Posts tagged objectification
Sex for sale: the dark side of the Super Bowl
1
What happens when you get many thousands of men together for a major sporting event?
Along with the hot dogs and beer, women and girls go on sale.
The NFL Super Bowl is apparently one of the biggest human trafficking events in the United States, with tens of thousands of women and girls brought in to provide sex for the fans at last year’s game in Miami. Many of them were forced into prostitution and some were underage. State agencies rescued 24 children who had been sold into sexual slavery at that event alone. This year, officials in Texas (where the Super Bowl will be held) are cracking down on traffickers and warning ‘customers’ that if they buy sex in the days leading up to the big game, they must know they are likely complicit in trafficking, human enslavement and/or prostitution crimes against a woman or child.
In Europe, major football (soccer) matches like the European Championships and the World Cup prompt a similar influx of ‘sex workers’. If the area is not already rife with women willingly (though I use that term loosely) selling themselves, more are bused in. At this summer’s World Cup in South Africa, up to 40,000 prostitutes are estimated to have been in the country to meet demand. Other large sporting events in other countries attract similar problems, I’m sure.
I’m glad that the Texas authorities are concerned about this and that they are being proactive in minimising the amount of trafficking and forced prostitution going on in the days and weeks surrounding the Super Bowl, and I’m glad that they did mention the ‘customers” complicity in crimes being committed against these women and girls, but I’m still not convinced that they are approaching the problem in the right way. Just as with ‘regular’ prostitution, it is almost impossible to deter supply when the demand is so high. Traffickers, pimps and brothel owners will always have jobs as long as men are roaming the streets or banding together in groups to demand sexual services, whether through visual stimulation (like at strip clubs) or sexual contact and intercourse, with women they see as available and willing, even if, in reality, that is not the case.
Surely these men — these middle class, otherwise decent men — know better? Shouldn’t they know somewhere deep down that soliciting sex from prostitutes, girls who may be the same age as their own daughters, is wrong? I don’t believe for a second that their ‘natural urges’ are what drive them to purchase others’ bodies. There is nothing natural about having sex with a child quivering in fear, or a drug-addled, poverty-stricken corner prostitute, or a non-English-speaking woman tied to a filthy mattress in an outbuilding. There is nothing natural about stuffing money into a woman’s underwear while she shakes her breasts and dances on a pole so she can put food on the table for her kids or fund her education.
In short, there is nothing natural about the objectification of women.
It is, however, historical. Prostitution is called the world’s oldest profession not because it is inherent and will never go away, but because since the beginning of recorded history it has been accepted and encouraged in our male-dominated society. While women are oppressed and at an economic disadvantage to men (and make no mistake, they are — even in so-called progressive, industrialised nations), they will continue to use or be forced to use the only currency all of us has: our selves.
So why are we not doing more to target the demand for purchase of others’ bodies? Why are we not coming up with awareness-raising national ad campaigns targeted at the men who buy sex at these sporting events? Instead of lecturing women about the dangers and pitfalls of prostitution, stripping or walking alone at night during these testosterone-fuelled events, why aren’t we punishing and lecturing and scolding the men who take advantage of them? Why are the messages that do exist not getting through?
Sports has long been one of the only culturally acceptable ways in which men can spend time together and socialise outside of work without women present, along with going to the pub. Going to the cinema (unless it’s to see the latest action or sci-fi movie), a restaurant, the park or the town centre for a bit of shopping with another (straight) male friend would be unthinkable or at least uncomfortable for many men. In a group for a special occasion, perhaps. But just one-on-one with another dude, at a nice restaurant? Gay alert! Masculinity malfunction alert! All ego stations manned!
It’s not their fault, really. Just as hetero, middle class women have been conditioned to believe that the path to true sisterhood is paved with shopping trips, gossip, spa days and al fresco lunches, hetero, middle class men have been conditioned to believe that sports, beer, women and technology are the only acceptable ways in which they can socially bond and still be ‘normal’. At any event that is primarily focused on one of these things, the others are bound to be added on. So at a sporting event such as the Super Bowl, it comes as no surprise when beer, women and technology are ladled out like tasty side dishes for consumption with the entrée.
Beer and technology are products and services, that’s fine. Advertise and tout them all you want. But when women are lumped into that category and seen as a given, something sold alongside the team hats and hamburgers, that’s when the long shadow of the dark side of sports comes marching on the field.
And how is the idea that women are for sale being reinforced? Why, with all of the busty beauties and lovely ladies appearing in the ads selling the beer and the technology. You can’t watch a Super Bowl and its renowned halftime ads without seeing dozens of breasts, bums, bikinis and come-hither looks (from the cheerleaders and the women on TV), inviting the men to check out their goods while they think about buying some others.
Taken in isolation, of course these ads are not single-handedly responsible for the objectification of women. But it’s an example of the culmination of the drip-drip effect, being constantly fed in tiny, everyday increments to men and boys (and women and girls) across the nation and across the world.
Figuring out how to impede traffickers, while important, should not be the main concern of the officials in Texas, or anyone else concerned with stopping these crimes. It all begins — has always begun — with the idea that women are less-than, that we are subservient beings with no sexuality of our own besides the kind that satisfies or complements men’s.
Want to stop trafficking? Start with the beer commercials.
Image credit
Women’s bodies, men’s work (part two)
17
Carrying on from part one, in which I discussed cleavage and how views of women’s bodies affect our views of ourselves and the way we are treated, I want to talk about women’s bodies as they relate to the workplace.
When women were finally integrated into the workplace, the move was largely concessionary. Women at that time were only ‘allowed’ in after many, many years of political and social struggle and after proving their worth doing men’s jobs during World War II. Gradually, more companies became open to or were forced to begin hiring women, with great big shoves from bodies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in the US and passage of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in the UK. That these laws were only passed a few years before I was born reminds me that this really was a long and hard-fought battle by the women of my grandmothers’ and mother’s generations and that they completely revolutionised the way we navigate public spheres and live our lives. Hell, it was only 45 years ago that it became illegal for companies in the US to fire a woman immediately upon marriage! These were not easy trails our foremothers blazed.
Unfortunately, when these women fought to get into the workplace they largely based their arguments on the premise that they could do the same work as men and, therefore, should be treated exactly the same as them. While I’m sure these pioneering ladies had done what they felt was necessary to get that first foothold on the ladder secured, I’m not sure they properly contemplated and anticipated the negative aspects of this kind of strategy. Because let’s be honest — the working environment didn’t change all that much when women moved in, and they didn’t ask it to. They were expected to simply fit in with the guys and draw as little attention to their gender as possible. That is, if they wanted to do a ‘man’s job’; if they were doing traditionally female jobs (like secretarial work, nursing, etc..) they were expected to be a bit of helpful eye candy and not much more. You’ve seen Mad Men, right? The ass-slapping, “c’mere, darlin” open patronisation and blatant sexism? It’s a true portrayal of working life for many at the time.
But that was then and this is now, or so say those who claim we are living in a ‘post-feminist’, non-sexist, utopian (read: imaginary) society. Women’s lib, equal opportunity laws and sexual harassment lawsuits took care of all that, didn’t it? We have maternity leave (though only an extremely paltry 12 weeks in the US) and the right to report our sexist co-workers or bosses to the proper authorities if they bother us and only a 17% disparity between our pay packets for the exact same work. What the hell else do we want, some wonder?
The problem is this — nearly all of the business world was built around the male biological and social imperative. It was understood that a working man was either single and carefree or with a wife at home who took care of his house, his children and all domestic tasks, aside from the more ‘manly’ chores like grass-cutting, wood-chopping and car repairs. The male worker had no need for flexible hours that fit in around school or shopping hours. The male worker had no dramatic hormonal changes, pregnancies, breastfeeding or post-partum recovery to deal with. The male worker was not the primary caregiver for his offspring and, if his wife did work for some reason, he was not held responsible for arranging their care. If a project needed more work or clients needed schmoozing or the boss wanted more hours put in, it wasn’t much of a problem. A quick phone call to say he’d be late and to keep his dinner warm in the oven was all that was required.
For women who were wives and had children, it was not so easy. Because their jobs were often seen as insignificant or merely ways to ’keep them busy’ — rather than sources of personal fulfilment, empowerment and financial independence – they were still expected to put their responsibilities to their children, husbands, husbands’ careers, home and image before their own aspirations. The fact that they were paid less and so were nearly always the secondary earner in the relationship (hence, with the ‘less important’ career), didn’t seem to register, or even matter. We’d thrown our hats into the ring and now we were going to have to take it on the chin…like men. No special treatment here, sweetheart!The fact that women were (and still are, in some quarters) viewed as irrational, emotional and lacking in intelligence didn’t help either. Hundreds of years of gender stereotypes and male privilege made sure of that. And though the distinctions are not so black-and-white as they used to be, the division between men and women in how they are expected to prioritise their careers and families is still prevalent.
But one of the biggest problems remaining, in my view, is that women’s bodies have not been integrated and accepted into the workplace. Pregnancy and maternity leave are still career-killers. Taking time off for antenatal appointments or to look after a sick child is still met with groans and rolled eyes from a sizeable minority who wonder why mothers don’t just chuck in their jobs and stay at home already, like they’re supposed to. We’ve all heard of colleagues who make that asinine remark, “I wish I could have a few months off,” as if taking time off to give birth and care for a newborn was a beach holiday with cocktails.
Some people would even begrudge a woman the right to pump milk at work, calling it an ‘extra break’ and complaining that she’s getting ‘special treatment,’ which I think any mother who has ever breastfed or expressed knows is misguided. Trying to get as much milk as possible out of your breasts while hunched over an electronic pump in a storage closet, hoping no one walks in on you, is not a ‘break’. It’s just more work, though of the unpaid, ‘unimportant’ variety in capitalism’s eyes.
And then there’s the super-gross, super-secret monster called Menstruation. Ever dragged yourself into work despite the debilitating menstrual cramps, copious bleeding, excessive bloating, splitting headache and hormone levels that rise and plummet like a roller coaster? Ever had to sit through a round of PMS jokes when you snap at someone or cry after a tense conflict with a colleague? I don’t know many women who haven’t.
No, women’s bodies are not welcome in the workplace. Our biological differences are still shrouded in shame and secrecy. When we walk into our offices, we’re supposed to check our femaleness at the door. No crying, cramps, children or breast milk, please. It’s all man here.
Look also at what is considered ‘professional’ dress code for women and all of the mixed messages therein: be sexy and attractive, but not so much that other women are jealous and men are ‘distracted’ or don’t take you seriously; wear fitted, tailored clothing so as not to hide’your figure (if you have a ‘good’ one) but attire must also not be too tight or revealing, lest men are distracted or don’t take you seriously; etc., etc., etc… The workplace didn’t welcome women (and their bodies) as they were, it tried to force them into the existing mould of masculine power.
Women’s bodies have always been blamed for men’s moral weaknesses; it’s why strict adherents of many religions (and even those of a more secular persuasion) have rules about how covered up women should be and why this is for their own protection from men. From the burqa-clad Muslim to the mini-skirted rape victim, women’s clothing has always been a symbol of her modesty and an advertisement for her chasteness, or lack thereof. It’s a man’s world and we’re just living in it…and so we have to dress accordingly, including at work.
Because industry and business were built upon male norms, the working environment reflects this attitude as well. We got on the ladder alright, but what we should’ve been after was an entirely different climbing apparatus, one in which we could move horizontally across a continuum we helped create, not forced to climb vertically up those rigid, historically-male rungs (in high heels, naturally) before hitting that infamous glass ceiling.
And so the women of the previous generation — not wanting to appear unreliable, uncommitted or in any way inferior to men — shouldered the burden of both work and home and tried to turn the enormous stress and strain of it all into a message of empowerment for their daughters. Saying, “See! We can work and still have kids and houses and husbands! We’re not asexual, frigid, heartless, childless wenches after all! We can have careers and be taken seriously and earn money while still running the PTA, doing all the grocery shopping and ironing everyone’s clothes! This is freedom!”
I don’t blame those women one bit for taking on that message. They did the best they could with what they had and turned centuries of degradation and discrimination into opportunity and possibility. I applaud them. I respect them. My beef is not with them.
But.
‘Doing it all’ is not working. ‘Having it all’ is not possible. Women of my generation have watched as our mothers worked themselves to early graves, ill health, divorces, unimaginable stress, or lives devoid of personal interests once the careers were finished and the kids were grown. Men of my generation have been raised by these women and lauded their efforts, thought it ‘noble’ that their mothers did everything while perhaps their fathers did what they’ve always done — worked, and done the odd bit of housework or parenting when asked. We have, by and large, not grown up seeing functional, equitable, reciprocal partnerships. While what these women did was indeed extraordinary, it needn’t be The Way Things Are.
People of my generation are, more than ever, seeking the kinds of partnerships they saw as lacking in their own parents. More men are involved in the rearing of their children, the cleanliness and order of their homes and the day-to-day tending of their romantic relationships. More and more women are realising that they perhaps can’t or even don’t want to do everything all at once. More mothers are choosing to stay at home when their children are young and then returning to work later. This is, of course, usually to the detriment of their careers. More women with successful careers are choosing not to have children at all due to the constraints of their professions, or delaying motherhood until the possibility of it occurring naturally becomes slimmer and slimmer. So, at the moment, we seem to be faced with two choices, neither of which seems all that appealing: Do it all at once, or choose between career and children.
There must be a better way. There has to be a better way. We deserve it. Men who care about their partners and their children deserve it. Children most certainly deserve it. We can’t carry on the status quo anymore, it is (by and large) not working. This is why we are fighting for the right to decide when and if we will become mothers at all. This is why those who are already mothers are getting angry. This is why I think we’re approaching some of the major feminist dilemmas from the wrong angle. And in the next post, I will outline some of the changes that I think we need in order to really revolutionise the way both men and women combine careers and families and how women are treated within the public spheres.
Here’s where you come in; I want to hear your experiences, ideas and suggestions. What do you think we need to do to get real change rolling? Let’s think outside the box and brainstorm here. From the smallest detail to the bigger picture, I want to hear your ideas for how we can make motherhood truly compatible with having careers and equitable marriages. What small things are you doing within your own lives to help reach that goal? What kind of legislation do you think would be helpful in effecting these changes? How can we overcome patriarchal norms and heteronormativity and reach out to those who hold the reins to these stifling structures?
Women’s bodies, men’s work (part 1)
30
Vered at MomGrind recently wrote a post in which she relayed a conversation she’d had with friends about whether displaying cleavage is acceptable, inspired by some of the more ‘daring’ outfits worn by female celebrities at the Golden Globe awards. In the course of this conversation, it emerged that there seems to be two schools of thought when it comes to cleavage: Cover It Up, Sister and If You’ve Got It, Flaunt It. The first is generally thought of as the more conservative, repressive option and the second as more liberal and empowering.
Now, this may seem like a trivial issue to some but to me it is actually a great example of a real division within the feminist community and the public at large. Why? Because each school of thought on cleavage has two conflicting ‘sides’ supporting it; supporters who are, in many ways, diametrically opposed to one another. The Cover It proponents are usually either quite socially conservative and rank modesty as an important virtue in their personal morals (often on religious grounds), or they are quite liberal-minded, socially progressive people who think that while breasts are of course natural and an inherent part of women’s bodies, covering up is essential if they are to to get ahead and be taken seriously, especially in the workplace. Many feminists, particularly those of the Second Wave who had to fight to get into the workplace at all, fall into this category (though this is just a generalisation based on observation, not a hard-and-fast fact or attempt to pigeon-hole anyone).
Those who are in favour of the Flaunt It approach almost always think of themselves as neo-liberal, open-minded and supportive of sexual expressiveness and, again, includes many self-proclaimed feminists, especially those of the younger generation, or Third Wave. They think women should be able to wear whatever they want, however they want and whenever they want. They will defend a woman’s right to be ‘sexy’ and ‘feel good about herself’ and exclaim loudly that breasts are nothing to be ashamed of. This is all well and good. I support that view, in theory. However, within that ideology lurks dangerous territory; a faux-liberalism in which supporting women in their quest to be ever-sexier and conform to modern beauty standards is actually harmful, reinforcing the link that ties a woman’s body and perceived attractiveness directly with her feelings of self-worth and her abilities.
A perfect example of this is those What Not To Wear and How To Look Good Naked shows on television that purport to accept and even glorify women of all shapes and sizes, but which really, at their core, are just showing these women the tricks of the trade for getting as close as possible to the beauty ideal and giving them a patronising, ‘there, there love’ pat on the head about the parts of themselves that come up short. What’s so progressive about taking a woman who has had three babies (with the saggy tummy to prove it) and giving her a corset to wear underneath her clothes instead of the less acceptable methods of telling her to starve herself or have surgery? It’s not as bad as the latter, obviously, but it’s still not true acceptance. Every woman knows that no matter how proud she is of her ‘curves’, she must try to minimise and detract attention away from the parts of her considered less desirable and that don’t meet the criteria of perfection. Drawing attention to your large breasts because you know they will focus eyes away from your ‘thunder thighs’ isn’t exactly Body Confidence, is it? But I digress. Back to cleavage…
The other, oft-quoted caveat of some within the Flaunt It school is that it’s okay to show off your breasts, but only if they are of an acceptable size and appearance. If you are relatively young, of at least average weight and without any obvious disabilities, you will be encouraged to use your breasts to attract a partner and garner praise. At Mardi Gras? Show us your tits! At a club? Show us your tits! On the beach? Show us your tits! But if you’re not any of these, or with any other ‘affliction’ marking you out from the sexually available vixens, woe betide you. Wrinkled or exceedingly freckled? Ew! Naturally very large and/or ‘saggy’? Tuck ‘em back in! Too small? Who are you kidding! Pulling up your shirt to breastfeed a baby? Jesus, we don’t want to see THAT! So, still, the message is that ‘flaunting it’ is acceptable but only if you fall within the range of what is considered worthy of flaunting. If you are not pre-approved by the pornulation and empowerfulization committees for hawtness (be it because of your age, shape, weight or race) you won’t get your Dove blue ribbon award for not hating yourself quite as much as you used to.
Even the language we use to describe how we feel about our breasts is telling: Women with small breasts will talk about not feeling as feminine or ‘womanly’ and being unable to ‘fill out’ tops and dresses, while women with large chests, like a commenter on Vered’s post, say that men talk to their breasts, not their faces, and that normal clothes look “pornographic” on them, suggesting that large breasts are equated with not being taken seriously and sexual promiscuousness, which is a common and long-held prejudice that we’re just supposed to accept as the norm.
This leads me to the issue of women’s bodies in the workplace, the main crux of this discussion, for which a second post is forthcoming. I don’t want this sucker getting too long — brevity is not my strong suit and I’m trying to work on making posts more manageable and easy to read. Watch this space!
And in the meantime, tell me your thoughts and experiences with cleavage and body image. Are you a Cover It Up sort of person or a Flaunt It believer? Do you think showing off our bodies is empowering, harmful or a combination of the two?