; capable of a much broader perspective of the male/female dynamic.

In the 21st century human kind is capable of recognizing our two species as ‘different in measure but equal in value.’

This is where the media continues to culturally perpetuate female objectification even as we are collectively capable of moving beyond it. Advertising media imagery is especially harmful because it is scrupulously knitted within the fabric of our consumer based culture. Every decade that passes, fem 4human kind becomes more familiar with women in leadership positions of authority in politics, more acceding to our dependability as an equal successful womanpartner within the home, and more reliant on our equally competent skills in the work place and industry. While this reality of the male/female dynamic may smack of truth, the false postulation of our disparity and subordination continues to be culturally projected before us as sexually objectified minions of the patriarchal social construct.

Women’s sexuality; our very autonomy is reduced to a collective cultural commodity, and only valid through its collective cultural usefulness to the patriarchal bedroom, boardroom or billboard.

If sex is selling, it’s only selling women out.

fem 16



Benshoff, Harry, and Sean Griffin. America On Film. 2nd. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

238-256. Print.

Bordo, Susan. “Material Girl: The Effacements of Post Modern Culture.” Trans. Array

Theorizing Feminisms. N.Y., New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 385-404. Print.

Lorde, Audre. “Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power.” Trans. Array Theorizing Feminisms.

N.Y., New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 188-192. Print.

Marcus, Sharon. “Fighting Bodies, Fighting Words: A Theory and Politics of Rape Prevention.”

Trans. Array Theorizing Feminism. N.Y., New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 369-

  1. Print. (Marcus, 369-381)

Thompson, Derek. “Are T.V. Ads Getting More Sexist?.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly

Group, 31 Oct 2011. Web. 16 Oct 2013. <theatlantic.com>.



Implanting the “Attitude” of Female Oppression

Male/Female “Stereotype” Behavior

dads pic

February 9, 2015

By Shane Stewart

Do you ever wonder why men and women play such different “roles” in society? Does it ever disturb you to think that almost everyone on Earth is “acting out” stereotype male/female behavior roles they were taught? Why is it that men and women are “expected” to act in certain ways? Why are women expected to act “subordinate” around men, and men expected to act “dominant” around women? And why do we seem to “act like men and women are supposed to act” without even giving it a second thought? Do you ever think about how you act when you are around the “opposite” sex, and why you act that way? We are so conditioned to “act” like girls and boys, men and women, males and females, that we may never be able to change it. And our stereotype male/female behavior is the very thing that maintains the injustice of female oppression. Women especially are deeply “implanted” with female, subservient behavior patterns, conditioned perhaps to the point of not even knowing that their behavior is designed to maintain – and is maintaining – their own female oppression. The world-wide social construct of male/female behavior patterns strongly supports male domination of the female. So men of course, do not want to see changed. Here is a common claim out of the mouth of the male: “Well that’s how men and women are ‘supposed’ to act. It’s natural. We’ve always acted that way and you can’t change it.” It appears that men really have it wrapped up for themselves.

-The following is an excerpt from The Female Imperative-

“The interaction between men and women in every culture on earth is an open exhibition of superior male and inferior female stereotype behavior patterns. Children learn how they are expected to behave by watching the men and women around them as they go about their daily business performing appropriate, authoritative male and subordinate female roles of behavior. These everyday displays of gender-specific male/female behavior patterns are deeply absorbed into the child’s mind; imprinting the attitude that the male is most certainly superior to the female. Children automatically accept, adopt, and mimic the human behavior they observe around them as being normal, and will continue to display such “normal” human behavior as they journey throughout their lives. The exhibition of dominant male and subordinate female behavior is essential to the process of planting and nurturing the seeds of the image of male superiority and female inferiority in the minds of young children.”

“Seeing that each new generation of males is properly conditioned to maintaining female oppression is paramount in the lives of most men. Throughout the world men find their importance in the ego image of being “superior” to women. Indeed, manhood is defined by a man’s ability to dominate and control the inferior females around him. Conditioning young boys to believe they are superior to girls must begin at an early age. Men form boys unto their own negative image by planting the seeds of violence, aggression, and superiority into their young minds. Men insist that boys be physically aggressive and dominant. They teach them that they are superior to, and vastly more important than, weak and inferior girls. Men fully understand that male dominant programming cannot be put off until later in life. This programming must be completed before a boy reaches the “age of reason” or he may find it very difficult to accept the primitive notion that one human being has an inherent right to dominate another. If boys were allowed to develop naturally, without being saturated with the attitude of male superiority, they would develop not as oppressors of women, but as human beings, existing in a gender equitable world.”

“Contrary to what the male ego wants us to believe, humans are not predisposed to gender-specific behavior. We are not born with a “gender behavior road map” that leads us to act as stereotype males and females. Behaving as a boy or girl is not a genetically inherent human trait, but comes out of an applied process that indoctrinates children with appropriate images that represent superior male and inferior female behavior patterns. Gender specific behavior is a learned process. We are designated male or female dependent upon the shape of our bodies. The male body has the shape of the penis. The female body has the shape of the vagina. The type of behavior programming children receive is simply determined by whether they were born with a penis or vagina. Children born with a body in the shape of a penis are programmed for dominant and aggressive behavior. Children born with a body in the shape of a vagina are programmed for subservient and submissive behavior. This is easily accomplished because children constantly observe men displaying dominant and superior behavior over women, and women constantly displaying submissive and subservient behavior under men in everyday life.”

“Programming the child’s mind for gender specific, male/female, stereotype behavior is critical to the foundation that supports the perpetual image of male “superiority.” Infant boys and girls are born onto this earth with no concept or preconceived idea of proper gender behavior. They are open and receptive to learning. They cannot act like a ‘superior’ boy or an ‘inferior’ girl unless they are conditioned to do so.” (Stewart and Dayen, 2014, Ch. 22, p.120-121).

* * *

Learning how to “act” as a boy or girl by watching men and women is the process I call “observation imprinting,” the most subtle of all types of behavioral conditioning, but yet the most effective. It depends upon the minds of children being implanted with the seed of the image of male superiority and it will grow just as surely as a seed planted in fertile soil.

We are all born as human beings with open minds. The fact that we are physically born as “male or female” has nothing to do with our “social” position or character as “dominant or subservient.” Our male/female “body shape” merely determines our “role” in physical human reproduction. THAT IS ALL! There is no “built in” dominant or subordinate behavior patterns between males and females. Those patterns are falsely assigned to us and maintained by the negative male ego.

Children are born “innocent” of the negative effects of prejudice and hate that are brought about through ethnicity, race, culture, nationality, religion, and gender-ism; all divisive factors that the male ego has established to maintain conflict within humanity and perpetuate the oppression of the female. Children are simply open and curious about life. They want to learn, but instead they are “implanted” with the negativity and hate of the divisive attitudes of “pride” in their particular culture, nationality, race, ethnicity, and religion; and for boys, their gender! We do not give children a chance to become a unified human species, to develop “pride” in being human. Boys are strongly molded by the male ego to be aggressive in preparation for their time in war and domination of women. Girls are strongly molded by the male ego to be subservient and subordinate to the male in preparation for their time in having “his” children and taking care of “his” house.He” will boss, “she” will obey.

Such is the sad state of our species of which I am working very hard to change. I am a male human being. I understand that like all men, I am “infected” with the male ego which definitely effects my judgment. However, although every man is infected with the male ego, the male ego is not the same “strength” in every man. Some men have a very “thick” male ego. Some have a “thin” male ego. Men can change by “peeling away” layers of their negative male ego through understanding that they are not here to be dominant over women, but cooperative. That they are not here to be superior to women, but to stand as equal partners as two halves of one human whole. I know it is possible for men to change because I am doing it! I have peeled away layer upon layer of my male ego to the point of being able to co-write the The Female Imperative with my partner T.L. Dayen, and participate with her in this blog site dedicated to female emancipation. I can only write these words because I have “thinned out” my male ego to the point that I can now see the truth through it. It’s a “liberating” feeling. It is comforting to me when men respond to my blogs and comment that “it’s a good read,” or they “understand,” and they, like me, know they can change.

Testosterone + Money; What Could Go Wrong?

The NFL is simply a microcosm of an ancient blueprint of our global society – male ego greed and power.

T's Toes

By T.L. Dayen

The NFL is a world in itself. It’s the least transparent but richest organization in the world, and it is completely self-contained. It has its own physical and mental medical team. It has its own family and marriage counseling and liaison team. It has its own investigative team, and it has its own disciplinary team, with successful players receiving criminal sentences based on how valuable you are to the NFL. In other words, the NFL is a place where nothing is more important than money; males make ALL the rules, and break them whenever it serves them, and women; their role and experiences are secondary, if not inconsequential. Sounds like planet Earth to me!!

NFL is the “No Females League.”

Abusing a woman gets you 2 games sitting on the bench;

But abusing dog’s gets you 2 years sitting behind bars.

After all, dogs are man’s best friend!

If you don’t think it’s a man’s world, just look at the NFL; what a place with literally zero female influence looks like: tolerance of violence and abuse; exploitation of skills and contribution even to the point of physical and/or mental injury; a hierarchy of powerful [male] individuals who have the final say on every and all issues; an environment where profit is the determining factor in every decision that is made; a culture much less interested in justice as it is in maintaining an “image;” a place where female sexual objectification is central to advertising dollars and brand image; and a place where ones value is equal only to the amount of money you can make for your superiors.



There have been 724 arrest offenses since 2000 with charges overwhelmingly represented by three categories: violence, drugs and weapons charges. That’s an average of 52 per year for 14 years. The NFL is made up of approximately 1500 players. There’s been a lot of talk about the fact that the percentage of arrests within the NFL is way below the “national average.” Has no one considered how absurd that notion is as a defense of these men? These players are employees of an organization, no different from IBM or GE or Exxon-Mobil, all which employ at least, if not more than 1500 people. How would we be reacting if GE employees for example, were arrested for violence, weapons or drugs at an average of 52 per year over 14 years? Really?? It would be an unprecedented outrage; and one that would never be tolerated in any other industry other than, apparently, the NFL.

These men are not from the street. Their offenses cannot be held to the same standard as the “national average” which is represented overwhelmingly by low income and ill-educated men. No, NFL players are college educated millionaires! And most will enjoy continued financial success in other endeavors after their time in the NFL (if they manage to avoid brain damage). How and why can the NFL tolerate this behavior within their organization? Or is the NFL itself complicit in this behavior?


Believe it or not, while I’m not a sports fanatic, I actually LOVE FOOTBALL! I’ll gladly spend a few hours on a free Sunday to watch a good game! I don’t follow it closely, but I like to know just enough about the game, the players and the season to hold a decent convo with the “boys” at a spirited Super bowl party. In fact, I’ve always said that the “holiday season” isn’t officially over until after Super bowl! I like watching football for the same reason I would imagine everyone does, it’s exciting! Large men in tight pants and shiny helmet’s running, rushing and passing like bulls and gazelles on a large field performing amazing feats of strength, agility and endurance surrounded by a roaring crowd; devoted, frenzied and face painted. Can everyone say “gladiator?” Football is the other “America’s favorite pass time.” For most, football is a great game, and for many it’s a religion. More people watch football on Sunday in America than go to church.

But football is really a business. The wealth of the NFL is unsurpassed by any other national league. The NFL is not required to disclose its annual financial records to the public. But statistics can shed light on the NFL cash machine. The average cost of one NFL team is between 1.17 and 1.43 billion. NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, earned 44 million in just the 2012/13 season, and according to Forbes Magazine, the NFL takes in over 9 billion in total annual revenues. Commissioner Goodell told his owners he expects the League to gross 25 billion by 2027.


How does it make its money? fans, advertisers, sponsors – and taxpayers!


The richest organization in the nation pays no Federal taxes!

Yes, taxpayers are even forced to pay for the elaborate stadiums that lure tens of thousands of fans to fill their seats at an average of $84 a seat. With modern day high tech home media to watch your favorite team in HD with your buddies from the comfort of your Lazy Boy and an arm’s reach of a cooler full of brew, it’s become difficult to fill the seats of these stadiums on a regular basis. Team owners often threaten municipalities to leave their cities if they don’t invest their citizen’s tax dollars on bigger and more spectacular stadiums which now exceeds 700 million dollars.

A cities football team is a sense of national pride and identity, but team owners care little for their fans devotion and will pack it up and move to the location of the highest bidder all at the expense of the American taxpayer. And if they do “build it” and “they don’t come” they’ll leave as soon as a more lucrative location is found anyway.

God forbid the NFL should dip in to those billions they make from devoted fans and spend their own money to build their own fricken stadiums!

The NFL is subsidized by the American taxpayer.


While team owners and the league are rolling in the dough, what about the players that the fans and municipalities are paying to see play? NFL player contract salaries ranged from 118 to 180 million in the 2013/14 season, but the average career for an NFL player is just 3.3 years, and just 6 if you’re a rookie good enough to make the cut for the opening game. Team owners however, change out very rarely and ownership is often passed down within families from generation to generation. There have been only 3 NFL commissioners since 1960 (54 years). The infrastructure of the league is a “good old boys club” while the players are commodities flying in and out of a revolving door; and as a player, if your brain or body happens to get injured while whipping through that revolving door of the harshest contact sport – that’s your problem. There’s hundreds of strapping young men waiting in the line outside for their turn at a chance for “fifteen minutes of fame!” Cheerleaders either work for “free” or are grossly underpaid (less than minimum wage). Their skill, tireless dedication and phenomenal efforts to keep their bodies in mint condition are rewarded simply by having the opportunity to expose their skin and shake their “pompoms” in the faces of millions of testosterone pumped men tuning in twice a week.

            girls 1

The NFL is a man’s game, and it should be. I get it! But what really pisses me and most of the country off right now is how that translates – what that actually means in the real world for the men, their families and loved ones who have entrusted their lives to the NFL for a few brief years of descent money for themselves, but decades of continued phenomenal wealth for those who exploit their dedication. Considering the average career of a player to be only 3.3 years and 6 if they’re exceptional who have no record of arrests before coming to the NFL, how does this organization justify over 720 arrests out of 1500 revolving players over 14 years?

Are 48% of NFL players over 14 years really monstrous thugs, or are they aspiring young college men who thought they were realizing their dreams when in reality they were being indoctrinated into both one of the most profit motivated and most chauvinistic industries in the world? Even the military gives women more respect and authority than the NFL, and with the rampant rape within the military industrial complex, that’s a pretty pathetic comparison.

girls 2

How can we expect NFL players to be model citizens in society and exemplary role models for fans when their own role models, the organization that demands complete dedication and absolute loyalty in exchange for seeing to star players and their family’s every need, teaches them that “money is GOD,” “might is right,” and “girls are only good for one thing?” In this light, on the most fundamental of levels outside of culture, is there that much difference between what motivates the N.F.L. and what motivates I.S.I.L.?






Dressing for Success or Suc-sex?

T's Toes

The trade-off for having to listen to us is getting to look at us!

By T.L. Dayen

Objectification…. That one “feminist” term that you’ll find in every feminist genre. We all know what it is, and most of us are complicit! Let’s face it; we have no choice. Either we look like “women” or we don’t. The truth is the majority of girls in the U.S. anyway, are concerned with their appearance on a scale that ranges from at least brushing one’s hair to spending 2 hours a day “prepping” before they leave the house. I’ve known many women who confess they never leave the house without make-up. They couldn’t imagine it. Don’t get me wrong; I know many girls that could care less about dressing or looking like a woman, but those are not the women I’m speaking to right now, and I’ll be addressing our gay and rebel sisters later on. But even those of us [females] who choose to not play the “lady” game will at least be color coordinated – hell, even Goth is just complimentary shades of black – with a pop of red.

All girls from a very young age are taught that their “appearance” is crucial to their “female” identity. We are taught that it is our female duty to let others know through our appearance that we know we’re a woman and we understand what that “looks like.”


So what does “looking like a woman” really mean?
How are we complicit in our own objectification?

Female objectification or “treating a [female] merely as an instrument of sexual pleasure, making them a “sex object;” is the oldest tool in the shed of the dominant male ego for keeping gender division intact and the human female subordinated and marginalized. And when I say “oldest” I mean that female objectification is so resolutely entrenched within our global human social construct, that even women believe that this is “natural;” for the most part, we’ve accepted that women are expected to be pleasing to the eye of the human male. Women have internalized this socially constructed “rule” to the point that we compete with ourselves and one another as to how “pleasing” we are to “look” at. How many men stand in the front of the mirror trying on three different outfits until they’re satisfied that their “ass” or “waist line” doesn’t “look too big?” How many men claim to be having a “bad hair day?” Why are these things apparently so important to women? The animal mind of the male ego has conditioned the human female over tens of thousands of years to present ourselves to the world [men] in a manner that lets men know that we know we have a vagina and we know what that vagina is for – them! We “display” ourselves – in a sexually pleasing manner; and many of us pride ourselves on how well we do it!

successful woman

“Just because I look “sexy,” does NOT mean I think “ditsy!”

This is where things start to get complicated. This is where the female image of the social construct and reality begin to “butt heads;” because ladies, we have understandably invested in this socially constructed female image over thousands of years as a sense of pride and yes, even personal power. But it was the animal mind of the male ego that created this female image over thousands of years because of what this image really means to them, and how that manifests for us. I say “complicated,” because I’m not suggesting “unisex,” and so in that case, what are we really to do about female objectification? What we really need to do is take the sex out of the female body and put it in the bedroom between two consenting adults where it belongs!! It’s time that females stop taking responsibility for the oversexed, immature, one-tracked animal mind of the sexually controlling male ego that cannot gaze upon skin without seeing “sex.” And yes, ladies, it’s time that we start taking responsibility for the fact that we are more than our appearance. Women must stop associating sex with our own bodies if we are to break free from the dominant sexually controlling male ego global social construct of female objectification. We cannot have it both ways! But alas, the male ego is counting on us to continue to try and do just that!

You see, if we don’t look like “women” we’re socially chastised as too masculine (not “sex”y). If we do look like “women” we’re complicit in our own sexual objectification. This is simply fighting the male ego on its own turf within its own socially constructed image of the female – It’s a losing battle that we cannot win!

The Female Imperative is finally giving both men and women of “human mind” the permission to STEP OUTSIDE THE MALE EGO FEMALE IMAGE and to stop letting our “sex” determine our “consciousness;” our own or others. Sex is not our bodies. Sex is not our personalities. Sex is not our roles, our functions, our self-perceptions, our value, our worth. Sex is NOT our clothing or our accessories – or lack thereof. Sex is something we choose to do when, why, how and with whom we choose to do it. Our sex does NOT define us. Our consciousness defines us, and our consciousness is NOT our sex!

Consider that it is ONLY women who must bear the burden of this principle. In other words, the “sex is our bodies and therefore our purpose” principle according to the male ego image of the female is only displayed by the woman. Men do not hold themselves to the same standard. In fact, they can all look the same, and still be considered “virile.” The male uniform, or “suit,” simply says it all about their virility; “I wear a suite. I have a penis; period!”

men 1

But it goes further than that. The male uniform (suit or pants/shirt) doesn’t just indicate masculinity (virile penis) it also says, “Don’t look at me. Listen to me.” In other words, men do not want to draw attention to their bodies, because that would distract from the allure of their “intellect.” Men do not have to draw attention to their penis to be considered virile, and if they do, they are considered by their peers to be foolish, narcissistic and anything but intellectual. For women on the other hand, it’s just the opposite. If we are not drawing attention to our “femininity” through seeking attention to our appearance, then our self-awareness is questioned, and therefore so is our psychological “stability.” Our intellect doesn’t even factor into the equation. In fact, the further a woman climbs the ladder of authoritative success, the greater the pressure on her to inform the world (and her co-workers) through her appearance that she hasn’t forgotten she’s got a vagina.

From TFI:
“Girls are taught the female image seeks attention, but boys are taught the male image seeks respect. Respect is a suit and tie. Attention is a form fitting sleeveless V-neck that accentuates the hips and breasts; exposes skin; a pair of pumps that accentuate the legs and lifts a woman’s butt; earrings that draw attention to a woman’s cosmetically altered eyes and a necklace that draws attention to her cleavage and slender neck. I’ve just described to you two typical news anchors sitting side by side on a nightly broadcast. One image is saying, “Listen to me. I am [intelligent] man” while the other image is saying “Look at me. I am [sexual] female.”

“The civilized dominant male ego has cunningly constructed a modern society that maintains the appearance of social equality while still marginalizing a woman’s authority within that society to the presentation of her body parts. The more authority a woman has in the male ego dominated society, the more her sexuality is scrutinized, analyzed and objectified. This is the male ego rule; “If I have to listen to you, then you must remind me that you know you’re still a woman when I look at you.”

“I am speaking here only about women in positions of authority and leadership in finance, politics and the corporate world; where, by the way, the female perspective is so desperately needed in the 21st century. I am not speaking of women in research, medicine and academia. The very sectors of humanity where the male ego is doing the most damage to humanity and our world are the very sectors where female sexual objectification is the most rampant; marginalizing her contribution by objectifying her body.” (Excerpts from Chapter 26)

This was illustrated just recently when Senator Kristen Gillibrand confessed in her recent book that she, as a Senator from New York, has endured comments about her “body” and her “appearance” by her own Senate colleagues. This comes as no surprise to me, but what many don’t seem to acknowledge is that if Senator Gillibrand was a “secretary” or an “intern,” these “advances” would be considered completely inappropriate and possibly criminal sexual harassment in the workplace. But because she is a “colleague;” not in a position of servitude, she’s expected to just “suck it up;” “deal with it.”


The beltway press has been having a field day with Gillibrand’s refusal to “name names.” But many (especially women) are rightly pointing out that if she does name the offenders, then her career will forever be “defined” by the fact that she “couldn’t keep her mouth shut.” She will be seen as “weak.” Ironically however, if she were these men’s secretary, her revelations would be considered “courageous;” but as a supposed “equal” among the power brokers in D.C., she now has the obligation to play by the rules of women in positions of authority: that is if a woman is no longer in some kind of physical or domestic servitude, she is now in [sexually] visual servitude – that’s the trade-off! And as Stewart and I explain in TFI, this trade-off is the brilliant mechanism of the male ego to maintain the appearance of equality in the 21st century while still maintaining the female image of sexual purpose and servitude, which effectually negates the authenticity and originality of the intellectual contribution of the human female among male global power brokers.

TFI spends a great deal of time explaining not just blatant, but also nuanced female oppression and subordination in all its facets and phases. We spend a great deal of time explaining how and why the animal mind of the male ego uses female oppression and subordination to keep the male and female consciousness “separate” and how this effectually strengthens the male ego and feeds his need for battle and dominance. TFI explains how men and women of “human mind” are “going down with the ship.” TFI also explains how this can be corrected – and why it must.

We call on all of you to join in the EVOLUTION REVOLUTION!