No, we're not asking you to sign the petition to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to Free Paris Hilton.
Later this week the avant garde of Australian television, Channel 10, is screening the final episode of Pussy Cat Dolls Present: The Search for a New Doll. The latest in a series of American reality television programs to search for the stars, the show has generated no small measure of controversy.
The question is: do you agree with the founder of this "new Burlesque" pop sensation, that the reality TV show is or at least can be "inspiring to women"? Or are the opinions aired in Saturday's Age closer to your own?
12 comments:
i dunno, but calling what is essentially a soft-porn-skank-fest 'emblematic of the third wave of feminism' might be pushing it a bit...
yeah, or maybe the feminist third wave isn't so feminist after all...
Does anyone else think the whole 'Yummy Mummy' thing is weird? Like ninemsn running a mother's day story: "Discover the lovely ladies who popped out bubbies between popping out hit singles"?
Convincing women that it's empowering to wear next to nothing and shake your arse on mtv has got to be the most degrading victory of marketing - and men, more generally - over women in recent Western history. The Pussycat Dolls make me want to vomit all over my laptop.
What about when men subscribe to what patriarchal society traditionally considers to be sexually appealing? That is, when they work out for a 'buff bod,' wear Armani suits, drive sports cars, or even hold their own during pseudo-intellectual dinner-party discussions?
Do we consider such men to be agentless, subservient victims? Are they or are they not just 'pandering' to what women want of men?
Why can't women have be seen to have the same sort of agency in their lives as men are automatically ascribed? Why are they necessarily slaves and/or brainwashed?
And is it not, at least to some degree, inherently rewarding to be considered physically attractive? Under what terms is the desire to be sexually appealing indicative necessarily self-belittling? Is it the mere desire to be attractive itself, or is it the method in which we seek to gain such attention the index of self-respect? If there is a 'wrong' way, there must be a 'right' way... and what is this?
As a final point, many feminists saw the S&M novel, 'Story of O' to be liberating for women.
And if anyone would like to sink their teeth into that one, I highly recommend doing A/P/B/P. ;)
Long live the Simpsons-esque angry mob, complete with a set of pitch forks.
certainly not inspiring to women but perhaps to easily brainwashed pre-teens who watch channel 10
re: the above post.
the issue in question isn't whether or not it is inherently appealing/good to be physically attractive (though there are some feminists that would argue that this is the question, and that being or striving to be physically attractive is a bad thing, all makeup is rape, rady-rah), the problem lies in what this notion of femininity and attractiveness consists of. these shows enforce and endorse the image that being big-busted, dyed, waxed, tanned and thin IS physically attractive, and the only way to be considered as such. i guess that aside from saying 'no its not - a) b) and c) are far more attractive', we can hope that the 'fashion' of history will flip once again and more natural, un-artificial body images will be accepted as attractive (as is already the pattern in catwalks/fashion?)
I think that the number of women striving to be physically attractive FAR FAR outnumbers the number of men trying to be buff, wear Armani suits and drive sportscar.
In my opinion, society in general is far more accepting of men being manky, unkempt, un-buff, un-healthy, weird, etc. They are lauded for being themselves. These men are quite likely to have many friends and get girlfriends. I see them all around uni.
Women who are fat, unkempt or have weird tastes are considered sad, pitiful losers etc.
Re: Convincing women that it's empowering to wear next to nothing and shake your arse on mtv has got to be the most degrading victory of marketing-and men.
It was a women who created the pussy-cat dolls concept which was marketed primarilty at women. Im going to assume this comment is targeted at raunch culture in general, which I dont understand why it has to be always and necesarrily so disempowering. Of course it is if the 'raunch' serves only to gain the attention/affection of men (paris hilton). But if the women is gaining pleasure by expressing her comfortableness/enjoyment of her sexuality in the media then isnt this a celebration and empowering to her? More along the lines of ditta von tesse ect. Personally i feel more opressed by the idea that we have to be forever modestly dressed,behaved, fake disinterest in sex and fear being overtly sexual out of the fear of being accused that you are just being subservient to the desires of men/a skank. How can a women express a possibly naturally overt sexuality in the media without being accused of these things?
Re: that last point...
An excellent (and very readable) book to have a look at is Linda Grant's "Sexing the Millennium", which looks at the way the supposed Sexual Revolution of the 60s and 70s just installed a new set of demands on women's sexuality. It promoted itself as allowing women the freedom to express their sexuality, but the reality Grant discovers is that it created an equally rigid and confining range of expectations about women. It's thought-provoking stuff.
i am a woman. i hate raunch culture. i want to be comfortable with my sexuality, and achieve my desires, but i don't want to be objectified. to say that men are objectified by women is not a satisfactory rejoinder. there is no way that they are objectified to the same extent as women. take most r&b videoclips in the top 40 - the women are practically naked, the men are fully clothed, in control. it's embarrassing.
the pussy cat dolls, too, make me want to puke all over my laptop. However, im not ready to grab my pitchfork as it is sexually repressive to women, i simply feel these girls are bitchy, dumb and fake.
That these contestants seem to aspire to these factors in thier idols (the pussy cat dolls, who are talentless ass shakers extrodinair)is what irks me. What sucks is that this show reflects not what it is causing, but what it is reflective of society.
Which is the sad state that my little sister's grade 2 buddies are singing "you gotta loosen up my buttons babe". what they aspire to, and is rampant on tv is lack of any middle ground, just pure trashy, kitcsh aesthetic.
ps. its fine to be a sexual person, thats cool, but could we not be so trashy about it? sure women are driving this phenomena but that doesnt mean it doesnt serve the dominant (including mens) idea of showy, trampy sexuality.
Post a Comment