I just read a post from Amanda's blog and at the end she makes a plug for the blog Gender Agenda. Because I am at work and therefore bored, I followed the link that she included to the article she recommended starting with. I enjoyed the article and I especially enjoyed the comments that followed, although I only read the first three or four before becoming a little uncomfortable. (I share my office with three other people and didn't want them to look over and not really understand what I was reading about, just see SEX everywhere.) =D So I may finish them when I am home.
This article addresses something that has always bothered and confused me, and for a long time made me think I was anti-feminist. (Don't be too mad!) I was under the impression that feminism was well-intended but misguided and sought to achieve a sort of "equality" that was in actuality much more beneficial to men than then women they hoped to be "liberating." Don't get me wrong, I am very glad to be able to vote and to be able to work in any career I choose. However, it seemed to me that the end result was that women now *have* to work--our economy has become such that it is almost impossible for a family to be supported by only one family member--to me this seems almost a form of slavery. What bothered me the most, however, was reading articles about how women should not be ashamed of stripping, having lots of random sex, etc. I was under the impression that this was one of the most important agendas of feminism: the right of every woman to act like a slut and not feel bad about it. (Sorry if this seems harsh.)
My problem with this idea did not simply come from my being a prude. (Seriously!) What bothered me was that these women seemed to think that it was crucial to the happiness of all women that they be having sex! Whether you like having sex or not, it is foolish to think that this is what we need to become equal to men. This makes us nothing if not more dependent on them and less sure of our self-worth without some man validating it for us.
This relates to my anger with the media, an anger which is not just for women but for children, too. It seems to me that under the guise of being more "open-minded" or some similar virtue, the media has been increasing the amount of explicit sex in movies and like venues. I see this simply as propaganda for the above mentioned campaign. Women see beautiful women in movies portrayed as if they wield some kind of power which is linked to their sexuality. Seducing men: what greater power can there be?
It makes me even angrier when they go after children though, particularly young girls. This is generally pretty transparently for money. This is old news now, but there was a mini-scandal in Burlington a few months ago over some snowboards Burton Mountain produced. This is the best article I could find about it now. Basically, the company released two different lines of snowboards with pictures on the bottom: "Love" which pictured Playboy models and Primo which depicts self-mutilation. I'm going to be honest and say the latter makes me even angrier although the former certainly got more press. (The annoying thing about the whole situation is how much press they got for it, and how many boards they consequently sold.) I like (sarcasm) how the article opens with a tone of surprise that such a "laidback" and "progressive" town would get so riled up about this. So, I haven't been in education that long, but I have been around children my whole life. Many of them are, sadly, very susceptible to pressure--from their peers and from the media. These snowboards are pretty cool looking to a kid. I am not even saying that they would make a kid who didn't cut him or herself start because it seemed cool. However, self-mutilation is a serious problem and it happens more than you might think. The fact that anyone could have considered this an acceptable picture actually makes me sick.
Pictures of suffering are not decorative. But maybe that's just me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So, I'm really terrible at replying to posts, but I've been thinking about this one for quite a while. It was really interesting because I think your views are very different from mine (well, actually, I think we can all agree that snowboards about self-mutilation are not cool!). Here are some of my thoughts:
ReplyDelete1) I don't feel that the media is increasing the amount of explicit sex in TV and movies because of some sort of misguided public service to make us less prudish-- I think that even if you asked them outright, they would tell you it's just because sex sells. Movies with more sex sell more tickets, TV shows with sex garner more viewers. Not just explicit sex, but sexual tension that goes on and on and on too. I think that the media will provide us with whatever we want-- people make careers out of predicting what kind of "mood" people are in, what kinds of themes they're looking for in entertainment. But we get more and more desensitized, to the point where media execs have to keep pushing the envelope to create something "scandalous". Even the snowboard company-- sadly, if they made those boards, its probably because they'd done enough market research to figure out that they would sell, and they probably did (sadly). I think when our society wants to get upset about what the media execs are doing, "truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty you need only look in a mirror".
2) About women having to work: I wish that families could be supported by just one parents working, but I think that allowing women to work leads to both parents working because if you can provide a better life for your children, you will, and if families now have two possibly sources of income, they'll take advantage of it. The doubling of the labor supply and a more extravagant idea of what constitutes an acceptable standard of living (we have so many more luxuries than families did 150 yrs ago... think about how many families don't have a TV nowadays, versus how many changes of clothes a person would have had in the mid-19th century) have led to the situation today. So I feel that, if you want to only have households supported by one worker, you have to outright forbid one of the two to work, and I see that as disempowering (to whichever gender can't work).
3) I totally agree that women shouldn't *have* to have sex (lots of random, any at all, whatever) to feel equal to men. But I think that the freedom to have sex is important, and does make us more equal to men, whether or not we choose to act on this freedom. Pre-feminism, women who had sex outside of/before marriage were treated terribly (and still are in many countries), while it is usually expected that men will have sex at least before they're married. Men were praised for having sex, women were condemned. Now I feel like it's at least somewhat more equal.
4) I skimmed the website you posted just briefly, and I just wanted to comment-- the author keeps saying that sex isn't natural... maybe it's just because I'm a scientist, but technically, it is natural. I totally agree that everyone has the right to have sex, to not have sex, to have some kinds of sex and not others, I just disagree with her phrasing, I think. We just all have to accept that we all relate to sex differently-- have different sex drives, look for different things in sex-- but technically, sex is found in nature and required for continuing the species, unless you're some kind of sponge or something (obviously I'm not a biologist :))
Hmmm... that's all I can think of at the moment... I think the article raises some interesting points, but I can't say I agree with too much. When she talks about men having everything to gain by promoting sex-positivism, she's right-- but, that doesn't mean that we don't also have everything to gain, and I feel like in there somewhere is the idea that before feminism, men didn't have sex outside of marriage and now they can. That's not true-- there have always been prostitutes and "loose women", but now a woman can have sex without being demoted to the lowest social class. Also, I disagree with her opinions towards vaginal intercourse... but I feel like I'm rambling now and I'll stop :)
Thanks for posting this, it was good thinking material!
So, I was looking on my Google "dashboard" and was totally shocked to see that you're reading my blog!!
ReplyDeleteI like Gender Agenda, but this particular author, Orkinson, is particularly harsh in her phrasing. Her most recent post is about the Vagina Monologues, and it's mostly a rant, but she does have some good points (it shows the Monologues in a whole new light – I recommend it, but it is quite radical).
I agree with you and Cassie about sex in the media. I think that what we need is a sex-POSITIVE culture, not sex-flashy. Sex is a natural thing, and lots of people like it in lots of different ways. The problem with our culture is that we don’t know how to do sex-positive. As for stripping and being promiscuous, those will always be hot-button topics within Feminism. People will always be divided about that. Many see power in those actions, many see degradation. Throwing out images of naked women on snowboards and naked men in Abercrombie ads doesn’t show us the many physical and emotional ways we can enjoy sex, it just reduces us to bodies. Your comment, “This makes us nothing if not more dependent on them and less sure of our self-worth without some man validating it for us,” is right on. Many Feminists believe that the key to feminine power is understanding our own sexuality and realizing that WE control our own bodies and whatever pleasures we choose to seek. This can get seriously contorted when images surround us every day that tell us to be “sexy,” but not “sexual.” It is a terrible dichotomy that exists in this culture, and it is in no way fair to teach our children that “beautiful women in movies [are] portrayed as if they wield some kind of power which is linked to their sexuality. Seducing men: what greater power can there be?” These images don’t tell kids how to handle sexuality and the sexual feelings going through their bodies. Sexy without sexuality. It’s ridiculous.
Your work-as-slavery comment really intrigues me. It seems interesting that men usually are the bread-winners, but they have to sacrifice time with their families in order to support that, and women are now aiming for that, as well. It seems like a no-win situation, and I’m all in favor of a more equal division of labor within the house and the working world so that ALL parents can spend more time with their families. I’m hopeful that more businesses will see the value of allowing time off for employees – men and women – to spend with their families. It makes for happier families and workers, and therefore society (in my utopian world, of course).
I don’t think you’re anti-feminist. I never have. I think that Feminism is as wide-reaching as any belief system or opinion can possibly be. This was a thoughtful post (and a thoughtful response, Cassie!), and I enjoyed it a lot! :)