|
9 September 2005
Sexual Equality: Big Issue or Big Distraction?
by Angie Rankman 
Young women today find it hard to believe that the idea of “female sexuality” didn’t exist before the 1960s. It’s perhaps easy to forget that it was the so-called gender war of the 60s and 70s that allowed women to progress through various stages of what might be called “sexual enlightenment”. The movement was sparked by proto-feminist Germaine Greer’s book the Female Eunuch; which she then described as part of a second wave feminist movement after the suffragettes before her.
But many women today believe feminism has outlived its usefulness. We can dress how we want, sleep with who we want, drink what we want and even belch, fart, vomit and curse if we want to. We’ve finally got equality, haven’t we? In many areas, that’s probably true, but female sexual equality is still a sticking point with the feminist old guard who say that women are still conforming to male sexual expectations. And it’s not hard to see what they’re complaining about. Soft-porn music videos, ludicrous fashions and the sexualization of minors are all easy targets. And the cause isn’t helped by the consumer marketing juggernaut that has all but drowned out any feminist voices of dissent.
The “selling” of beauty, based on male expectations of beauty, is one of the areas that this marketing juggernaut has a lot to answer for. Bleaching, waxing, plucking, worrying about cellulite and all manner of primping - coupled with constant monitoring and maintenance – doesn’t seem entirely healthy. Why the hell are body hair and cellulite talked about as though they were abnormalities? Scientists refer to anyone who has an obsession with perceived defects in their appearance as having Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD), a condition that can lead to anxiety, feelings of worthlessness and, in extreme cases, even suicide. Greer, in her later book The Whole Woman, writes that: “As a way of inducing them to buy products of no use or value, women have been deliberately infected with BDD.” But is this a fair comment? Haven’t Madonna and Grrrl Power in the 80s and 90s, shown women that they can be sexual goddesses, mothers and business magnates? Surely the war is over.
Author Linda Scott believes that the war never began, and that beauty, fashion and grooming is just part of being human. In the introduction of her new book Fresh Lipstick: Redressing Fashion and Feminism, Scott claims that: "Feminist writers have consistently argued that a woman's attempts to cultivate her appearance makes her a dupe of fashion, the plaything of men, and thus a collaborator in her own oppression." Scott points out, however, that people in all cultures, throughout history, have groomed and decorated themselves, and for a complex variety of reasons, not just sexual attraction. Feminists have often advocated a more natural appearance, but what's natural is for people to alter their appearance, Scott writes. Is it possible that feminists have been too focused on the superfluous rather than the substance of female equity; making fashion a feminist distraction?
Lynne Segal, author of Straight Sex, cites pornography as being one of the issues that occupied the feminist cause while there were widespread defeats on feminist issues that really mattered. Segal writes that the election of Ronald Reagan brought with it a swathe of cuts to welfare and a conservative backlash to radical politics. And as a result of this, women adopted the narrow issue of pornography as the symbol of women’s defeat. “Ironically, however, as some black feminists have pointed out, it was white, middle-class women, rather than the real victims of Reagan’s conservative agenda – black and ethnic minority women – who formed and led the anti-pornography movement,” writes Segal. While it was, and still is, the case that black and ethnic minorities more often suffer the consequences of sex-related issues (abortion, abuse, poor health care and welfare), one commentator noted that: “it is because white feminists already have most of their basic needs met, that they can afford to highlight their sexual experiences as the most restraining, if not sole, source of women’s oppression.”
Despite the differences between white women’s “sexual experiences” and minority health issues, white feminists still make a good case that pornography is violence, and the volume, content, accessibility and acceptability of pornography incites men to rape and perpetuates the subjugation of women. One of pornography’s biggest adversaries is Catherine MacKinnon, who holds a rigid belief that pornography should be outlawed entirely. MacKinnon claims that pornography is defamation comparable to that of racist slogans and burning crosses, and should not, therefore, be protected by the right to free speech. But is there no portrayal of sexuality that could be deemed acceptable?
What if the creator of a pornographic work was a woman who used it in a way that shattered male-dominated depictions? In 2002, documentary filmmaker Becky Goldberg made a film called Hot and Bothered: Feminist Pornography that looked at women who perform, direct, produce and sell feminist pornography. In a recent interview for Iris, Goldberg was asked about MacKinnon’s views on pornography. Goldberg stated that she had read a lot of MacKinnon’s work in order for her to get to grips with the resistance that feminists in the porn industry were up against. “It made me realize that so many women today assume that porn hurts women because of writings from twenty years ago. Women don’t give porn a chance because they assume it is unladylike. As much as I think that Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon contributed to the feminist movement, I found some of their views old-fashioned,” explained Goldberg. Goldberg claims that there is a huge difference between feminist porn and the mainstream exploitative kind that most males buy. Asked how it is different, Goldberg said: “I think you have to go with your gut when watching porn. If you are watching something that makes you feel uncomfortable, feel gross, fat, or feel sympathy for the woman onscreen, it is probably not feminist.”
Would having pornography banned do anything to further the feminist agenda; would its eradication help advance important matters such as maternity leave and contraceptive equity in health insurance plans? Getting to the heart of these types of issues is more likely to bring about respect toward women than worrying about fashion or pornography. The fashion and pornography industries, while rightly abhorred in their more oppressive and violent incarnations, appear presently to be red herrings. Linda Scott believes that there is a “Third Wave” of feminism mobilizing out of a younger generation who hold more sophisticated notions about dress and sexuality. Scott believes that there are simply more important issues, especially when looking at the status of women in a global context. “Voices from around the world report a variety of conditions and systems under which only one thing holds constant – the universal second-class status of females,” said Scott. “If there was ever a moment when the women of one culture had a responsibility toward their sisters in other nations, this is it. We should not waste time quibbling over what to wear to the conflict.”
|
