Live webchat with Natasha Walter, Thurs 4 Feb at 12.30pm

[GeraldineMumsnet]

Natasha Walter, one of Britain's foremost feminists, has a new book out on Thurs 4 Feb called Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism, about the effect our hypersexualised culture is having on young women and girls.

We're delighted to say that Natasha is coming to the Towers for a live chat on Thurs, from 12.30pm to 1.30pm.

So please post your questions here and hope you can join us.

Why not TrashersMum, out of interest? It's all about power, isn't it?

Dittany
To answer your question about why I decided to write this book, it was paticularly triggered by responses I was getting from young women to articles I wrote and at events I spoke at. For instance, one young woman who emailed me after I wrote an article about lads magazines, who said that she felt totally alone in hating these magazines and in feeling so uneasy about the growth of pornography. I was shocked that she should feel so alone and I decided I wanted to go out and listen to more young women and hear about whether this sense of frustration with this hypersexual culture was widespread. And I found it was.

Why do you think so many young women appear to be complicit in the over-sexualised culture that we are now experiencing?

I don't recall ever hearing from a young woman in the public eye that she didn't approve of the image she was forced by record company/management/TV show to portray.

Sallyjaygorce
You asked about early gender stereotyping and how this contributes to sexism. This is key. The first half of my book is about the hypersexual culture, but the second half is about the traditional stereotypes that we lay on our children - especially the deluge of pink and glitter, fairies and princesses that now surrounds little girls.
What worries me is that this is tied into a resurgence of biological determinism, a belief that girls are born to like pink and dolls because of genes and hormones rather than social factors. This resurgence of biological determinism is dangerous because it prevents us from challenging these traditional stereotypes.

Hello,onebatmother because few people really understand (or want to understand) what empowerment means. Power is a complexed issue.

Honeydew and TheElephant
I'm glad you raised this issue about WAGs and celebrity culture. It really restricts young girls' ambitions, I think, to see that the women who are valued in the public eye are so often not those who have achieved anything through their talents or intelligence, but who have simply gained approval for conforming to a very, very narrow ideal of sexual allure.

Hello Natasha,

re: your point about biological determinism, what factors do you think have contributed to this resurgence? Do you explore this in your book?

Butterpie
It's interesting, isn't it, to see how the internet both gives women a voice and also contributes to the rise of sexism. So on the one hand you have the rise of internet pornography which has brought the sex industry into the mainstream and made it part of so many people's lives. And then on the other hand you can see on Mumsnet how, say, women who are struggling with the negative effects of porn in their relationships might come here for support.
So I think that despite the negatives, we can try to harness the positive aspects of the internet to build solidarity among women - on obviously feminist sites such as the F Word through to mainstream sites where you get a lot of feminist debate such as this one.

sorry nothing very intelectual to say but the one thing that I hate, is how women appear these days on music videos, it's all just soft porn. I sometimes put on MTV etc when my DS (3) wants to dance and al horrified at what I see on nearly every video.

All this stuff about men being subjected to sexist attitudes and stereotypes too is just bollocks, isn't it?

Molesworth
Yes, this is something I explore in this book. I think the resurgence of biological determinism to explain differences in men's and women's behaviour is fuelled by sexism, as it is very comforting for those who do not believe that equality is worth fighting for to retreat into biological explanations for these differences rather than looking at social factors and how these could be challenged.
What I discovered when researching this book is that a lot of scientists (neuroscientists, linguists, psychologists) do dissent from the narrative of biological determinism but often struggle to get their dissent heard. The media is so eager to push the narrative of biological determinism that they tend to ignore any evidence that challenges it.

I take your point about biological determinism - but is it not also counter-productive to dismiss it entirely out of hand? Surely a more even-handed approach is more likely to get feminist arguments taken seriously? We do ourselves no favours by ignoring reasonable science.

Natasha, forgive me as I haven't read the book, but the biological determinism stuff is very strong as you say, can you point us to the evidence that it's not true? I know there was an article this week pointing out that there are many fewer genes in the human genome than expected, so far fewer things can possibly be coded for in DNA, but that's not really proof...

And PS, I'm delighted at your achievements as a fellow NLCS alumna!

I just want to say I wish I had a lot longer here. You have raised so many points and some of them are really thorny issues that I'd love to engage with in greater depth.
A couple of last things
Hoak
Thank you for your positive words about the New Feminism.
I felt that Ellie Levenson's book was often covering ground that we already know about, but I'm really struck by the fact that it spoke so clearly to your 15 year old daughter. It is essential that we keep teling young girls that feminism is about real liberation and freedom, and is not about closing down options. It's great that your daughter came to understand that through reading Levenson's book.

I'm not all for biological determinism, any more than I'm all for social determinism. I think its probably more complicated than that. My point is that we should not rule out one or the other because it strengthens a particular point of view.

I hate pink fairies. My six year old loves them. What you gonna do?

CowWatcher and Thaliablogs
I absolutely am not dismissing the arguments of the biological determinists out of hand. I go through the evidence step by step in the second half of my book and weigh it up carefully - the fact is that there is as yet no clinching evidence to show that genes and hormones rather than social factors drive the differences we see in behaviour and cognition among men and women.

I think 'social determinism' is the wrong phrase to use. There's solid evidence to support the idea that many (note 'many', not necessarily all) aspects of sex/gender that are commonly thought to be natural are socially constructed.

Natasha - great. But isn't looking for a piece of clinchng evidence a bit pointless? Experience suggests to me that we will never come down one side or the other on the nature/nurture debate, probably because its six of one and half a dozen of the other (to use my Mother's phrase!). I look forward to reading your book. And thanks for coming to talk to us.

And as if by magic...

Miley Cyrus's 9 year old sister launched a lingerie line for kids