Feminism - a lot more simple and complex than you'd expect

I just know this post is going to lead to trouble. I can feel the foreboding. But since when has impending and predictable doom ever put me off anything?

Feminism is a tricky topic, what with the fact that I'm male and all, so normally I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. But I came across a couple of things last week that have made it very firmly my business. And I treat my business seriously, if moderately sarcastically.

The cause was the Herald Sun. For those who don't live in Melbourne, the HS is our tabloid paper. Still legitimate news but pretty trashy. If you want a good indication what the average person is interested in/thinking, the HS is the place to go.

As of 2005, everything the HS prints is firmly my business, ever since their number one shock-jock columnist, Andrew Bolt, specifically targeted my Uni course as "do-nothing, scary hippy freaks". A mistake on his part.



The story was called "Women lose their roar" by Alan Howe - which essentially claims feminism is the responsibility of women. Naturally, this did not go down well with my co-worker who runs the women's rights campaign.

Despite the fact that Mr Howe has failed to mention the fact that men are overwhelmingly the problem when it comes to gender equality, thereby qualifying him as either the most shortsighted man in existance or a very subtle evil genius, he does hit a couple of points that have been bugging me for a while.

To summarise the situation massively, our society is relatively pretty good when it comes to gender equality thanks to a raft of comprehensive laws and gradual change in attitudes through education.

On the other hand, we still have a huge distance left to go:

"In Australia, 38% of women over 15 will experience physical and/or sexual violence in their lifetimes." - Australian Government statistic.

That roughly means that one in three women you know has been, will be, or is being attacked. And that's only the reported cases (assuming you're Australian here - this blog hits a pretty diverse audience).

On a personal note, I find it goddamn insane that I know three close friends who have been date raped at some point. None of them reported it - they were afraid of being accused of making it up. Apparently this is common.

Strange how easy it is to not care when it's someone you don't know in the news. I can quite honestly tell you that if I ever knew a person had done this for certain, my response would not be fit for publish here. And this is an internet blog.

So them's the facts: we have a problem. And the source of the problem is pretty straight-forward - the underlying attitude of all sexist behaviour, whether it be the glass ceiling, domestic violence or this hilarious Control a Woman Remote a friend of mine came across during International Women's Day (watch her go mental via this link), is a disrespect for women.

The only difference between a sexist joke and a violent act is the degree of disrespect. Sure, women throw a fair bit of sexism back at guys these days but that's like saying black people give too much attitude to whites. After a few centuries of oppression and discrimination (to this day), white people don't have a lot to complain about.

Mr Howe's article, however stupidly angled, hits on a complicated point - to what degree are women encouraging that disrespect themselves?

Specifically, we're talking sex. If there's anything that defines the difference between the two genders, that's number 1 by a long stretch.

I'm well aware I'm making broad generalisations here, but the most prevalent school of thought among women at the moment seems to be that by being sexually overt, women become empowered, and thus encourage respect and equal rights, leading in turn to happiness.

We're talking fashion, make-up, modelling as a career, high heels and so forth. We're also talking, by extension, holiwood celebrity, Woman's Day and the rest of the women's magazines. (And cheerleading. God damn cheerleading)

I mean, how the hell else do you explain pole dancing being marketed as a form of exercise? You can call it a 'comprehensive system of toning' all you want, it started in strip clubs for a reason - you're dancing around an enormous phallic symbol.

The market has embraced this, for obvious reasons: it's very profitable. Very, very profitable. You know, profitable enough that they have a serious interest in keeping this philosophy number one.

So where do Mr Howe's article and the horrific stats relate to this?

Here's the facts ladies: dressing up pretty encourages sexual thoughts in men. Duh. What is doesn't do is make them give a damn about your personality, your interests, your needs, or anything about you at all. It never even asks them to.

Combine that with women who think that modelling, photo shoots in 'men's magazines', dancing around an enormous phallic symbol, or being a porn star are empowering, positive things for women to engage in and you can begin to see that the image guys are being fed is fairly limited.

Add to this the fact that most of these 'empowering' activities require men to pay for them and it's not a very big step to thinking of women as something you can buy. Objects.

Now let's put this in perspective for a second (before every woman I know descends in righteous rage upon me) - none of this lets men off the hook for even a second. Not only are women willingly and knowingly accepted in these sexual roles, they are actively encouraged by men, both as consumers and employers.

The 'model' in the magazine might be sending a message, but the guy who buys it is completely capable of thinking about whether he endorses that message by buying the magazine. Men are not idiots and any jokes implying they are just gives them an excuse to be.

And of course these descriptions are extrememly general and I'm sure you can give me a dozen examples of people you know who are perfectly happy looking beautiful, or guys who buy those magazines and still treat women respectfully. That's all well and good. But it doesn't explain those stats above and nor does it change the solid reasoning of the argument.

Add on to all this the fact that all these 'empowering' behaviours which meant to help women become happy. Become beautiful and everything will fall into place! Express your inner godess! You're worth it!

I'll be the last person to tell you that happy people aren't beautiful, but that philosophy has so many holes in it I could march Hannibal's army and his elephants through it.

Painting a shit car does not make it stop being a shit car. If your life has problems, a perm and new set of shoes will maybe get you a bit of attention, but it's not going to fix your problems. Know why? Because the attention you're likely to get isn't interested in helping you fix your life - it's interested in your shoes, or more accurately, what your shoes are emphasising (and that would be your arse, not your empowered inner goddess).

So am I suggesting everyone should be a prude and 'save themselves' until marriage? Hell no! Sex is fantastic and women should be willing and able to be comfortable with what turns them on and openly ask for those needs to be met, the same way men do.

But being comfortable with your sexuality doesn't really match with wearing impractical footwear (if you can't run in your shoes, they're stupid shoes), painting your face and wearing uncomfortable and restrictive clothing. Comfortable people wear comfortable clothes. And here's the kicker - you look better as a result.
So to summarise:

Women: Acting sexual will get you exclusively sexual attention. This happens because those paying attention hope you will provide sex. If you don't do so, and quickly, men get frustrated. If you want to be happy, try fixing things in your life that lead to problems rather than glossing over the outside bits. And have heaps of sex! But figuring out whether the guy is interested in you or just the sex will be better for you, for the partner and for society in general.

Men: Stop pretending you're run but your penis. You're not. If you are, it's by choice. Every time you buy a 'men's mag', look up porn or make stupid joke about a woman's looks you endorse and encourage the kind of attitude that leads to the stats above. Just because you don't see the rapes doesn't make you any less guilty of contributing to them.

Everyone: Stop encouraging or letting other people be dumbarses. One thing leads to another - the more a behaviour is confirmed by people around you, the more often and more intensely you will do that behaviour. And the more you will begin to think it's right. Stop encouraging women and girls to be vaccuous, image obsessed sex toys. Stop encouraging men to be dim, aggressive arseholes.

And I'm done. I encourage feedack on this post by the way (if by some miricle you've made it this far) - this philosophy is part of my on-going project to remove the stupid from humanity. More updates to come.


What cheer!

Gordon