Padded Bras for 5-year-olds Appropriate for Christmas?

I have blogged a bit on sexualisation of culture previously (click the tag at the bottom of this post and it will take you to all the posts), and this is an example how it can affect first hand. Not even childhood is left alone anymore. Parents tell of being "bombarded" with padded bras, lap dancing kits and t-shirts with "Porn star" written over the chest - all for 5-year-olds. But if that wasn't early enough to be introduced to such things, I will never forget when I saw a t-shirt for an infant with the text "I did my mommy a number" printed with stitches painted next to it, implying that this baby had torn open his mother's vagina, and that it should be something worthy bragging about! Now I know children wearing this t-shirt would be completely unknowing of this, but what message does it send to all the men out there?

Sexualisation of culture is inescapable today. Not even children are free of it, and when the patterns are being reproduced, it grows up to be the norm. For those thinking this is all exaggerated and that people don't buy these kinds of things, not really - obviously they do. Otherwise there wouldn't be a business built up around it. The sexualised clothing and toys are all mirroring the adult society, because if you really think about it, there is not much reaction when an adult woman buys a lap dancing kit or wears a t-shirt saying "Porn Star."

Yes, the difference lies in the fact that they are adults and they can decide for themselves, and they rightly should, but at some level these women, too, are affected by the message society sends us. What is worrying is not necessarily the 'sexy' culture as I've heard people describe it, what is worrying is that this has become the norm to the extent where it is accepted for toddlers to buy into it. It is an attitude that has been extended to children, by their role models.

I heard a story, not too long ago, that a woman told me about. She had been out wanting to buy a regular black t-shirt for her daughter who was around six at the time. She went to one of the major stores and she could not find a t-shirt that did not show the shoulder. Remember, she was shopping for a six-year-old, and she could not find a t-shirt that did not show some skin.

Now, showing skin is not bad in itself, neither is sex (for consenting adults), but the problem lies in that there is so much value attached to it. There is still a double standard regarding women. To be accepted, they have to follow the norm; the norm being the increasingly body-focused, superficial, sexy society, but if they in any way insinuate that they might have had "too many" sexual partners (where is the limit for "too many" anyway?) they are immediately stigmatised or used solely as a sexual object to be used and abused according to one's wishes. A woman's value is still very much tied to her sexuality and how she approaches it, but it is a fine line to thread. Wear too many turtle-necks and you are "frigid" or "boring", wear clothes that expose too much and you are a "slut" or perhaps even a "whore." Finding that golden line in the middle where one will be accepted is an increasingly hard task, and unfortunately it does not give you a lot of room to manoeuvre any sort of personality lest you should be ostracised again.

Clearly, when padded bras have become an accepted Christmas present for a 5-year-old, when her older sister runs around in a t-shirt spelling "future trophy wife" and the infant brother unknowingly brags about violently exiting his mother, we have to start thinking about the implications of where this sexualisation is taking us.

This is a Halloween costume, clearly for children. Watch and weep.

The Importance of Rhetoric

In an article from a few days ago in the Guardian, the current issues of rape in South Africa is being described. Rape is widespread in South Africa, and no woman, regardless of age is safe from it.

From the article:

"When will it end?" asked Phumla Matjila, a columnist in the Times of South Africa. "How can it end when our children hear adults say: 'Some women enjoy being raped' or 'They asked for it'? Why do we shudder when they repeat the words they have heard us say?"

The Sonke Gender Justice Network, a campaign group, attempts to tackle the crisis at root by working with men and boys. Bafana Khumalo, its international programmes manager, says: "We certainly have a major problem in South Africa. There is a culture permissive of sexual violence. In a society where people can get away with it with impunity, they are encouraged to feel there is nothing wrong with it.

"Apartheid was predicated on violence – the army, the security establishment, the state apparatus used it to dominate for decades. That became a culture in our society. Violence was seen as a normal part of life."

The criminal justice system is seen by many as ill-equipped to meet women's needs. Khumalo says: "Sometimes a raped woman who goes to the police is not believed . . . Sometimes they are raped by the police."

It is clear here that there is little respite for women from sexual violence. The worrying part is that it seems to have become more of a culturally acceptable thing. There is the assumption that can be found in other cultures that when a woman says 'no', she really means 'yes', an assumption that is being fed to us through mainstream media. When you watch television for instance, start thinking about how many sexual violence (both men's and women's) include some kind of implication to sexual violence. Someone slamming the other against the door, forcefully holding their hands down; or why not the old she turns his advances down, but he doesn't take no for an answer and he repeats his advances. In both scenarios the woman usually submits and she is quite clearly enjoying it, feeding into this assumption that in the bedroom women are naturally timid and need to be told how they like it.

This problem is not isolated to South Africa, it is found wherever women's virginal status is being held as something next to sacred, where the sexual liberalisation has not yet been fully completed (and as I have written before, I don't believe it is anywhere). Because women have to guard their innocence, they are required to refuse sexual advances as first in order not to be seen as sexually promiscuous, or in fear of being branded as a whore, as many people today mislabel sexually promiscuous women. This is where the myths of "she says no, but means yes" and "if you try hard enough, she will come to her senses" come from.

A continued rhetoric along the same lines is dangerous. It erodes barriers of self-determination and reproductive rights. If courting a woman becomes connected with violence or an expectancy of having to repeatedly come on to her for her to 'give it up', the line between sexual assault and persistence become increasingly blurred. And blurred lines make for easier crossing.

If a woman declines your advance, whether romantic or sexual, she declines it. There is no hidden yes in the 'no', and it is under no circumstances acceptable to take the decision for the woman. This is essentially what happens when a man (or in the reverse, a woman) continues to adamantly pursue someone who has said no. The implication of this continued pursuit is that she (or he) doesn't know her (or his) own good, so suitor will make the decision for her (or him). In what other aspects of society would this be acceptable for a mentally capable adult? Surely people would be reluctant to go up to other people and tell them what to eat, how to dress, where to go and what to do? What is it, then, that makes it all right to determine what lovers other adults should have or how and when they like to have sex?

Once again, I would like to make the point that the responsibility of sexual assault, in all forms, should be laid on the perpetrators, not the victims. A no is always a no, regardless of what situation, and regardless of how innocent one's advances are.

The rhetoric needs to be changed in order not to reproduce false assumptions about women's agency or lack thereof. There is no such truth as "women like it rough" or "they are all the same; they say no, but mean yes." This does not extend beyond the individual. So let's do it a bit different this time, shall we? Let the woman tell you how she likes it instead of deciding it for her.

Update

This article, published at the Guardian website 25/11/2010, tells of some very disturbing statistics, to say the least.
One in five men in South Africa believe that sometimes women want to be raped and nearly one in three has raped someone. Barely half of the people asked in the survey thought that it is possible for a husband to rape his wife, probably reflected by the nearly 40% of men and 30% of women who thought that women cannot refuse their husband sex. Sexual violence and patriarchy being reproduced in society is showing in the statistics.

The Day I Killed Bat Girl and Cat Woman

Tonight I went to this event on the sexualisation of society. It was organised by Women's Support Project, an organisation here in Glasgow that works with issues around violence against women. Four areas were discussed in this event: prostitution, sexualisation, "adult entertainment" and pornography. The discussion included women, and one man (thanks, dear friend for coming along!) who discussed each of the topic in small groups.

There were several disturbing issues that were raised, and I think, for me, especially the imagery around children. The amount of little girls who are dressed up in sexually provocative clothes is just appalling and the amount of women in the room who told real-life stories of unsuccessfully trying to find their daughters clothes that did not somehow play on sexuality was enraging. Corporations are feeding the sexualisation of society in order to make money on children. It's absolutely abhorring.

I have bought into this, I have to admit; I both have and I still am to an extent. I think it is very hard as a human being to interact in society and not buy into it to some extent whether it be through make up, through shaving of body parts or through trying to make oneself physically attractive to the other sex in some other way (plastic surgery, exercising, padding - both equally applicable to men and women). This is why I have decided to take a somewhat radical action tonight.

Here we have two of my t-shirts. Two of my t-shirts that I have always really liked. Looking at them now it might be hard to understand why they have been so attractive to me. These are clearly a sexist portrayal of women, drawn with stupidly big breasts and bodies unattainable in a natural way; not something a feminist should want to wear.

I think what is easily forgettable with these characters is that, while they are extremely sexist, they are also symbols of female power. Females who took what they had and made what they could out of it, while unnecessarily dressing up in ridiculously tight leather and making themselves sexual objects. Nevertheless, they are still very attractive symbols to me, as a feminist, just because they are women who, despite the odds, made it into a male dominated world and made a name for themselves, not only because they are sexual symbols, but also because they are pretty kick-ass. They are empowered partly because they take control over their sexuality. This is why I have always liked these t-shirts. After tonight, however, it is a different story.

A couple of weeks ago I started wondering about the irony of me, a self-proclaimed feminist, walking around with these blatantly sexualised, unnatural women on the chest. (When you think about it, it's not really a wonder they are painted straight across the chest, especially not since a significant number of males I have spoken to describe these women with sexual language.) I started wondering if I had gone about this the right way. I have always been aware that they are sexual symbols, but this has just given these characters more power over men, and over themselves in a way. They did what they could with what was given to them. I have always figured, when it comes to these t-shirts, that perhaps this was part of the trade-off for Bat girl and Cat Woman, that they would gain some and they would lose some. But I never expected it for me. Not in my wildest imaginations of a sexist dystopia did I ever imagine myself trading any kind of sex, or sexuality, for empowerment, but each to her own, as they say.

Now, tonight, I have come to a realisation. There is, under no circumstances, any good reason why someone should trade sex or become a sexual object in order to reach empowerment. The reason for this is that there is a deeply disturbing irony in these kind of trade-offs and it has very much to do with what I have written on before - the incompletion of the female sexual liberation. There is still an inherent double standard in our society that associates females and sex with something shameful. Essentially what you are doing when you are sexualising yourself in this way is just trading one kind of oppression - the one seeing you as at least partly incapable - to another one - the one where you are seen as used goods, or even filthy. By empowering yourself in one way through using your sexuality, you are also allowing yourself to become an object for trade, or sale - a commodity. You are engaging in the violent reproduction of gender, as Laura Shepherd (Gender, Violence and Security : Discourse as Practice, 2008) terms it.

It is not sex or sexuality in itself that is the issue here. Sex and sexuality are not inherently bad or negative - it is the consequences of these that are the issue. Sexualisation and objectification have serious negative impact on society in the form of marketing sexuality to children not older than 4 (!!), the increase of gendered violence and the incapacity to celebrate Halloween without seeing a sexy [insert whatever is suitable here]. It is this type of commercialisation of sexuality that makes society judge people on how many partners they have, or in the case of males, have not, had, because essentially that is what the commercialisation of sexuality is making sex: cheap. Sexuality is being disconnected from the act - regardless of what you make it to be: love, biology, reproduction - and made into a social pressure, a norm, that decides how and when you have sex and what, or rather what you shall not wear, in order to make profit on it. We are no longer the masters of our own sexuality, corporations are.

This is why I am stopping wearing blatantly sexualised images of women. I refuse to believe that in order to become an empowered woman I have to let someone else own my sexuality. In fact, I believe these to are complete contradictions. That is why I am killing Bat girl and Cat Woman tonight.

Please, do not try this at home. It is dangerous. Throwing things out will suffice.

The Incompletion of Female Sexual Liberation

I was challenged to write a blog post about this, so I will make an attempt.

John Milbank, an Anglican theologist and a skeptic of secular reason, claims that

The problem here is that self-pleasure can become either explicitly or tacitly a goal in itself. When the romantics earlier spoke of the importance of marriage being “free,” that seems to me nearer the mark, as a goal. Human fulfillment lies more in the direction of faithful love and inserting oneself in the continuity of generations. Marriage and the family, for all their corruption and misuse, are at base democratic institutions. Fascism for me comes into the picture because I think (following Adorno, amongst others) that the gradual separation of sex from procreation is regarded naively if we do not realize that this is what the state wants. Covertly, it wants to secure “Malthusian” control over reproduction and to deal with the individual directly, rather than through the mediation of couples. Much of liberal feminism is actually, in practice, on the side of economic and political neoliberalism. It is too rarely noticed that sexual permissiveness has today become a kind of opiate that covertly reconciles people to the loss of other freedoms—both in relation to the state and to the workplace.

Milibank's offers a solution to this:

What we need is not a return to former legal coercion and social ostracism in the sexual field, but a change in ethos, which will promote both relational fidelity and the encouragement of human creativity and participation in the workplace and in civil life.

(Full article here)

First of all, let me laugh at the notion that marriage, according to the church, was ever supposed to be a democratic institution. Yes, perhaps if you believe in elitism and that men's intellect is superior, or if you believe that women should never have been granted suffrage. The woman, according to the Bible, is responsible for the original sin, she screwed up the entire world, if it weren't for her, there would still be a Paradise. It is because of the evolvement of a secular society women have been able to be regarded as equals in a marriage. Religion is not exactly known for its progressive views on female emancipation and equality.

This brings me to what I want to discuss, Milbank's blaming of sexual liberalisation and the feminist movement as the culprit in the loss of freedoms both in society and the workplace. Now, I am not entirely sure exactly what kinds of freedom he is referring to here. As far as I know, sexual liberalisation has empowered women, not restrained them, in that they are the (or are supposed to be) the ultimate decision-makers in regards to their own bodies and should be regarded on equal terms with men. Women have gone from being regarded as a commodity to being regarded as active agents in their own lives. What we can agree on however, Milbank and I, is that women are (still) suffering a restriction of freedom. I believe, to the contrary, that this is related to the incompletion of female sexual liberalisation.

There is no doubt that society has liberalised its view on sexual relations since the 1960s. Women are free to choose today, they are free to express themselves in a way that simply would not have been possible not too long ago. However, women are still to a large degree restricted in their sexuality. It has been discussed ad nauseam, I am aware, but let me reiterate: when a woman racks up her numbers, perhaps from being single for a very long time or just from enjoying sex, then she is a slut; when a man racks up the same numbers, or even higher ones, he is just a bachelor (or not) who adheres to his natural urges. Women are still presumed to not have the same sexual needs or demands as men, and are still judged for not choosing to be virginal, calm and focusing on the emotional bond rather than the sexual.

There is a double standard in society regarding women's sexual liberalisation. Women are expected to be ruthless, almost adopt masculine traits to reach the status in society that has formerly belonged only to men, but at the same time she is being punished for it. A woman who has casual sex is not simply itching a scratch, she is the emotionless bitch-hound from hell, a man is an asshole but only assumed to be one in a billion, incurable and as natural as the rain. Society still has this notion that it is on some level unnatural for women to be fully sexually liberalised. A woman who openly has a lot of casual relations will be punished in the opinion of society, a man will not to the same extent.

A return to the old ethos of sexual restriction will not change this. For it is a return, not a change. Women will once again be chained in their gender roles of subservience and obedience while men continue to go about their business as they have always done. It will not automatically lead to "the encouragement of human creativity and participation in the workplace and in civil life," because sexual liberalisation and these are not mutually exclusive. A person, whether male or female, can still be sexually liberated and fulfil their duties and responsibilities as citizens and employees.


The problem here is not the liberalisation in itself, but rather the social ostracism, that Milibank argues we should not revert back to, that is still very much present in female sexual liberalisation. It is because of this double standard in female sexual liberalisation that women suffer from loss of freedom in the social life as well as the workplace. It is the judgement of what people get up to in private that still restricts women. Moreover, it is quite evident from Milibank's stance on gay marriage that it is not the sexual liberalisation per se that is the problem for him, it is the religious values that he has chosen to put into it. I quote: "As part of this, I think it is important both to support gay civil partnerships and yet to oppose the idea of “gay marriage.”"

The loss of freedoms are always going to be present as long as women's value is determined according to how well they adhere to prescribed traditional gender roles. What needs to be acknowledged are the contradictions between theory and practice in the discussion of sexual liberalisation, and the fact that it is still very much gendered. These losses are not anything that came as a consequence of the female sexual liberalisation, they have always been there. It is because the female sexual liberalisation is incomplete that they still exist.