While I agree with your basic sentiment that Feminism has in most cases served a valid cause well; and that perhaps there is still more to be done.

I have to disagree with some assumed points:

1. That the role of women in the media in any way negatively effects woman's social role in general. This is evident in perhaps the most popular woman in the universe (quite to my own dismay,) Oprah, who is neither dainty nor childbearing, yet whom droves of woman adore for no apparent reason.

Next by the role of male counterparts, who are just as often judged by physical appearance.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to see pretty people on TV I would argue.

2. Tied into the above, people both choose to be in the media, and those watching choose to watch media. There is no sexual slavery on the tube... unless it's an MSNBC special on sex slaves

3. There is a very good reason for gender roles. Woman have kids, men do not. While each individual is different, I would also argue that woman are far more capable of caring for a young child, and so for the most part in that case, the gender role is quite beneficial to society and I see no reason to attempt to change this.

Another reason for gender roles, men are generally "strong" and even a "dainty" man is generally stronger than a woman who is anything but. Hence why the ideal role would be for woman to be treated with more respect than men from a physical perspective.

Again, I think a beneficial gender role. And I see no reason to change it.

Outside of that, it is always important for any group of people to stay vigilant in pursuit of equal rights, especially when so recently in history (respective of human history as a whole) that group was treated, and still is in non-westernized societies, as a lower-class.

But let's not start demanding men bear children, and woman stick up for themselves in a bar fight.

The gender roles that you speak of are genetic. Except for the thinkers part.

Men are genetically larger. Women ARE childbearers and have maternal instincts that men do not.

Men and women in todays society are equal. The problem is, people do not want to accept that they are still different.

I would even go as far as to say that the tables are starting to turn. Men are looked upon as the cheaters and dead beat parent automatically. Is that not a form of oppression?

> The question is, has feminism succeeded in liberating females from social oppression?

To a point, yes. But not completely. The idea that women should be there for show is still very, very evident. You see it in ads, TV shows, etc, and it's most certainly a form of social oppression.

And of course there are still very strong gender roles. Men are strong, women are dainty, men do the thinking, women do the childbearing, etc. While we've eliminated most of the legal oppression, the social oppression is still there.

1. Even though Oprah is is an example of how things are changing, she still a very beautiful woman ( http://static.oprah.com/images/tows/200709/20070914/20070914_208_284x426.jpg ) and doesn't really stretch the beauty standard that far. Additionally, her weight gain/loss has been a public spectacle for many years. This happens to female celebrities all the time; are they too skinny, are they too fat, are they pregnant, and so on. How often do you see male celebrities given the same treatment?

How can you look at the gender gap in politics and business and say women are not negatively effected?

2. Men are by no means judged by their physical appearances as often or as harshly as women are. The acceptable 'look' or men in the public eye is much, much more varied than it is for women. Take a look at the range and volume of body products targeted to women, and compare it to the body products targeted to men.

There is nothing wrong with looking at attractive people, but when the only way women can become famous is by being attractive, then there is a problem.

3. What is it about women that makes them physically and mentally more suited to changing diapers, warming bottles, rocking an infant? Yes, women do tend to gravitate towards children more than men, but that doesn't mean these the menial tasks of personal childcare should fall to them by default. If men and women were raised with the expectation of sharing a more equal burden when it came to caring for their own child, I think things would be different. As it is, attitudes like yours enforce the assumption that the woman will do these things because she's good at it, and it's her role.

I think all people deserve the same amount of respect from a physical perspective, regardless of gender.

Gender roles are absolutely not beneficial to society and they make many people very unhappy. I am sure you see no reason to change it because it personally does you little harm, but you are not on the disadvantaged person in this issue.

First off, yes, discrimination and stereotyping against males is just as oppressive.

But my mention of "strong vs dainty" was not meant as a physical characteristic, but a personality stereotype. Besides, simply because some people of one gender or another act in a certain way does not mean we should marginalize them into that specific role.

And the point still stands that women, more than men, are used as "display"