the return of sexism. third wave fail.

[seabeyond]

Natasha Walter, in her latest book, Living Dolls

She then goes on to describe how soft-porn images and attitudes are omnipresent in popular culture: in magazines, newspapers, music videos, reality TV, the internet, etc, exaggerating "the deeper imbalances of power in our society". Walter writes about a sexualised culture in which empowerment and liberation have become equated and confused with sexual objectification. The language of choice and freedom is cleverly used to try and legitimise what is, in effect, a cultural counterrevolution. Women dieting, undergoing surgery, stripping, believing that fame and success are defined by how closely they conform to a narrow image of sexuality: "If this is the new sexual liberation", writes Walter, "it looks too uncannily like the old sexism to convince many of us that this is the freedom we have sought". Leaving aside for a moment the effect that all of this has on the way that women are viewed and treated generally in society, these images offer an extremely limiting and narrow view of sexuality. It is one that is defined by the sex industry which, Walter’s book suggests, is becoming ever more pervasive. This is not a criticism based on moral considerations. If young women think that being sexually liberated means behaving like a porn star, and if young men’s sexual experience is dictated by pornography in which women are merely objects for men to control and abuse, how can we say that choices and experiences are being expanded? Instead, the reality is that they are becoming restricted for both women and men.

At the same time, sexist images of women in popular culture are not just a bit of harmless fun, they influence and impact on men’s attitudes and behaviour towards women, and on women’s own view of themselves. Tender, an educational charity working with 13-18 year olds in schools in greater London, surveyed 288 young people and found that 29% of male and female students felt it was sometimes OK for a man to hit a woman if she slept with someone else. Eighty per cent thought that girls and women sometimes encourage violence and abuse by the way they dress, and 76% thought that a woman encourages violence by not treating men with respect. Walter cites examples of sexual bullying (harassment) in schools which, according to Kidscape, is on the increase: from one to two calls a year four or five years ago, to two or three a week now. Sexual bullying can involve ‘sexting’ (circulating sexual images by mobile phone), calling girls names such as ‘slags’, ‘slappers’, ‘bitches’, or ‘whores’, or physical touching and even rape.

*

Stereotyped gender roles

THIS ALSO EXPLAINS why biological determinist ideas about gender differences appear to be making a comeback. Most people are familiar with the title of John Gray’s bestselling self-help book, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. Psychologists, like Steven Pinker and Susan Pinker, and scientists, like Simon Baron-Cohen, have also written popular books which argue that differences between men and women are explained by biology and the way in which our brains have become ‘hard-wired’ over centuries. We are told, for example, that men are better than women at maths and have more spatial awareness, and women are better at language and relationships, that behavioural and cognitive differences are determined not by social factors but by our genes and our hormones.

*

Walter argues that "without thoroughgoing economic and political change, what we see when we look around is not the equality we once sought; it is a stalled revolution". But how that change will come about she never really explains. "Television producers and publishers have told me the same story", writes Walter, "that in society they cannot make decisions based on quality or morality, they must make decisions based on sales. Throughout our society, any attempt to complain about or change this culture is often met by fatalism; if the market is so powerful, then how can any individual stand against it?" On an individual basis, resistance against the capitalist market system is limited. Collective struggle, however, which challenges the structurally unequal economic and social relations of capitalism, could lay the basis for ending sexism, and all forms cultural and social oppression as well as material inequality

http://www.socialismtoday.org/138/sexism.html
________________________

"The conclusions drawn by the influential feminist, Natasha Walter, in her latest book, Living Dolls, may surprise readers of her earlier material. In an honest reappraisal of her position, Walter now accepts that sexism and discrimination against women are ever more widespread, and that it is not possible to separate the personal from the political in capitalist society. CHRISTINE THOMAS reviews this change"

in the 90's walters wrote a book New Feminism. in it she argued "that feminists should no longer be too anxious about the sexual objectification of women". she felt it was ‘Old feminism’ and she thought they too hung up on the personal and wanted a feminism where personal was separated from political.

after a decade, her position has shifted.

where my position is, it seems like our sexual liberation has resulted in an oppression. i have been looking at the 80's and 90's to see what happened with our direction that lead us to where we are today. i think that this new and improved oppression has allowed the total disrespect and dehumanizing women that has allowed the political party and the right to feed off it helping to create an environment where they have been allowed the recent war on women. i believe the war is being played out in the extreme of both sides which takes us to the always present virgin/whore.

and i just like this picture that someone sent to me.

[Squinch]

1. Is this a fundamental pitfall of our lifecycle? Just an unformed thought as I read that.

When I was younger, in the full power of my sexual appearance, I used that power. I had a corporate job, and I knew that if I could combine competence with "showing leg," I would have entry to more places that I would with just the competence alone. Nothing sleazy by any means, but I wore the heels, and showed the leg. And it worked.

When I got older, the career changed and that attention was no longer part of the equation. I was delighted that I could be seen as a full person and not the person attached to that leg. But it was only when the attention went away that I realized how very high the cost of that attention was.

I don't know if you could have convinced me in my younger years that what I was doing was actually destructive to me, and there was no way for me then to understand the joy of - for lack of a better word - "personhood" that you experience when your appearance is not the primary reason for the attention you get.

Today we have Femen. I truly wonder if there is any way to convince young women that exploiting the primitive power that comes from the objectification of their bodies, and therefore themselves, has too high a cost for the benefits it brings?

Walter seems to have gone through the same attitude change.

[seabeyond]

3. i know i recognized the usage of body to get my way as inherently wrong. for whatever reason.

i thought about it.

and i know i purposely went thru life not using my body to get what i wanted. cause... i knew it was inherently wrong.

i get that a lot of women, in youth, and lack of experience, knowledge, fore-thought do not get or see it. nor do i expect them to. but... i do think with discussion, and especially the repercussions today of the addictive, obsessive porn world, and hypersexualization, they are living the repercussions 100x's more than we did and get a very strong visual. allowing them to get it much sooner and clearer than we did.

not being perfect. there were other traps i fell into. anti feminism cause i am not a man hater. friends with men, cause... you know those women. ect...

[Squinch]

14. This is interesting to think about. We thought we were

the ultimate feminists because we were, really, the first wave of women rising to the top of the corporate world. And I think we felt, "Whatever works. If they are dopey enough to give me an ear because I look good in a pencil skirt, I'll wear a pencil skirt. I have enough working against me, if this works for me, I'll use it."

BUT as I look back now, it was a uniform. We ALL knew that a woman needed to be attractively dressed at all times or you would not fulfill the image. The image wasn't really questioned, and the optimal image was a woman who was first, sexual and second, competent.

BUT, on the other hand, I wonder if my mentor, who absolutely used that sexual/competent strategy - and other women like her - had not risen through the ranks to become president of the company - and women presidents of other companies- would women be in a position they are today where they can succeed without having to display their sexuality?

I love these conversations. I did that, but I have never thought about it till now, 25 years later.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. I don't know, sea -

as long as monetary gain is how we measure success in the world, I do believe
I will have to call Third Wave a Major Success.

I see too many Mothers of Daughters Proud of the money their children make in these types of industries.

That is their right, seabeyond.

That is where they are.

That is what they want their children to aspire to be. That is all they ask of their child. No more. Child does not need to grow and develop the mind, the personality, the talents. Make the money fast while you are still young, nubile and pleasing to the eye.

That is how they are raising their children.

It is all about the

Money.

[seabeyond]

5. the fail is in the let down of the feminist movement. hence, speak up, loudly, hard and fast, every.

single. time.

two decades of lost ground trying to be gentle and coddle male ego. it failed. we have lost ground. recognize and correct.

this is not about society and where it is. this is about the feminist movement, acknowledging the fail and redirecting.

like gail dines has doone

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. at some point, I think Feminists will need to aline with and, redefine as a Humanist Movement -

spirit knows no gender.

I think it is good = sea.

we have moved = beyond

Rise up.

Move on.

Mappho ... always an element that will be left behind.

that will move at a slower pace.

that will not get it ... at the same time ... as the rest of us.

That is OK, too. .... I think .... I am fine to leave those behind that do not get it.

I am moving on.

[seabeyond]

9. move on. but... that very thing is what helped create the backlash today. raise our children as

people, not gender... we are well on our way. but, what we are living today has got to be debunked or too many parents will nto be raising our children as people, but a fucked up version of gender.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. I don't know. I try not to let DU3 cloud my vision of the world.

This place is so small.

When I am not here, I do see people the world over rising up.

Americans, especially those still tranquil in their middle class roles, are not uncomfortable enough yet to effect the change that is being brought about in the rest of the world.

We lag behind in education and this is just a part of that.

Do not get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from.

but, you know how when you break camp, you burn and dispose of the garbage ...

perhaps from those ashes a phoenix will arise.

[malthaussen]

15. I'd observe that dehumanization/degradation for monetary gain is not restricted to women...

... that it is one of the accepted means of advancement in our money-craving society. Only the men degrade themselves by subjugation, not by showing leg. Although what goes on in those country-club locker rooms, I can only guess...

-- Mal

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. I think I address that phenomenon with my post #8 in this thread.

[malthaussen]

17. "We are the chorus, and we agree"

"We agree, we agree, we agree."

-- Mal

[Tuesday Afternoon]

18. ... lol ...

am I shouting to choir, then ...

[JustAnotherGen]

4. Naomi Wolf warned us

The "Iron Maiden" would imprison us . . .

I do not - do not - accept the dehumanization of woman as mere objects as a form of freedom. I simply do not.

[seabeyond]

6. it was wrong when i heard it at 12, it was wrong when i realize even i felt i was subordinate to man

at 17 and i certainly know it is bullshit now.

we dehumanize to kill in war.

what moral can validate dehumanization of women.

what utter, useless human being would promote the dehumanization of women.

[ismnotwasm]

7. I still say the root of the problem is lack of diversity

When hetero, cis, white women are no longer the "voice" of feminism. You might see a variety of cultural responses, but they'll be true choices, not the result of being gendered and objectified from birth.

Intersectionality is feminist health. Human health

Explain. Homosexuality and Trans folk if "biological differences" are the holy grail of gender in science. I just read they found another possible gene for Gay men-- passed through the maternal line. It's still speculation, or, not proof at this point.

And absolutely our capitalist/corporate system plays a huge part

[seabeyond]

10. that is what the world wide net gives us ism. i absolutely agree, but i think that is here and now.

we listen, we learn, we shout out. look at the women in other countries standing up and speaking out. and we stand beside. we do not shout out, it is their voice. we do not direct and guide, it is their voice. we revel in their voice. adn we stand by their side, in solidarity and support.

and i had already read that it is from the maternal side, a decade ago. so i do not know how new that is.

but... thank you so much for this post. i agree.

[ismnotwasm]

12. There is a just the tiniest bit closer confirmation

And a different area I think. Can't be causation because not every homosexual male carries the gene.

[seabeyond]

13. i didnt read it the other day.

thanks for more info. appreciate it.

[starroute]

19. Part of this involves the twisted, bottom-line way our economy works

Last edited Sun Feb 16, 2014, 02:22 PM - Edit history (1)

One of the quotes in the OP says:"Television producers and publishers have told me the same story", writes Walter, "that in society they cannot make decisions based on quality or morality, they must make decisions based on sales."

But that's disingenuous. My son, who is very interested in the doings of the comics industry, has explained to me how this applies to the recent moves by DC Comics that have pissed so many people off. DC has recently narrowed down the scope of what they publish to appeal primarily to middle-class white males in their 30s and 40s. This makes short-term economic sense for them, because if 50% of your potential readers fall into a single demographic, while the other 50% are more widely spread out, you get the most bang for the buck by focusing on that one dominant group and ignoring everyone else. But it's also a long-term recipe for corporate disaster.

Part of that marketing strategy also grows out of the fact that a single issue of a comic now costs $4 or $5 -- compared to when I was a kid and you could buy a comic or two out of your weekly allowance and still have a nickle left over for penny candy. That in itself limits the potential market to the dwindling pool of people who can afford those prices and makes it a more attractive sales strategy to target only those people.

Inequality and greed aren't the only causes of rampant sexism in the media, of course. But I suspect they're the primary explanations for why it's getting so over-the-top right now.

[redqueen]

20. Thank you. This is not about sales. This was demonstrated very well just recently.

He said, “They’re all for the boys, we do not want the girls! I mean, I’ve heard executives say this, you know, not where I am but at other places, saying like, ‘We do not want girls watching these shows.” When Smith pointed out that was a strange move because, well, women are 51% of the population, Dini said, “They don’t buy toys. The girls buy different toys.”

True, most “girls” don’t buy “boy” toys and there’s a much longer history as to why that happens which I won’t bother delving into here, but as Smith next pointed out – aren’t there other merchandising options to make money from the “girls” market?

http://www.themarysue.com/warner-bros-animation-girl-market/

Of course there are other opportunities. This isn't about merchandising, it's about bias.

[Nikia]

21. I think that toys are more gendered than they were 20-30 years ago

This is supposedly based on sales too. I think it does show though that there are interests who want to push the gender divide.