I really wanted to like Susan J. Douglas’s, THE RISE OF ENLIGHTENED SEXISM: HOW POP CULTURE TOOK US FROM GIRL POWER TO GIRLS GONE WILD (St. Martin’s Griffin, 2010). I hoped the snarky tone would make the book a bridge between my feminist self and my daughter, who, at this point, considers feminism something only angry, man-hating women would promote, and thus wonders why on earth her mom would run around calling herself such a thing. (Alas, the myth perpetuates.) This article discusses some major weaknesses in ENLIGHTENED SEXISM because a critique can only make us argue better in the future. There are good points to take from the book. Right on page six, Douglas comments that the millennial generation of women (those born in the 1990s and early 2000’s) are being told by the consumer culture and advertising media “that true power comes from shopping, having the right logos, and being ‘hot.’” She is dead-on with this point about our Western culture.
The downfall comes shortly after that, as Douglas complains about the tongue-in-cheek, “we know this is sexist and so it is really not sexist, it’s funny” that claims irony yet is really what she calls “enlightened sexism.” Douglas’s writing style, dripping with sarcasm itself, left me wondering what is and what isn’t supposed to be funny. For example, the book is peppered with references to drinking. From page one through the epilogue, the author nudges us with her own knowing elbow about women needing a drink or having a hangover. If she’s kidding, then how come she can joke about alcoholism amongst mothers while being enraged about the “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” sexism MTV offers as teen programming? If my daughter, and hers, shouldn’t be watching the “crap” on television, then should they read about her descriptions of mothers with hangovers? If so, what is the difference?
About a hundred pages into the book, Douglas laments the female heroines popular culture offers us, those such as Xena (of Xena the Warrior Princess) and Buffy (of Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Sure, they may be strong women, regardless of how skimpy their outfits are. Douglas’s real beef is about how the powers these women possess are thrust upon them, how their “leadership came at a price” as these heroines needed to hide their true, powerful identities. Apparently, the author has spent too many shopping trips blasted by music in the stores in which she allows her daughter to shop and not enough accompanying a son (or daughter!) to a comic book shop. If she had stepped foot into one of these places, she’d see Buffy and Xena, as well as a cast of other female heroines. She’d also find that all of the male fantasy heroes suffer the same fate she bemoans, and in her writing, deems as unique to female heroines. What male super hero hasn’t had a destiny “imposed on them” or “had no choice but to use their extraordinary abilities?” Has Douglas ever heard of Superman, Batman, or Spiderman? Since scholars who study myth find the same stories told over and over, what would make a female fantasy/super heroine any different from a male fantasy/super hero, per se? While I’m not saying that as long as men suffer equally to women that suffering is o.k., when we’re talking fantasy stories, I don’t believe Douglas’s argument is a valid one since it is not exclusive to female fantasy/super heroines.
If all this was not bad enough, the last paragraph of the book (before the epilogue) is the most distressing. I can imagine Larry Summers using Douglas’s own words against the hiring of women professors and against offering future spots to women at Harvard’s schools.
SO ARE WOMEN TRULY ON TOP? NO. AND UNTIL POLICY MAKERS WAKE UP, MALE PUNDITS GET THEIR BOXERS UNTWISTED OVER REMOTELY COMPETENT WOMEN, THE BACHELOR GOES ON PERMANENT HIATUS, HOOTERS GOES OUT OF BUSINESS, THE NEWS MEDIA SHOWS US HOW UNEQUAL THINGS STILL ARE FOR MILLIONS OF GIRLS AND WOMEN, AND EVERY FORTUNE 500 COMPANY IN THE COUNTRY HAS DAY CARE AND PAID MATERNITY LEAVE INSTEAD OF $360 BILLION IN BONUSES FOR FIVE WHITE GUYS, THEY WON’T BE. BUT MOST WOMEN DON’T WANT TO BE ON TOP. THEY JUST WANT TO BE SIDE-BY-SIDE: WITH THEIR SISTERS, THEIR FRIENDS, THEIR DAUGHTERS, AND YES, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WITH THEIR MEN (p. 296, emphasis added).
Before screaming and waking up my husband who was sleeping beside me when I read this, I read it a few times. I could not believe what I was reading! What? WOMEN DON’T WANT TO BE ON TOP, THEY WANT TO…SIDE-BY-SIDE…? The entire point of the book is negated in the last two sentences. Lest I be accused of taking these last two sentences out of context, I will interject feminist development theory into this argument. I don’t want to denigrate a fellow woman, or feminist, who is trying to make inroads and reach the snarky generation. Feminist development theory explores the idea that women develop in concert with others, in relationship. Thus, women don’t want to be on top in the way Douglas claims those five white guys want to be on top. Sure. Feminist development and psychological theory would support the idea that women would rather govern through consensus, would rather put in the time for mutually beneficial outcomes and don’t wish to rule over anyone or anything, but rather crave and see as normal a shared power and authority through shared responsibility and credibility. However, shouldn’t we be more careful with language than this? Because feminist development theory is not typically covered in the elective psychology classes those five white guys might have taken freshman year at Harvard, we can’t assume that readers will close the last page with an “Amen, sister!” No, we must assume that the likes of Larry Summers will pick up the book and think, “See, little lady, you just made my point for me! You can be the wife of one of the five white guys with their $360 billion bonuses, just like you want to be. You will be beside him, and your children! Make way, little lady, because those five white guys DO want to be on top!”
I get the author’s point: our popular culture undermines feminism via the methodology of propaganda. Because we are supposed to know that the creators and producers of programs about vindictive, no-brained women realize that what they’re putting out there as entertainment is blatantly sexist, we’re supposed to be above it and beyond it as enlightened, feminist women and men ourselves. We can laugh at the throwback these shows and their characters represent, because we know better. At the same time, we see that women get airtime based on their physical attributes and for their vindictive, no-brained attitudes. When we’ve stepped away from the screen (is that Orwellian to anyone else reading this?), we might think a minute and consider that we are still being duped and that if power is via shopping and appearances, then we’re still the losers sitting on our sofas without a camera watching every move. Thus, the propaganda machine!
Douglas makes some important points in her book. The tone might engage younger women so that they have a seed of feminist thought planted in their minds, if not a penchant for alcohol consumption, as well. It might open the minds of older feminists (older women, which Douglas wants to call Vintage Females) to the struggles of the younger generation. Yet, somewhere between the glasses of white wine, the point is muddied. It definitely left me with a headache resembling what I might feel had I been the one drinking all that wine throughout the book.
No comments:
Post a Comment