Sexualisation and Feminism in Newsnight

There are probably worse things than Newsnight featuring a discussion on Feminism. Nevertheless, that is exactly what happened on Monday.

The program is worth very little, though I’d strongly recommend it to any feminist with low blood pressure. Those with high blood pressure and/or any cardiac condition may want to stay away.

The programme asked “if we are living in an over sexualised society, and if so whether that is necessarily a problem”. And in traditional journalistic fashion, it failed spectacularly to answer that or anything else. 

For some reason that escapes my non-publicly-educated brain, the “discussion” was preceded by an exploration of Brazilians and vajazzling. Then, the programme moved on to Jeremy Paxman introducing the guests: Caitlin Moran, Brooke Magnanti and Kat Banyard.

The “debate”, if you can call it that, turned out looking rather pathetic. Especially because it was aired precisely after a report on the Syrian revolution. Anything any feminist could have said would have looked pale by comparison, and the fact that the programme switched from “Syrian revolution” to “vajazzling” didn’t help either. By the time the “debate” ended, with Moran clapping and asking for “clown pr0n” and Magnanti claiming that there is “clown pr0n” already, I bet every person watching the programme must have thought “and THAT is why nobody cares about feminism any more”.

As for what was actually debated…

Like I said, the political positions of each woman can be summarized thus:

**Magnanti comes from a pro-sex industry framework. She argued against most of what Banyard was saying. Her ideas about the subject at hand were, “everything is so peachy”. I’m paraphrasing, but not by much.

**Moran comes from the individualistic “whatever rocks your vote” framework, with a touch of cleverly disguised “enlightenment”. Her idea seems to be to let people do whatever they want to do, but gently tap on their shoulders as they are about to do it and ask “are you sure you want to do this? Because pr0n is very boring sex, you know”.That said, she doesn't seem to believe in feminism much. When Paxman asked her "where does this leave feminism in a sexualised society?" she shrugged.

**It was left to Banyard to make any case against anything. She is clearly departing from the old school line of thinking that says that social problems must be solved at social level, because there is such a thing as society and the actions of some have consequences on the lives of others.

This line of thinking is not very popular nowadays. Banyard brought up words like “objectification” and described pr0n as a relentless and hurtful. At one point, Magnanti asked her to produce “evidence”. Typical.

What I want to highlight is how unfair it is to present Magnanti’s position alongside Branyard. Here’s why: Magnanti is where she is, arguing for what she argues, because it translates into personal gain. Her popularity comes straight from her advocacy of the sex industry, from presenting prostitution as a wonderful career choice. The better public perception of the sex industry gets, the more money will make its way to her pocket.

Now compare that to Branyard’s position. Pr0n could be banned tomorrow, the whole of the sex industry going in a puff of smoke… and she would not gain anything from it. Perhaps the odd interview here and there. But that’s it.

Do you smell a fault? To put it crudely, Magnanti is in it for the money, Branyard is in it for… the social justice. The first is working to improve her lot, the second is fighting to improve the lot for all of us.

THESE TWO POSITIONS ARE NOT EQUAL. Especially when you take into account the downside of being a feminist activist: the loss of opportunities with publishers and editors, the constant onslaught of threats and venom, little things like that.

To put it even more crudely, Magnanti is ok with throwing some women under the bus if it translates into personal gain. Banyard is trying to improve circumstances for all women even if it translates into a personal cost.

Jeremy Paxman may not see the difference, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t. I am tired of seeing Magnanti’s words within feminist discourse. Yes, her personal experience matters. But it only matters as “a” personal experience. And her personal experience cannot outweigh the personal experience of another woman. The only reason why it does, is because Magnanti is saying exactly what everyone wants to hear. And there is money to be made out of that. 

As for the program's main questions... "if we are living in an over sexualised society, and if so whether that is necessarily a problem". The answers are:

YES, we are undoubtedly living in a over sexualised society. And it is a problem, because of:

a) the relentless presentation of women as sexual objects. That affects all women, mind, not just those who "choose" to take their clothes off.

b) the commodification of human sexuality, which carries all the problems of commodification of anything human. In short, individual corporations profit from something that belongs to humans, and they get to redefine it as well, which is wrong.

c) the disintegration of the "real" thing called sex, which is accompanied with the increase in sexual violence, promiscuity, decrease in empathy and human connection.

d) the grooming of children to embrace the sex industry, so that they'll be more receptive to it when they grow up.

And that's just off the top of my head. See? It's not that difficult when you believe in social justice and your interest lies in making society better.

Sexualisation - "Fighting the Right"

Ok, it seems like I am not done with this topic yet.

Let’s take it slow. What it’s important to understand is this: it’s been a while since the “Right” discovered how to trip “progressives” into undermining their own arguments. This is how they do it:

They present an outrageous, preposterous, extreme, ridiculous, raging argument that nobody could possibly agree with. The progressive bunch bites right into it and oppose the argument. But because the argument is ludicrous to begin with, firmly rooted in the “extreme right”, the progressives end up making the argument for something on the “centre-right”. And that was the point all along. To give validation to ideas that are less than barmy, instead of presenting ideas that are actually good and revolutionary.

Wait, what does any of this have to do with “sexualisation”?

Let’s apply the previous idea to sex. The Right comes up with something preposterous, like Nadine Dorries arguing that “girls should be taught to say no”.

Now you probably agree with me that this is insane, from every conceivable angle. If for no other reason than that the word “no” is usually fairly well known amongst English speaking people.

Now, what do progressive people do? They stand up and say “There is nothing wrong with sex, sex is good”.

DANG IT! You’ve just made their point for them!

Now, I’m going to say something that will come as a shock to most people independent of which place they like to inhabit inside the political spectrum.

THE “RIGHT” DOES NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SEX.

I know, I know. Shocking, isn’t it? But it’s true; I can prove it. Here it is, in a few words.

THE SEX INDUSTRY IS WORTH MANY BILLIONS WORLDWIDE. THE RIGHT NEVER STOPS THE FLOW OF BILLIONS.

Never. Not even in the name of “Christ”. Want proof? President Mondo Fucko was passing laws for making “abstinence only” education in public schools at around the same time as Britney Spears was playing out to be an underage pop-sex star.

Once more: IF THE RIGHT REALLY WANTED TO STOP “SEXUALISATION”, IT WOULD BAN MTV. And pretty much everything else in our modern media.

So when the “Right” comes out with nonsense about “abstinence” education, what they actually want is for “progressives” to effectively support the sex industry. Because THAT is where the money is.

And why do they need any support? Because people are getting worried about this “hyper sexualised” culture we live in. In the exact same way as people get worried about this “hyper sugar and saturated fat” culture we live in. They look around and notice that a) sex imagery is everywhere and b) they can’t do anything to stop it.

So people get worried, and understandably so. The Right, being better at ruling the world than the Left, picks up on this “worry” BUT, and here’s the key, they DISTORT THE SOLUTION. They say “of course you are worried about “hyper sexualisation”, I totally understand”. That’s the “bite”. Then people turn and listen to them, and they throw their bit of crap “let’s ban sexually active teenagers”. Which is a “solution” that steps right into fascism. And is doomed to failure, which is precisely the point.

They do the exact same thing with fatty foods. It goes like this: “of course you are worried about “hyper sugar and saturated fat”, I totally understand”. And then they throw the solution, “let’s ban fat people”. I am not joking, that is precisely what they argue for. For more on that, read Melissa's posts on fat hatred.

This is a typical tactic from the Right: show concern for the wellbeing of society while you fail to acknowledge the existence of society. In other words “gee, the world is looking wrong, I tell you what, let’s change individual people, who are all separate from one another”.

You only have to read what Dorries says. In order to make her argument, she describes

*Sexual imagery

*Teenage magazines

*Pr0n channels

*Lad’s mags

*Computer images

*TV

*Films

*Advertising

And what does she suggest as a viable solution? Changing sex education at school. From the “big” stuff powered by humongous corporations, to a few hours in the lifetime of a child. Yeah, that will shift society, that will.

Like I said, this doesn’t work. And they know it. If Nadine Dorries really had a problem with sexualisation, she would argue for tackling the issue at the root: ban the magazines, ban the padded bras, ban the music videos. (There would be nothing surprising about this, the Right has been banning things since the beginning of time).

They don’t do it because they don’t want to. They don’t care two hoots about “sexualisation”. They care about gathering support from worried parents, they care about appearing “concerned” and “moral”. They even care about brainwashing children, creating conflict between their sexual desire and their worldviews.

They don’t care about people. They never have.

Note: This post was inspired by this other post at The F Word.

The Meaning Of "Sexualisation"

What follows is awesome. I don't know how it made its way to my page, but it did, and I'm happy.

There are many ways to interpret the meaning of “sexualisation”, and it is important to be clear about it so as to not fall prey to the “rightwing” distortions.

What Sexualisation means to the Media

We know what “sexualisation” stands for in the eyes of the media: the pressure on younger and younger “children” (it’s of course girls, not boys, but what the Hell) to become sexual objects before they reach puberty.

The problem with this definition is not what it says but what it leaves out. It is an unquestioned assumption from our culture that females will naturally develop a penchant for becoming sexual objects when they begin to fancy men. (The possibility that they may not fancy men at all, that they may fancy women, that they may fancy both or none, is not really considered.) That is not questioned. Nobody is arguing that adult women shouldn’t be sexualised, or that the media should stop sexualising our culture. And nobody but feminists argues that women, irrespective of their age, should never be presented as sexual objects. And even feminists have a hard time agreeing over that one.

So yes, sexualisation does mean “pressure on young children to become sexual objects”, but this is only problematic in the eyes of the media because it’s happening at a younger age than before.

The media does not take issue with the fact that a) it happens at all, b) there’s pressure, c) only happens to girls or d) to reduce a human being to a sexual object is immoral and wrong.

What Sexualisation means to the “Right”

Some people have twisted the meaning of “sexualisation” and use it in the context of “children’s sexuality”, arguing that “children are sexual too”. This is, of course, utter nonsense. Nobody is using the word “sexualisation” to mean “the hormones in the child’s body sexualises them”. This bogus attempt at diverting the conversation from what “big people with power and money” do into what “is natural for children” is, in my humble experience, a tactic from the “Right” to silence criticism. Keep this idea in your pocket, it may come in handy. What they are trying to do is to bring the topic back to the individual, and eliminate all ideas that a small group of people, namely those with power and money, have way more, ehm, power than most individual people, namely those who have to put up with the “sexualisation”. They are effectively cutting off the child from their environment, so that sexual development looks, to an imaginary alien, like a normal, healthy stage in human growth.

Like I said, poppycock to that.

What Sexualisation actually means

Sexualisation doesn’t mean in any way “a child’s sexuality”. What it means is “the turning of a child into a sexual object”. Why?

Because nobody can “sexualise” anybody without objectifying them first. (Ok, perhaps hormones can do it, but nobody is taking issue with that.)

How can “sexualisation” require “objectification”?

Let’s reduce the word “sexualisation” to its bare bones, to mean what it sounds like it should mean: to make something or someone sexual. The “something” is easy to understand, but the “someone”? Let’s see. How can you make someone “sexual”? Surely that is something people do for themselves? Whether we mean biological sexuality or a “sexual” appearance, it’s still something people do for themselves. That’s where the problem lies: in order to sexualise somebody other than yourself, you have to impose your will upon someone. Sexualising means, at its core, that consent is absent from the person being sexualised. Much like what happens with words like “medicalization” or “westernization”. It implies that the subject has not choice in the matter. And this is the very essence of “dehumanization”, which opens the door to “objectification”, the turning of people into objects. 

So, this “sexualisation” deal implies that someone is forcing someone else into being sexual against their will. And the truth behind forcing someone into something is that it reduces people into the something. If you force someone into being “labour” you reduce them to just “labour”.

In order to “sexualise” someone, you must make them “sexual” against their will. If you succeed, the person is reduced to “sexual” and nothing more because you have taken away their humanity.

 As for Children...

Children do what children do. And that includes sexual development. The problem is that children cannot develop sexually in whichever way they want while they are immersed in a culture as sexually toxic as ours. Rather, they are expected to develop in one way and one way only.

Children develop sexually without any need for “external” intervention, meaning culturally imposed ideas of what sex is and how it should look like. The proof is in the pudding. For quite a long time the very idea of sexuality was kept very hush-hush, as we all know. There was no concept of children developing their sexuality. And somehow this didn’t stop children becoming sexually active adults.

PS: I credit Ragged Robin for providing the inspiration for this post.