Bra-Burning Feminism: The Exposition of Women

A little over a month ago, my B.F.A. [Beloved Friend Andrea] and I decided to learn more about pro-pornography feminists by watching a documentary entitled "The Naked Feminist" [hey, it was only 99cents on itunes...and we followed it up with the latest DieHard movie to give us a decent dose of misogyny]. The goal in watching the movie was to better understand how people who felt differently from us thought about the sex industry; we just wanted to learn about the "other side" [we like to be informed].

Well, needless to say, it was quite an interesting viewing experience. It wound up being fairly informative about the sex industry and the role that women have had in it. Even though I don't personally support it [surprise! I find it rather demeaning to all parties involved] and have lots of issues with the situations [health risks, personal safety, etc.] that these women put themselves in, at least I can now say that I kind-of-sort-of understand where they're coming from. Much of the film focused on the supposedly positive aspects of porn, including women empowering themselves and making their own decisions about when they perform, with whom they perform, how often they work, and oftentimes women even producing or directing pornography scenes. The sex industry was presented as a kind of normal business in which women can work their ways up the hierarchical ladder.

And all these arguments are swell [kind of], but the movie neglected to seriously address the recent rise in negative pornography, that is, performances that include acts of violence or crudity that intentionally dehumanize female performers. In the film, all of the women interviewed spoke out against such trends, saying that the women participating in these violent films are not as empowered as they should be---if they were, they wouldn't partake in them. True; these women probably do have deep seeded psychological issues. BUT, it is also true that the introduction of the porn industry is precisely what opened up the doors to such violent actions.

No matter how much the women in the documentary wanted to undermine recent trends in porn and vehemently spoke out against its practices, the fact remains that the very industry they support, the "positive porn," is the grandmother of these new trends. As Nathan Harden writes in his recent article reviewing a new book [Pornland],:

[T]he goal of much [pornography today] seems to be to depict the maximum amount of humiliation for the girl on screen. One website proudly offers its customers the opportunity to "access total degradation."

That's right. Pornography sights are advertising degradation and dehumanization. Lovely.

So, what does this reveal about "good" porn? Well, personally, I think it shows that there really is no such thing as "good" porn if it led to something as terrible as the degradation that happens today. Even though some porn may be objectively better than others, the fact remains that the initially "well-intentioned" pornography wound up leading to a business culture in which certain women do terrible things that truly humiliate them as people.

It was the introduction of the porn industry and the initial female zealous support of it that opened the door to a future that would allow such terrible things. The wave of bra-burning feminism that swept the country in the 1960s was all about sexual liberation of women--liberation from rules, social guidelines and, ultimately, any notion of sexual morality. But this empowerment and sense of liberation, in my mind, was not, and is still not, at all genuine. Sometimes strictures are precisely what allow for true liberation. In the case of female sexuality, I really think concepts of modesty and chastity are essential to female empowerment. Deciding when and with whom to perform agreed upon sex acts on film is not my idea of liberation [it really is a capitalist-driven industry that legally permits the selling of bodies]; rather, being empowered enough to show yourself [fully clothed...& in public] as a person who demands perennial respect is true liberation from male-domination. It is such personal moral guidelines that allow for true equality and mutual respect. Pornography was never destined to liberate women---women are more than sexual objects. And true equality comes from respectable personhood rather than dangerously thoughtless over-exposure.

It's depressing to think about where misguided bra-burning feminism has taken the porn industry---it has exposed women to, perhaps, greater inequality and disrespect than before [even though the minority of women are in these performances, the performances themselves create a culture that fosters disrespect...the average age of exposure to porn is now 11 for boys]. It ennerves me to no end.

I wholeheartedly believe that a lady should have standards for herself and how others treat her. It is the best defense against the threats of frightening misogyny.

Oh! I love your burka

As many already know, the burka has become a hot topic lately because of its recent ban in Syria and the inevitable finalization of its ban in France. The French parliament cites that the burka challenges secularist ideals and that it contradicts modern values of women's rights [whatever that means].

Well, I'm not going to get into France's idea of secularism [mostly because the idea of secularism is completely muddled in France, and the discussion would involve deep unraveling of general terms like "religious freedom" and "freedom to worship"]. But, I will get into the idea that the burka is a direct affront to women's rights.

Yes, some women wear the burka because their husband forces them to do so. But there are some women who wear it because they actually want to. Case in point:

A friend of mine studying abroad in Africa this summer was placed with a Pakistani immigrant family. The head of the household's wife, a very young and attractive young lady, had recently married him and arrived from Pakistan. Around the home and immediate town, she would wear "normal" clothes usually, but when she entered more traditional Muslim areas, she would don her burka. One day, Tim [my friend] suggested they all go to the beach. They were all very excited, especially the wife. Then, next thing they knew, the husband and wife engaged in an intense debate [in Urdu...Tim didn't understand it]. The end result: the husband didn't want his wife wearing the burka--he wanted her to wear normal beach-going clothes, but the wife refused to wear anything but her burka. They didn't go to the beach.

Not the expected outcome, right?

Well, as I see it, whether you are demanding someone wear something or telling them they cannot wear it, you are infringing on his/her individual freedom. With the issue of the burka, I find it ridiculous that parliaments are defining what it means to be a modern woman, firstly because most of the people making these decisions are not women and secondly because it's all rather silly and illiberal rationale. The burka is not causing direct harm to anyone; in fact, it could actually be central to a woman's personal idea of femininity [such as valuing being modest and respectable in public]. Yes, the burka may be a sign of some kind of abuse or forceful relationship, but it is not at all a certain indicator of such.

I, personally, respect a woman who wants to cover herself, whether it be because she's simply more comfortable covered or out of respect for the culture and traditions in which she was raised. I even respect her for wearing the burka out of deep respect for her husband's wishes for how she present herself [of course I have a problem if she is doing so out of fear of her husband...but no one (esp. the government) will be able to tell if this is the case].

So, why do governments suddenly think they can decide that which defines the modern woman and what is truly best for her? I suppose the answer is a desire to control...but in trying to control what women are wearing, they are inevitably undermining a woman's right to define what exactly it means to her to be a woman. Of course, I am a proponent of certain things being undeniably feminine [the grace of motherhood, especially], but there is also an array of ways in which to express such understandings [whether it is by wearing a burka, an apron, a mini-dress, or an evening gown]. My hope is that such understandings of femininity will be expressed in a respectable fashion, but it is not the government's job to ban, say, muffin-tops in public...it is a matter of judgment and reason, guided by culture and traditions.

It's days like this that I'm actually grateful to live in the United States, where women can wear anything from burkas to bikinis in public [however reprehensibly tasteless the latter may be].

G-L-A-M-O-R-L-E-S-S

The other day, I came across a most interesting article entitled A Power to Persuade: The deeper meaning of glamour. In it, Postrel explores historical takes on glamour and the question as to whether a genuine glamour [a kind of modesty in actions] persists today or not. Most normally think of glamour as fancy dresses and expensive things, but when I say "glamour," I don't mean glitz and shine...I mean mystery, grace, and charm [albeit, often accompanied by some kind of classy "glitz"]. Thus, for example, Paris Hilton would not be considered glamorous whereas Grace Kelley would. Ke$ha would not be considered glamorous whereas Aubrey Hepburn would [you get the picture].

Now, I'm not going to sit here and get into the nitty-gritty social and political discussion that Postrel takes on [it's very interesting, though...please read if you have the chance]. But what she was saying got me thinking: "Hm, there really is no glamour today. We just put it all out there." And this is true with respect to clothing and even details of our personal lives. Nothing is private anymore. We dislike mystery. We want to know everything and conequently want everyone else to know everything about us. The worlds of tabloids, reality TV shows, and immodest Britney Spears inspired clothing have taken over much of our pop culture and infiltrated the average-Jane's idea of how to behave.

If anything, we aspire to be known rather than admired. And where does wanting to be "known" get us? Nowhere. It gets us mothers [like Kate Gosselin] who are more interested in their appearance and possession of material items than they are in personal and familial development. It gives us pop stars who go for shock-factor [yes, I am thinking of you, Gaga] before cultivating talents and truly inspiring others. It encourages people to focus on the external and rather unimportant aspects of our lives. And, unfortunately, women appear to be fairly guilty [at least more overtly guilty] for taking on this incorrect vision of "glamour."

While women were once known and admired for their demure and graceful personas, it seems that there is an overwhelming push to lose all modesty [I find true modesty to be synonymous with the definition of "glamour" put forth by Postrel]. Like those "naked" girls on the lawn or those booty-short dawning chubby girls, many women feel they must put it all out there to be recognized. And I blame the media as well as a societal misunderstanding of that which makes one glamorous and admirable.

There is something to be said for maintaining dignity and privacy of both self and family; there is value in keeping certain parts of our lives personal and--it is a way of honoring ourselves and our experiences. Such ideals, though, seem to have been lost in a society dominated by compulsions to lay our lives in the open [Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, etc.]. But we are fooling ourselves if we think that these lifestyles are at all glamorous, beneficial, or admirable--it's just the opposite. We are drowning in materialism and our own incompetence as soon as we put "being known" before being truly glamorous.

It is sad that characters like Grace Kelley have been "replaced" by attention-getting stars like Miley Cyrus or Paris Hilton. Glamour is a concept that was once embodied by well-known women, and it now seems to have been lost by both women and everyone else. I sincerely think that if women were to again respect themselves and truly embody glamour, our culture might be able to regain some of its modesty [/glamour]. Thus, it's kind of up to the women to "save" us all from our own foolishness.

Will glamour ever become respected and admired once again? I certainly hope so.

Being Modest When it's Hottest

Once again, the temperature is rising and more and more Georgetown students are taking advantage of the warm weather by running outside, walking around, picnicking, and [YES] wearing inappropriate clothing. I am well-aware that I already gave my two-cents about ridiculous summer wardrobes about a year ago [see: "Why I hate Spring"], so I'm not going to rant about that again...but I am going to complain about girls donning bikinis on the front lawn.

Yes, bikinis. All Georgetown students, administrators, faculty, and staff have witnessed the Georgetown "Jane's" tanning on the front lawn in their barely-there swimsuits [my personal favorites are the ones who go topless and then try to cover up the fact that they are topless in a half-ass attempt at faking modesty]. For whatever reason, tanning on Healy lawn between classes, as professors and priests walk by, has become a rational decision. In fact, it has become so seemingly acceptable that girls, like one with whom I have class, think they can just throw on a mesh cover-up over their bikinis and then go to class and be taken seriously [think again].

Now, why on earth would you want people to see you as such? I understand that girls want tans so that they can sport their odiously short mini-skirts [of which I do not approve] without ghastly pale legs...but, really? In front of Jesuits and teachers? It's just a bad idea. And here's why:

Firstly, it is going to make people take you less seriously. Anyone who flaunts tanning in a public sphere where such behavior is certainly outside the norm [at least I like to think tanning is not a traditional part of the Georgetown experience] is going to come across as sadly needing attention and lacking self-awareness.

Secondly, it is going to be ridiculously immodest. No matter how attractive or shapely a young lady may be, there is absolutely no need to "show it off" in a primarily academic environment...or most environments. It shows a lack of self-respect and an ill-understanding of appropriate attire [very immature]. Girls are essentially sitting around in fancy, weather-proofed underwear [!!!].

Thirdly, it objectifies women. By sitting on the lawn, tanning in a bikini, young ladies make themselves objects to look at rather than people with whom to converse. It is just further solidifying ancient roles of women as "pretty things to look at."

Fourthly, it's not all that good for your skin. You might get skin cancer [and die].

There is something to be said for enjoying the weather, but the most enjoyment can be experienced when young ladies uphold modesty that helps them to respect themselves and, in turn, others to respect young ladies. It's as simple as wearing real clothes.