over-sexualisation of (western?) society a large part of the reason for female oppression?

[rogueantimatter]

I have read very little feminist literature! So I accept that I am ignorant compared to many well-read posters on this board. I'd love to hear your opinions of my impression/home-spun theory.

It seems that western societies have more male/female equality than in other societies; eg, suffrage, job opportunities etc (I know we still have a way to go) But in other respects women are respected less? What I mean is, women are judged more on their appearance and expected to spend a ridiculously huge amount of time on making themselves fit the perceived model of sexual attractiveness and availability to men.

Now we're in a huge muddle - women are expected to (appear to) be sexually available, but men seem to be frightened of women's sexuality and slam women for 'dressing sluttily,' 'asking for it', make misogynistic porn etc. And the very reason for attracting a mate (from a biological perspective): having babies, though arguably fetishized - look at the pressures to be a perfect parent giving children a perfect childhood - is undervalued. New mums are isolated as never before - left to get on with it by themselves yet still expected to look good and work too!

I realise this is simplistic, but more and more I wonder if the solution to harmful attitudes to women is to massively reduce the cultural over-emphasis on sex. How we'd do this I don't know; clothes, perfume, beauty products/treatments, glamorous cars/drinks, attractive (frequently pornographic) pop stars are exploited for commercial gain. A huge force to counter. How we'd reduce the availability of porn I don't know either.

If we worked to promote qualities other than sexual attractiveness we'd all benefit surely. (also elderly people - no longer seen as wise, now seen as knowing nothing relevant due to being old and 'past it').

I know that many feminists work hard to reduce the perception of women-as-sex-objects, eg NMP3 (I bought and wear the t-shirt). But how can we encourage reproduction and child-rearing (for want of a better expression) to be more valued? And for women to be respected as individual people with valuable skills and qualities in the same way that men are, regardless of the ability to reproduce in a positive way? IYSWIM. Rather than being perceived to be attacking cultural norms to promote alternative values.

Do you think I'm right that over-sexualisation is now responsible for the male/female unfairness in our 'society'?

"Do you think I'm right that over-sexualisation is now responsible for the male/female unfairness in our 'society'?"

I don't think it helps. But there's probably more unfairness in societies where e..g the burkha is common.

Surely countries where women have to cover up is also a sexualisation - it's saying that you mustn't display yourself to tempt men.

If thought about that way, women being able to express themselves in their dress is at least a step towards acknowledging them as autonomous beings - even if that expression comes out sometimes (often?) as wanting to please men.

In fact, I'm not sure it's the sexualisation that's the problem at all, but the reaction to it, the expectation.

The west has only been "over-sexualised" since the Sexual Revolution of the '60s made explicit sexuality acceptable outside of high-art. Before that point it was as repressive, if not more, as every other society on earth.

High levels of sexual liberation (and the legal accessibility of porn) correlate with higher womens rights and reduction of female victimisation in most modern studies.

Womens appearance and attractiveness is still heavily policed in societies where sexuality is repressed and still disadvantages them just as much.

Women have always been sexualized and reduced to their sexuality, doesn't matter if they wear a bikini or a burkha. Primarily, we are valued, in every culture, for our looks and what's between our legs and our ability to bear children, which is what makes men want to "own" us. If anything, continuing to promote the idea that women are MORE then just mothers and that they are entitled to their own sexuality is more important then the alternative (which I believe is what you are suggesting, unless I read you wrong).

Wearing a veil as a 'thing' seems to be more complex than not 'tempting men' though. I'm thinking of the programme last night 'The Ascent of Women' in which it was pointed out that in different societies, only certain women were allowed to wear veils. Sometimes it was an ownership thing. Not that I'm defending compulsory dress codes!

I'm not suggesting women (or men) be discouraged or criticised for dressing in any way we choose. I'm glad we're 'liberated'. It's the constant, relentless emphasis on sex/being sexually attractive, (youthful) that implicitly devalues everything else, including being a woman who isn't 'sexy' and pregnancy, birth, breast-feeding etc.

Because there's so much emphasis on women being sexually attractive/available we are valued only (mostly) according to whether we are sexually attractive.

There's a cult of youth - connected with over-emphasis on sexuality? - political leaders are getting younger (perhaps JC will be an exception!), media presenters are young, the life experience of elderly people has no value anymore. We're expected to try to look young for as long as possible.

I wonder - I hope someone who knows about 'traditional' societies where sexuality is repressed will come along (I am narrowly travelled) - if women in these societies get more support when they have children. It might be argued that women in 'western' societies are advantaged by having free childcare and maternity leave, but I don't see that as support. Having to work long hours when your children are small (and a cultural expectation that you will still find time to dye your hair, shave your legs, trim your eyebrows, have a 'beach-ready' body and be an amazing mum who plays with your children) isn't supporting women or giving us advantages we didn't previously have. It's perceived to be in the nation's economic interests to have everyone working - 'free' childcare isn't about making society more equal (in my opinion).

It would be better for women if there was more emphasis on men sharing the childcare (by taking more time off work for example) and more financial help for women/families so that women don't have to bust a gut by having to do everything.

x-posted with fitfatty!

Yes.

Also to properly support mothers.

Not sure what you would think of as a traditional society, but I've lived in Qatar and the UAE for 10 years, and South Korea for 1 year. These women do not receive anymore support then women in the West, in fact, they receive less. In the UAE I received 45 days of maternity leave (better then the US I suppose, but nowhere near as good as the UK), I don't get things like home visitors, or lactation consultants or any of that stuff. I'm friends with a lot of Emiraiti women, and, while they usually go and spend 40 days living with their Moms after the birth, the information and support they get from their families isn't on par to what we have in the West.

South Korean women had it even worse, as they were still expected to care for their husbands and extended families, regardless.

The pressure to look good and be sexually attractive is just as strong in these cultures, it doesn't change depending on what you wear. If anything, the levels of plastic surgery in the Middle East are far higher then they are in the West.

Oh, and I assure you free childcare and maternity leave IS support. It's MASSIVE support.

The west has only be over-sexualized since the 60's sexual revolution
is an incorrect statement, looking at the over-sexualized restrictive corsets and emphasis on hiding ankles.

Covering-up and over sexed-up are two sides of the same coin. It tells women their bodies belong to male sexuality and need to be controlled.

#Free the nipple tried to say what the hell is so sexual about a nipple. Why can't we go topless or breastfeed.

End Page Three campaigns try to say what the hell is so male-dominated about a topless woman. Page three reduces a woman to a brainless thoughtless body which is damaging.

There are campaigns out there. Ultimately something may shift.

Rogueantimatter
I totally agree that equality re childcare needs to come from the patriarchal design of the workplace that has decided only women should go pt and men are assumed to go ft.

The workplace should be designed to recognise that all employees who have families M or F are entitled to more flexible hours pt work.

We have been through a technological revolution yet work life has not followed suit.

.

surely we all have a choice to dress and act in a less sexualised way if we choose. We are not programmed robots.

I don't think the West is over-sexualised. Historically, I don't really see the evidence for it. And I don't agree with the idea that, if there were less emphasis on sex, there would be better attitudes towards women.

Some of the changes in Western culture over the last few decades, with regard to sexuality, are pretty positive (eg., equal marriage, the idea that women have sexual agency, focus on female orgasm, challenges to the shame-culture around sex before marriage, etc.). Others are more negative (porn on the net, though obviously porn isn't new; promotion of sex work as a good thing, etc.).

What we need is to retain the positive and lose the negative. We need a more open and accepting attitude towards sexuality, not a more repressive one.

Thank you for the interesting replies.

I agree that there have been lots of positive changes. But it feels like some things have got worse, eg the huge quantity of misogynistic porn, little children especially girls wearing make-up, and 'adult' clothes from a younger age, very young girls citing anxiety over their appearance as a major source of unhappiness. Not to mention the pressure to spend ever more time and money on grooming. Teeth whitening anyone? Shellac nails, spry tans, hair extensions, laser hair removal. These weren't available when I was little.

Presumably this is a combined effect of 24/7 media, and higher levels of disposable income than in previous generations (housing costs aside) making it easier and easier for the 'beauty' industry to advertise and expand.

Sex is bound to be a massive thing - for obvious reasons. It's natural after all. But you can't get away from it now unless you take active steps to avoid mainstream culture.

Back in a mo.....

#Free the nipple tried to say what the hell is so sexual about a nipple. Why can't we go topless or breastfeed.

# End Page Three campaigns try to say what the hell is so male-dominated about a topless woman. Page three reduces a woman to a brainless thoughtless body which is damaging.

aren't these campaigns mutually exclusive, one saying "why can't we see nipples", the other saying "we don't want to see nipples in our paper".

No they both address the over-sexualisation of the nipple which seems to be dictated by what men would prefer.

Patriarchy wants to see our sexy nipples in the paper, ridicule their purpose and surround it with a lot of misogyny.

Patriarchy would prefer women did not breastfeed in public because the nipple is too sexual.

Zero, if page 3 featured Breastfeeding women or women of any age who just happened to be topless whilst going about life (painting a ceiling, maybe) then they wouldn't be there to satisfy the male gaze ie for sexual titillation.

Or if page three ever showed a topless women without surrounding it with a lot of misogyny.

(painting a ceiling, maybe) then they wouldn't be there to satisfy the male gaze ie for sexual titillation.

i am not sure about this, if she were dressed normally painting the ceiling that would add the added i am getting a sneaky peek attraction, for some even better.

Now if it was me with tits around my waist painting the ceiling i might agree with you.

Zero, that's exactly what I mean - a woman of ANY age and appearance, not a posed photo.

I picked painting ceilings as some men do this topless and it was the first thing I could think of. Agree it probably wouldn't be news! But say it was a stock photo illustrating a DIY story.

I doubt we have higher levels of disposable income than ever before, but, even if we do, I don't see how it's relevant. The idea of disposable income at all is recent, isn't it?

I struggle here, because it seems to me what you're arguing boils down to the idea that people (especially women) have more choices to perform femininity and/or enjoy sexuality, and that this leads to more misogyny.

I agree with you there are some correlations between things women spend money on, and things that are harmful and misogynistic. And I agree that capitalism is, by and large, anti-feminist. But it seems to me that misogyny has not really changed its modus operandi for centuries, and to link it to passing fads in capitalism is to minimise the influence of that long history.

It's not misogynistic to get a sneaky peak of a woman going about her independent life. This puts the voyeur in the subordinate positon.

It's misogynistic to put a woman in a position where her sole purpose is to satisfy the make gaze and/or cover up because of male sexuality (especially when covering up is grossly inconvenient eg while breastfeeding).

It's mysoginis

*0x530

its part of the backlash. As women make in roads into equality eg better pay, Equalities act, laws surrounding rape etc, then there is a backlash to keep us in our place. One of those methods is increasing objectification of women through porn, clothing etc.

I disagree with Jeanne that women aren't over sexualized. Women are positioned as the sex class. Here to adorn men.