Newsflash: Enlightened Sexism

Laura Fitzpatrick’s article “The New Sexism” (Click for article) touches on many current aspects of feminism that have been discussed in class and by authors such as Audre Lorde, Ariel Levy, Allan Johnson and Joan Brumberg. Fitzpatrick’s article discusses the new book Enlightened Sexism and an interview by TIME with the author Susan Douglas, who describes sexism as more subtle than the blatant discrimination of the past, leading many people to think equality has been achieved or that “sexist messages are O.K. if couched in irony” (Fitzpatrick). Douglas describes those who engage in enlightened feminism to be O.K. with sexist messages in the media or on T.V. as long as they are seen as out of the ordinary and approached with a laugh, such as female behavior on shows like “The Bachelor.” She describes the reasons why society faces these problems, and suggests solutions that authors like Allan Johnson would agree with.

Susan Douglas describes the idea that there are two poles to feminism: one in which powerful, successful women are embedded into our everyday culture, and another where shows like “The Swan,” depict women as simply in need of physical improvement and the approval of men. Clearly, these contrasting ideas make it difficult for women of all ages to truly see both how far we have come, and how far we have to go. Ariel Levy and Joan Brumberg would agree with Fitzpatrick and Douglas, as Douglas’s ideas go hand in hand with what these authors would see as raunch culture and body projects. Levy would agree that many people see sexism as a thing of the past, making it O.K. for women to flaunt their bodies as a sign of their newly acquired freedom, often in a truly “raunchy” way. Some may see successful women on shows like “The Bachelor” as signs of female empowerment; women who leave their careers to show their stuff and follow their hearts. In reality, however, these women are fighting with one another for the attention of one man.

Shows like “The Swan” focus on what Jean Brumberg would call Body Projects. In today’s society, women’s success, self-confidence and overall happiness are inextricably linked with their physical appearance. Unfortunately, as Brumberg explains, this has been the case for many years and is only getting worse. She states, ‘The body is a consuming project for contemporary girls because it provides an important means of self-definition, a way to visibly announce who you are to the world” (Brumberg 97). Shows like “The Swan” are contradicting in the sense that they show women who are free to take care of themselves and express concern for their bodies, and yet, they are all trying to conform to a certain standard. As Brumberg said, “What American women did not realize at the time was that their stunning new freedom actually implied the need for greater internal control.” Susan Douglas would unequivocally agree with Brumberg about the dichotomy of freedom and body projects, as she describes contradicting trends that came about in the 1990’s: progressive girl power and the not-so-progressive aspect of female marketing. Fitzpatrick says, “teen girls were discovered as a market for all kinds of things: clothing, makeup, thongs, etc,” which reinstated the importance of female appearance despite the female empowerment what was characteristic of the 1990’s.

Douglas goes on to discuss the fact that the media portrays women as equal to men. However, although we have come a long way, we still have a long way to go. Many statistics support the fact that equality has not yet been reached, such as Douglas’s statement that “Of the top Fortune 500 companies in 2008, only 15 had a female chief executive” (Fitzpatrick). Consequently, since many more men than women have lost jobs during the current recession, families are now forced to rely on the (lower) wages of women. In addition, the median income for women was roughly 31 percent lower than men in 2006, while the amount women make out of college is about 80 percent of what men make, and that number decreases significantly over a ten year period. When asked what people can do to solve these problems, Douglas said, “I think the first thing is to become much more indignant about these cultural values and sexist imagery” (Fitzpatrick). Not only do women need to be indignant, but men as well. Everybody needs to become aware and involved of the subtle sexisms placed within our society, and see them as unacceptable, in order to make a change and further promote equality for women in all aspects of society.

Allan Johnson would agree that the concept of inequality and patriarchy is a system that all are involved in, whether it is a conscious decision or not. He states, “Patriarchy is a kind of society organized around certain kinds of social relationships and ideas that shape paths of least resistance” (Johnson). Patriarchy, as described by Johnson, is more than the mindset of a few people, but rather a system in which we all participate, further fueling the inequality of women in our culture. Douglas would likely see the media as woven into the patriarchal system in our society; the ways in which both men and women respond to the skewed representation and sexist images in the media are results of taking the path of least resistance.

At the end of her interview with TIME, Susan Douglas stated, “Women have a lot of work to do yet around pay equity, day care, paid maternity leave, sexual harassment, violence against women. [There's] a whole host of issues that are still the unfinished business of our movement” (Fitzpatrick). While this is clearly true, many feminists like Audre Lorde would see getting off the path of least resistance and fighting against patriarchy as encompassing far more groups than just women. Human rights as a whole must be improved, which includes those who are victims of racism, homophobia, ageism, etc. Lorde describes, after attending a New York University Institute for the Humanities conference, how she was assumed to represent only Black feminists and lesbians; issues like racism, sexism and homophobia clearly had to be separated, rather than united under the search for a common goal. Lorde says, “Difference must be not merely tolerated, but seen as a fund of necessary polarities between which our creativity can spark like a dialectic” (Lorde).

Susan Douglas’s ideas seem valid, and are supported by many other feminists and those in search of equality for all groups of people. The opposing aspects of feminism (raunch culture and over represented women in power), make it very difficult for people to see clearly. We need to look past the media to the realities at hand in order to continue moving forward, and to improve the statistics represented in Douglas’s interview. We need to see shows like “The Swan” as what they really are: just another form of what Brumberg would call Body Projects. As Allan Johnson described, the only way to fight against patriarchy is to view it not as the fault of a few people, but as a system in which we are all involved. In order to reverse this system, both men and women need to have the courage to get off the path of least resistance and, as Douglas said, be indignant.

The only aspect of waking up to reality and moving forward that Douglas may have overlooked is Audre Lorde’s main argument: we have to see our differences as essential to progress and a way to unite all of those who struggle with some type of inequality or discrimination. Before we can put a dent in the patriarchal system that consumes our society, we need to get everyone on board, and by finding common ground and realizing the important of diversity we will be one step closer to that goal. If we want to see improvement, it is no longer acceptable to, as Douglas said, “resurrect retrograde, sexist images of women in the media, all with a wink and a laugh” (Fitzpatrick).