Getting Real

by Melinda Tankard Reist

  The Feminist Movement and the ‘Sexual Revolution’ compared

  As soon as the contraceptive pill became available in the 1960s3 and women could enjoy sex with little fear of becoming pregnant, those who sought to profit from exploiting women’s sexuality began to confuse this newfound sexual freedom with feminism. The message conveyed to society was that a feminist is a woman who is willing to experiment with sex and to make herself constantly available to men for all kinds of sexual experiences. It didn’t matter to those promoting such ideas that they were actually the antithesis of the feminist message, which is, above all, about mutual respect and equality.

  To this day, women who speak positively about sex, who endorse pornography and prostitution, or who act in overtly sexual ways in public, are often said to be behaving in ‘feminist’ ways or assumed to be feminists. Even Australian sex therapist Bettina Arndt who, during the 1970s, was associated with Forum magazine (a publication encouraging experimentation with a variety of forms of sex), was dubbed a feminist. How she was given that title is curious since any cursory examination of her writing would lead to a serious questioning of that claim.

  * * *

  3 The oral contraceptive pill was approved for use in the USA in 1960 and was available in Australia on January 1, 1961. It took some time before health concerns were discussed in public (see Klein, this volume).

  * * *

  In her latest book, The Sex Diaries (2009), Arndt strongly rejects the feminist view that women have the right to say ‘no’ to sex when they don’t want it. Her primary concern is for men and their sexual needs. She says that ‘[t]he right to say “no” needs to give way to saying “yes” more often…’ (Arndt, 2009, p. 12). She suggests women—whose libidos she compares to ‘damp wood’— work at getting their heads in the right place in the lead-up to sex (p. 81). She supports the idea that women work at reprogramming their minds (p. 82) by conjuring up enjoyable fantasies while their husbands/partners are having sex with them. And, using the language of the market, Bettina Arndt talks about the need for women to keep up the ‘sex supply’ (p. 128) even when they are not particularly interested in having sex.

  An interesting observation is that there seems to be no requirement at all in Arndt’s Sex Diaries for men to change their behaviour. Her theory is that, if a man is getting all the sex he needs and wants, he will be happier and may very well begin to ‘throw a mop around the kitchen floor or wipe down the benches’ (p. 177). The onus is on women alone. If they want better relationships with men, it is up to them to change their attitudes and behaviour in relation to sex. The unfortunate message conveyed to girls by such an arrangement is that it’s OK for women to use sex as a way of getting something from a man in return—which is, in fact, the basis of prostitution.

  One woman’s response to Bettina Arndt’s book was expressed recently on a feminist email discussion list:

  So what’s so surprising that Arndt is championing sex for the fellas? She was at the forefront of the sexual liberation in Aust in 60s & 70s (remember Forum?) And as every thinking person knows the sexual revolution was all about making sex easier, more frequent & with less responsibility for men. It commodified sex. It hoodwinked women into thinking there was some benefit for them. Sexual liberation and feminism are two quite different things. Women shouldn’t feel guilty for maintaining their autonomy, self-respect and independence. It’s our basic right (f-agenda email list, March 1, 2009. Quoted with permission from the author).

  In addition to our concern about such a negative focus on individual women’s sexual responses, many feminists have fought hard against the pornography and prostitution industries, claiming that they encourage the sexualisation and subordination of women and girls. On the other hand, there are those who call themselves feminists who are doing their best to align feminism with the so-called sexual revolution by claiming that prostitution and pornography are empowering for women. Katherine Albury and Catharine Lumby, in their book (with Alan McKee), The Porn Report (2008), reject the feminist view that such practices subordinate women to men. They claim that pornography can be good for women and good for relationships. No doubt, the prostitution and pornography industries which make huge profits out of the exploitation of women, depend on liberal feminists such as Albury and Lumby to give legitimacy to their industries.

  The tactic of linking feminism with the sexual revolution achieves two goals: a) to give the impression that a woman who freely accepts the sexualisation of women is a strong, liberated woman; and b) to misrepresent feminism and rob it of any chance of being seen as the powerful social and political movement that it is.

  Commenting on the so-called sexual revolution, Carole Moschetti writes (2005, p. 232):

  …this supposed revolution ushered in an ideology of sexual liberalism which supported the de-censorship of pornography and a sexual relativism around sexual practice that was harmful to women’s interests… The effect of this sexual relativism was to shore up men’s right to sexual access to girls and women and make feminist campaigning against sexual exploitation more difficult.

  While equating the Feminist Movement with the Sexual Revolution is designed to give legitimacy to those who seek to profit from this connection, feminists working for justice and equality make it clear that the feminist movement as they know it is totally opposed to such de-valuing of women.

  Sexualisation: the measure of women’s worth

  How have sex, sexiness and sexualisation gained such favour in recent years as to be the measure by which women’s and girls’ worth is judged? While it is not a new phenomenon by any means, there is something different about the way it occurs today and how it impacts on younger and younger girls.

  Feminists in the 1960s and 1970s spoke out against the sexual objectification of women in beauty pageants, in the media and in advertising. Robin Morgan writes about her involvement in the 1968 women’s demonstration against the Miss America pageant in Atlantic City, New Jersey. One of the reasons she cites for targeting the pageant was that ‘it is patently degrading to women (in propagating the Mindless Sex-Object Image)…’ (Morgan, 1993, p. 25).

  In 1970, Morgan wrote the article ‘Goodbye to all that’ which has become a classic in feminist literature. There is no doubt that one of the reasons for its popularity has been that it expresses the disappointment so many feminists felt, and still feel today, about the sexist attitudes of some men on the Left (see Bray, this volume). Morgan tells of her decision in 1969 to stop writing for Rat, a newspaper of the New Left in New York, because its ‘…new priorities of rock music coverage, pornographic articles and graphics, and sex-wanted ads…began to clog the pages’ (pp. 49–50).

  In her article, Morgan records some of the horrendously sexist quotes from men on the Left. One ‘brother’ was heard to say: ‘What the hell, let the chicks do an issue [of the newsletter]; maybe it’ll satisfy ‘em for a while…’ (p. 58). In another setting, a ‘brother’ wrote ‘F*ck your women till they can’t stand up’ (p. 64). Summing up the feelings of so many feminists who have tried to work with men in socialist or Marxist settings throughout the years, Morgan says: ‘We have met the enemy and he’s our friend’ (p. 58).

  The sexualising of women by a society which is dominated by men and which exists predominantly to satisfy men’s needs is a rather effective way of trivialising and subordinating women. Second Wave feminists like Robin Morgan were aware that a woman who is treated as a sex object is not someone who will be taken seriously. She is there to be used by men and then dismissed or ignored when she attempts to express an opinion or make a serious statement. Fast-forwarding to Bettina Arndt’s writing in 2009, again I ask what messages are we passing on to our girls?

  With the aim of achieving justice and equality, feminists fought a fierce battle against pornography and its right to exist as a legally sanctioned industry in the USA. In 1983, Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin presented a legal ordinance to the City of Minneapolis which they described as ‘a se
x equality law, a civil-rights law, a law that says that sexual subordination of women through pictures and words, this sexual traffic in women, violates women’s civil rights’ (MacKinnon, 1990, p. 9). The ordinance was defeated on the grounds that pornography was a ‘freedom of speech’ issue. It was argued that those who use pornography (mainly men) have a right to do so in a democracy based on individual freedoms. Commenting on the decision some time later, Andrea Dworkin summed it up by saying ‘…the constitutional rights of the pornographers…superseded in importance the speech rights of women and children who were shut up by pornography’ (Dworkin, in Stark and Whisnant, 2004, p. 137). Men’s right to free speech, that is, to have access to pornography, was deemed to be more important than women’s right to equality, women’s right to be treated with respect.4

  * * *

  4 For a detailed treatment of the issue of pornography as a free vs fair speech issue, see my forthcoming book, Unspeakable: A feminist ethic of speech.

  * * *

  The authors of the Northern Territory Government’s Little Children are Sacred report (2007) pointed to pornography as a significant contributing factor in the epidemic of child sexual abuse evident in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory at that time (Wise and Anderson, 2007). Commenting on the report in an On Line Opinion piece, Melinda Tankard Reist expressed the strong view that ‘(c)hildren suffering porn-driven sexual abuse should come before sex industry profits’ (Tankard Reist, 2007). Sheila Jeffreys, in The Industrial Vagina: The political economy of the global sex trade (2009) refers to the harmful effects of pornography expressed in the report (pp. 82–83):

  The report is clear that the effects are harmful, stating that “[t]he daily diet of sexually explicit material has had a major impact, presenting young and adolescent Aboriginals with a view of mainstream sexual practice and behaviour which is jaundiced. It encourages them to act out the fantasies they see on screen or in magazines.”

  The report also blames pornography for the advent of sexualized behaviour evident in young people and even in young children who act out sexually and aggressively towards each other… The problem had got to the point where in one community “girls did not understand that they had a choice to refuse sex. They accepted that if they walked around at night they were available for sex.”

  To this day, the right to use pornographic, degrading images of women is upheld by the law. Consequently, the pornography industry has grown exponentially to the point where pornographic images of women have now become commonplace in the media, on billboards and other advertising outlets (see Rosewarne, this volume). Feminists and other concerned women and men who speak out against the growing pornification or sexualisation of our culture are derided and accused of being anti-sex. This, of course, is another misrepresentation. To be against the trivialising and subordinating of women and girls for sexual purposes is not at all the same as being against sex.

  How is the sexualisation of women and girls different today from the way it occurred when feminists in the 1960s and 1970s were demonstrating against it? Back then, our focus was on the objectification of women. Women were used as sex objects by the advertising industry, the media and in men’s magazines. Today, the objectification of women continues—and has been extended to girls—but there is an added dimension. Rosalind Gill from the London School of Economics and Political Science argues that sexual objectification has become sexual subjectification. In a blatant misrepresentation of the feminist emphasis on empowerment, those who falsely aligned the Feminist Movement with the Sexual Revolution have been able to sell the message that modern, empowered women are ‘choosing’ to be sexualised. Gill explains that modern day sexualised images are ‘organised around sexual confidence and autonomy,’ to give the appearance that it is all happening in response to women’s demands. Women want it. We are not passive objects being used by advertisers and the fashion industry. Women are subjects who enjoy the attention. In Gill’s words (http://monthlyreview.org/mrzine/gill230509.html):5

  …what is novel and striking about contemporary sexualised representations of women in popular culture is that they do not (as in the past) depict women as passive objects but as knowing, active and desiring sexual subjects. We are witnessing, I want to argue, a shift from sexual objectification to sexual subjectification in constructions of femininity in the media and popular culture.

  Gill is correct in pointing out that all the ways in which women are sexualised now have a subjective element. Women in pornography must be seen to be ‘enjoying’ the painful, demeaning acts they are required to participate in. In an interview for an anti-porn website, porn actress Sarah-Katherine describes pornography in this way (http://www.oneangrygirl.net/antiporn.html):

  * * *

  5 This online article by Rosalind Gill was originally published in the journal Feminist Media Studies (2003).

  * * *

  I would say that what’s shown is basically—it’s not revolutionary, it’s not different, it’s the same old, same old, it’s women in uncomfortable positions pretending they feel good, and what’s revolutionary about that? What’s liberating about that?

  Women appearing in pornographic poses in mainstream advertising, too, are required to look like they’re enjoying it. Young women gyrating on a pole or on some old man’s lap are required to look happy. Women being groped and violated in prostitution are required to look like they’re involved and loving it, to keep the customer coming back. It would seem, then, that subjectification has not replaced objectification, as Gill suggests but, rather, that the appearance of subjectification legitimises a greater, more widespread, objectification.

  It must be said that feminists are not opposed to women and girls being sexually attractive, or to women and girls enjoying being admired for their beauty. What we are opposed to is the exploitation that almost always accompanies such practices and to the fact that women’s worth is measured in this way.

  The harms of sexualisation

  Together with other like-minded people, feminists speak out against the increasing sexualisation apparent in our culture today because we see it as doing irreparable harm to girls and boys, to women and men, and to the quality of relationships between the sexes. Some of the more obvious harms are as follows:

  It de-values women and girls

  When women and women’s bodies are sexualised and objectified, it presents girls and women as commodities to be looked at, admired, criticised and available to be bought and sold. This makes equality impossible. When feminists in the 1960s and 1970s began to emphasise the need for the empowerment of women, it was so that there would be a greater chance for equality between the sexes. We hoped that women’s newfound confidence and self-assurance would mean that they, like men, would be admired for their intelligence and abilities, and take their place alongside men in discussions of national and international importance. Instead, the focus today is once again on women’s bodies and their sexuality— and it starts when they are young girls. In a 2009 article in the Guardian newspaper, ‘Our culture is infected with porn,’ UK journalist Sandrine Levêque wrote:

  Pornified culture sends out a disturbing message that women are always sexually available. It dehumanises women into a sum of body parts, reinforces valuing women primarily for their “sex appeal” and undermines healthy sexual relationships…

  Far from women being accepted as equals to men, men are once again invited to trivialise and subordinate them. Sexualisation degrades women and girls and legitimates a relationship between the sexes of domination and subordination.

  It creates false expectations

  When sexualised images of women and girls are in abundant supply throughout society, it creates false expectations in men and boys. The incidence of rape and gang rape of women is evidence of the fact that many men believe that women are there for the taking. Women are seen to be available and, no matter what they do to women, they are confident that they can act with impunity. The trend among teenage boys, too, reve
als a belief that it is acceptable to belittle girls as a source of entertainment. Stories of groups of boys abusing and raping girls are all too frequent with the added dimension of filming the abuse and posting it on the Internet and mobile phones.

  Sadly, this creates false expectations in women and girls too. Trying to live up to the ‘standard’ a sexualised society sets, many work at being more sexy and more available. They submit to cosmetic surgery to alter their bodies, shave off every hint of body hair, adopt a pornified trend in fashion because it is presented as the only option for women who want to be noticed by men and, then, make themselves available to satisfy the sexual needs of men.6

  It silences women and girls

  A particularly disturbing way in which sexualisation harms women and girls was expressed many years ago by the US poet and theorist, Susan Griffin, in terms of silencing one’s real self. She says: ‘In the wake of pornographic images, a woman ceases to know herself’ (1981/1988, p. 202). Griffin expresses concern about little girls being socialised into a pornographic image of a woman because it means that, from very early in life, a girl will begin to shape herself to fit that image. This is only possible, she says, with a degree of self-deception because the sexualised image is a false image. The self-deception required of women and girls is explained by Griffin in terms of two selves: