Many men – probably most men – simply can’t follow the ‘reasoning’ behind much feminist activism. It takes the keen analytical mind of Janice Fiamengo to sort through the irrationality for them. The article below is a brilliant example of her comprehensively tearing apart feminist discourse and activism.
I’m at the point in my life where I just wish that women would get dressed and stay dressed in public. I’ve seen enough bare breasts and big bums to last more than a lifetime.
*****
The Curious Case of the Self-Objectifying Feminist
If the male gaze demeans and dehumanizes, why do so many women court it?
Janice Fiamengo Sep 14, 2024
Not long ago, a British campaign for affirmative consent legislation featured images of women paired with the slogan “I’m asking for it.” The whole point, of course, is that they’re not asking for “it”. The phrase is meant to evoke men who justify their sexual assaults of women by claiming that the victim wanted to be raped. What the women are asking for is legislation to make it a criminal offence for a man to have a sexual encounter with a woman without eliciting an explicit “Yes” from her at every stage (how far we have moved from the relatively simple “No means no”).
The most striking of the ads features the face of Charlotte Proudman, the well-known feminist barrister and zealous anti-male advocate who once denounced a fellow lawyer for complimenting her LinkedIn photo. In the picture, Proudman confronts the viewer with a sexy, smoldering look and a slight half-smile. Her face is carefully made up to accentuate her feminine sexuality, with dark-tinted eyelashes and gleaming red lips outlined in vivid lip gloss. In order to object to men’s sexualization of women, Proudman has sexualized herself.
We are told that the campaign was “deliberately bold and intentionally provocative.” It was designed to “stop viewers in their tracks,” so that we would think about how women are mistreated under the law. Male viewers whose minds stray to sex are, one can only assume, to be brought up short, ashamed and convicted of sin.
The double messaging is deliberate—but confusing. Most people looking at Charlotte Proudman’s sex-kitten face will not, in my opinion, contemplate misogynistic attitudes or the scourge of sexual violence. On the contrary, most viewers will be “stopped in their tracks” by the overtness of Proudman’s sensual self-display. It seems odd that an ad claiming that women should not be seen to invite sexual advances features a woman who seems to be inviting sexual advances.
Feminists have for decades claimed that such sexualization has been forced on women to their detriment. In the fashion industry, in movies, and in daily life, according to feminist philosophers like Sandra Lee Bartky, men compel women to advertise their sexuality as their primary power, to redden their lips, assume sexual poses and flatter the voracious male gaze, becoming “object and prey for the man.”
For centuries, we’re told, patriarchal societies denied women the opportunity to do anything with their lives but live out male sexual fantasies, whether as virgin or whore, Madonna or muse. A male-defined culture made the woman accentuate her youth, shave her legs, remain svelte, and present herself for visual consumption, “living her body as seen by another, an anonymous patriarchal Other”: a degrading spectacle from which all women would be better off free.
Yet here is a campaign designed by feminists to support alleged rape victims, with the same (objectionable) self-presentation by the ad’s primary subject, who is obviously not posing against her will and obviously has many choices about how to present herself. The only difference, it seems, is that in this case, the woman’s self-display is entirely of her own defiant volition.
One wouldn’t think that would be sufficient for a diehard feminist like Proudman, or for any equality-minded modern woman with a thousand choices about what to do with her life.
When I was a little girl in the early 1970s, I took it for granted that self-respecting women wanted to be appreciated for the qualities of their minds and characters. One of the first slogans I remember was the somewhat puzzling “Love me for my mind, not my body.” At the time, around six or seven years old, I thought it would be nice to be loved for any reason. Only later did I understand the implication: to be loved for one’s body was not truly to be loved at all, for the body was a superficial, mutable aspect of the self, destined to deteriorate with time. Moreover, according to the general feminist perspective, the body was all that sexist men cared about, especially the sexual parts. This was objectification, the reduction of the whole woman with all she had to offer (her kindness, her wit, her unique thoughts) to a thing. It was shameful and degrading.
This idea is definitely still current in pervasive talk of objectification. On International Women’s Day of this past year, one X user calling herself Liberal Jane (a “Queer feminist making art about bodily autonomy”) tweeted “Happy #Women’sHistoryMonth to all the badass women and girls who are making this world a better place everyday [sic]. Empowered women empower all women.” The tweet was accompanied by a drawing, perhaps by Jane herself, showing an “empowered” girl complete with nose ring and unshaven legs.
Though the girl is conventionally pretty and slim, with wavy hair, shapely limbs, a plump pink mouth, and painted fingernails, the fact that she has not shaved her legs seems to signal her rejection of male-imposed beauty standards. This girl is a badass because she doesn’t waste her time or energy courting the male gaze. She is not “complicit in her own dehumanization.” Her very existence—given that it is not about inflaming male sexual desire—is allegedly a boon to other women.
