Our RSS News
The return of sexism (though it never went away)
Feminist author and journalist Natasha Walter has a new book out, titled “Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism.” Kira Cochrane interviewed her this week in the Guardian. It's a fascinating interview, but even more so when compared and contrasted with the article that Walter herself writes in the Daily Mail. To my mind, sexism has never gone away, we have all grown up with it, and it has held us all back in various ways. Then again Ms Walter has forced herself in a corner on the subject. She has to factor in its return, because rumours of its demise were entirely exaggerated in her previous offering, The New Feminism.
“I believed sexism would wither away. I was entirely wrong”
I can forgive her optimism to some extent, while never agreeing with it. It was pre-millenium after all, New Labour had just won the election, and there was more female representation than ever before, but that was such a disappointing book! Naive even! There is indeed some explanation in her Guardian interview which explains her optimism and her withdrawal from that position, however.
Kira Cochrane asks:
“Was she more optimistic about the prospect of equality back then,
with New Labour just elected, and women such as Mo Mowlam, Clare Short and
Harriet Harman riding high in politics? ” Natasha Walters: “Totally.” “I really felt that we were on an irresistible
journey. There was still this big gap to close, but I felt that we wanted to
close it, and it was possible to close it, and therefore we would. We were in
a virtuous circle. And what I feel now is that policy changes are not
enough, because the culture is still very resistant to
change.”
The culture indeed. The all pervasive, objectificating pornification culture.
I am however bewildered by the fact that in the Daily Mail article it seems to read as though feminism is somehow to blame for this, in contrast with the Guardian piece which seems to suggest that feminism is the solution.
A paradox, or two sides of the same coin? You decide. Comment below.
Could it be a metaphor for the fact that while women hold the key to our own liberty, at the same time some of us can be our own worst enemy? Or is it that sexuality through the prism of patriarchy will always result in this paradox?
It's no suprise that the Mail website has pictures of women in various states of undress to accompany the article, a veritable parade of women in swimsuits and gowns and and sporting, as my co-host Victoria put it, “plastic-inflated spherical breasts!” We all know (or should know by now) that the Daily Mail is no friend to women, or feminism. I was surprised by the tone of the article that Ms Walter chose to put in the Daily Mail. Anything to promote a book I suppose. What is also suprising as Victoria pointed out to me is that the comments at The Guardian were far worse than the Daily Mail!
Depressing enough, but proof of how far we have yet to go. I haven't read the book yet, and so it would be unfair for me to comment further than to say that it looks interesting enough that I probably will. I agree with where I think she is going with it...
“I was surprised by the attitudes of the girls I interviewed,” she
says, “who seemed to feel that they would be mocked if they protested within
their peer groups.” “You know, when I was at university [in the 80s] it was OK to be
annoyed about sexism, to take it quite seriously – if you argued about
it, it didn't make you the subject of mockery. Even if you didn't
particularly identify yourself as a feminist, you could choose where you
wanted to be on a spectrum, and you could still say, ‘I really don't want Page
3 in the common room,’ or, ‘I really hate the idea of porn’ . . . I
was surprised when I was interviewing young women that they felt
uncomfortable engaging in that way.“
Still ... the proof of the pudding and all that. If and when I have read it, I will review it here on the miscellani.org blog.
Sexism has re-advanced, no doubt about it in my mind, and it is enabled through the pornification of just about everything and via the smoke and mirrrors charade that this porn culture is any way empowering for women. But I blame the patriarchy itself. I do not understand the author's logic of blaming feminism, even to promote a book. For one thing, feminism is not a homogeneous movement.
But still, here we agree. The sexualisation culture is harmful to women, and for me we have reached the outer limits of liberal feminism. For every woman who chooses to freely express her sexuality and career through lapdancing, topless modelling, prostitution or the porn industry there is a woman who is harmed by it through the misogynistic attitude that prevails as an effect of it. It is simple cause and effect, though I do not claim to know what the solution is, this is an open discussion.
For background reading on Natasha Walter, I reccommend this F-Word interview from 2002. The interview discusses different approaches to feminism in Britain and the United States, and gives a good introduction to Walters' thinking.
The situation in America is very similar to the UK in my opinion, well documented by BettyJean over at FreeUsNow in her series, Sexualizing America. Do visit and check out the video.
“Last February PBS attempted to alert us to the danger out teen
girls are facing as they venture into the workplace. Did that make the news?
No! Did women’s groups March on Washington and raise hell about that ? NO! Did
NOW and Women’s Media Groups or other women’s groups run a series such as
mine demonstrating the possible causes and suggesting how we can help end
it? NO!”
Meanwhile hope comes in an important link: from the comments at the Guardian.
The MILLION WOMEN RISE march is on the 6th of March 2010 @ 12pm opposite Hyde Park.
articles indicated for further reading:
· Fourth Wave Feminism?
· Holding Back the Waves
· When Crowds Cheer and A Woman’s Heart Be Still
· Politics 101 for the UK General Election 2010
· Liberty for Lubna
The two MSM articles by and about Natasha Walter seem aimed at promoting her book., with the bonus of undermining feminism. However, Kathryn, I may take some comfort in your own article here at the blog, where you brook no foolishness from either her or the Guardian and Daily Mail.
I think you’re getting much closer to the truth than she ever does when you ask, “Or is it that sexuality through the prism of patriarchy will always result in this paradox?”
I’ll raise ya a couple of other questions:
Is any sexuality whatsoever being expressed through pornography, much less the sexuality of those women being objectified?
Since when is Objectification the same as Sexuality, or the so-called Sex Industry even truly synonymous with Sexual Expression?
Now that their dirty “industry” has taken all the real honest-to-goodness fun silly warm inspiring Sex out of it, aren’t they really just selling Womanhood, after all— turning women into nameless bodies to be manipulated and even enslaved?
Pretending to be dolls on parade will get women Nowhere.
Misogyny prevails because it serves a dual role as both cause and effect. Women and girls in the “industry” have no real “choice” in one regard to be sure– we feminists must count them amongst all of us being harmed.
Thank you for mentioning my blog piece. You may find more answers to your questions by visiting my blog http://freemenow.wordpress.com and doing a search on Sexualizing America. I have 5 pieces up and by following along beginning at #1 – I believe you may get a better picture of both why this is happening or resurging.
I hold that this has been sneaking up on us for 40 some odd years- when Women left their apron strings in the kitchen and entered the workplace and in order to stay there and get ahead they were forced to hike up the skirt and lower the neckline and in effect trade in that apron string for a G string or what they now call a thong!
Is it any wonder that younger and younger girls who have been raised on a steady diet of this have come to accept it as the norm? Is it any wonder that males raised on it would come to think of all females as prey and eye candy to be sought for sexual purposes only?
Consider those posing- all under 40- they have never known anything else! Normal – Females are sex objects – prey – males are predators and purveyors of sex!
BINGO!
I am clearly behind on my feminist news!
This was a great post! I’ve been hearing a lot about Natasha Walter and her new book and I’m curious to learn more– thanks providing all those links! I’ll go exploring. I’m especially interested in learning about the differences/similarities between British and USA feminists.
@ Victoria -” Since when is Objectification the same as Sexuality, or the so-called Sex Industry even truly synonymous with Sexual Expression?”
Exactly! That’s what I want to know. I’ve gotten into some intense debates recently regarding objectification and someone always, always conflates sexual expression with objectification. (Unfortunately, some of those people claim to be feminists). So, in the end, they end up excusing porn or any other objectifying behavior on the grounds of “choice” and by some biological determinism gibberish that it’s a human impulse to objectify others. Since we all do it, it’s not a big deal.