Not enjoying the enlightenment

It’s always so disappointing when I don’t enjoy a book as much as I thought I would. That was the problem with Jonathan Franzen’s How to be alone, and it’s happening again with Enlightened Sexism by Susan J Douglas. It doesn’t help that I only know half of the popular culture references in it. Sure, I watched 90210 as a teenager, but didn’t get into Melrose Place and have never seen an episode of Ally McBeal or Grey’s Anatomy or that show where hot young women compete with hot older women for The Poo.

Douglas writes:

What so much of this media (especially advertising) emphasises is that women are defined by our bodies, our identities located in our bodies, and those must be sexually alluring (now, even when we’re pregnant – thanks a lot, Demi Moore!) and conform to a very narrow fashion-model ideal of beauty. This is nothing new, of course, but it was something millions of women hoped to deep-six back in the 1970s. Indeed, it is precisely because women no longer have to exhibit traditionally “feminine” personality traits – like being passive, helpless, docile, overly emotional, dumb and deferential to men – that they must exhibit hyperfeminine physical traits – large boobs and cleavage, short skirts, pouty lips – and the proper logos linking this femininity to upper-class ranking. (pp. 16-17).

That’s quite an interesting point. I hadn’t linked the pornification of popular culture to this, but it surely has to be a part of it, along with reality tv (and its ability to create celebrities out of “normal” people) and the general relaxing of public morals so that we see sex scenes on tv, cleavage in ads for everything, and the FHMing of pretty much all photo shoots.

But sensationalism, titillation, and ridicule, all reminding girls and women that they will always be defined by and reduced to their sexual attractiveness (or lack thereof) and their sexual behaviours – now that’s an effective form of social control. (p. 57)

For enlightened sexism to convince most women, especially girls and young women, that feminism is unnecessary, irrelevant, or horrid, the media had to make clear what would happen if the advance of feminism were not halted. They had to make it clear that feminism, if taken too far, would turn girls and women into monsters or ridiculous, unlovable freaks. (p. 74)

But there’s something running through the book that makes me uncomfortable: the subtle judging. Demi Moore is blamed for pressure to be sexy while pregnant; Sandra Oh is called “flawless”; the Living Single character Synclaire is called a “dimwit”. The thing is, I do agree with her premise, that we’re all being sold this idea that we’ve achieved true gender equality, so women should stop being political and go back to being pretty things to look at and fuck. That it’s only ugly, hairy, humourless feminists who say there is still work to be done. Indeed, that young women should avoid feminism because it will make them ugly, hairy and humourless. But I’m surprised that in a book criticising the policing of women’s bodies, the author has failed to notice that she also polices women’s bodies.

Sex and sexism

Do we honestly think men are completely at the mercy of their pants? That they are unable to control their lust, particularly when a saucy minx arrives to tempt them from their marital bed? If that was really the case, then sexual assault wouldn’t be a criminal offence. So why is this sexist image still used in reporting?

The first sentence of this AFP story, picked up by News.com.au and smh.com.au reads:

THE teenager at the heart of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s marital woes denies any responsibility in the break-up of his marriage, in an interview to be telecast on Sunday in Italy.

Do we really think the Italian Prime Minister is that easily manipulated? By a teenager? If Berlusconi – or any married person – has an affair, then the responsibility for the effect that has on their marriage is theirs.

The article then goes on to pit the two women against the other, no doubt hoping for a catfight where they rip each other’s clothes off. And then pash.

I remember seeing the cover of a tabloid mag a few months ago, screaming “Hollywood homewreckers” and featuring photos of women – because men don’t wreck their own marriages, right? – and thinking that we still have so far to go.

Men and childbirth

Over the weekend some of the Sunday papers carried an opinion piece by London obstetrician Michel Odent, arguing that male partners shouldn’t be present when a woman is giving birth. Now, not being a doctor, I can’t comment on the medical stuff he goes into – such as his stress hormones affecting her – but there is one bit that was just too much: “if a man is present at birth, will be the effect on the sexual attraction he feels towards his wife?”

I’m sorry? Ignoring his idea that if a woman has just had a baby she must be married, how about sparing a thought for the woman who, having just been through pregnancy and childbirth, might not want to have sex again for a very very long time.

He also says that men suffer a sort of post-natal depression in the 24 hours after the bub is born, and that this is another reason why men shouldn’t be present in the delivery room. Um, we don’t deal with post-natal depression in women by telling other women not to have babies in case they get it. As a doctor, he should know this.

The problem with this stuff is that although it’s good that pregnancy and labour are being talked about in the mainstream media, most of it isn’t very helpful. And almost all of it is about telling women what to do.

Showing the bodies

I was cleaning up my inbox and I found this opinion piece by Michael Vistonay about the Johns-Sharks group sex story. He writes that rather than being about moral outrage (don’t get me started on the issue of consent!), the story has more to do with the power of the media: people were outraged because they saw the distress of the woman involved. He writes that if we hadn’t seen the woman’s profound trauma and grief, the Four Corners story would be just another report into footballers behaving badly.

Which made me think about terrorism and natural disasters. Dead bodies are rarely shown, creating this idea that only cars are killed in car bombings. The pictures of car bomb victims are awful. They’re naked because their clothes were burnt off. And their skin is charred and limbs bloated. It’s so undignified and so human. Maybe if more of these images were shown, there would be greater action on behalf of rich nations like ours to do something about it?

I wonder how the photographers who take these photos – and no doubt need counselling afterwards – feel when their work is sanitised? Let’s just pretend that no one was hurt so we don’t feel queasy.

Where did feminism get Miranda?

I almost stayed away from it it all day. Almost. But Miranda Devine is up to her usual feminist-bashing, blaming all the evils of the world on feminism.

Apparently it’s feminism’s fault that rugby league players like a gang bang, and the whole Matthew Johns story is about the media’s war on masculinity. Because – as we all know – the media is notoriously run by feminists, what with the long line of male editors at the Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, The Age, and The Daily Telegraph.

According to Ms Devine – and she can thank feminism for allowing her to keep her maiden name and be Ms Devine – this feminist-controlled media has been blaming war and domestic violence on rugby league. Riiiiight. And how she goes from the feminist mainstream media hellbent on destroying masculinity to teens having clinical sex, devoid of emotions, is impressive. She writes there’s also chaos in the mating world and feminism is to blame. Take that, feminism! But Miranda, without feminism, would you be writing in the Sydney Morning Herald?